Lewison Lem, Ph.D., Rami Chami, and Janine Mans Jack Faucett

Lewison Lem, Ph.D., Rami Chami, and Janine Mans
Jack Faucett Associates
For the Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA)
h
(
)
November 2011
JFA Lem Chami Mans
2
JFA Lem Chami Mans
3
Infill and TOD analysis for Atlanta Metro Region:
Atlantic Steel/Atlantic Station site simulation showed
Atlantic Steel/Atlantic Station site simulation showed
35% less driving and emissions than comparable sites.
JFA Lem Chami Mans
4
Daily Vehicle Miles per Person vs. Residential Density
Source: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 2001 Travel Survey
60
Taneytown
Hampstead
Daily Vehicle Miles per Person
50
Owings Mills
40
Odenton
Westminster Greens
30
Canton
Butcher's Hill
Charles Street
20
Dundalk
Westminster
Downtown
10
Federal Hill
Bolton Hill
Brewer's Hill
Havre de Grace
G
Reservoir Hill
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Households per Acre
JFA Lem Chami Mans
5
Global Comparisons Show Gradient of Per Capita Transportation Energy Use in Urban Areas
JFA Lem Chami Mans
6
Lessons from World Bank sponsored Newman and Kenworthy work comparing US and global metro areas
1.
Overall Density (Compactness)
2. Strength of Core Area as Locus of both Population and Employment
d E l
3. Auto Ownership and Use Costs
A t O
hi d U C t
4 Transit Capacity and Service
4.
JFA Lem Chami Mans
7
JFA Lem Chami Mans
8
JFA Lem Chami Mans
9
JFA Lem Chami Mans
10
VMT per Capita
8,500
8,000
7,500
7 500
7,000
6,500
2008 data are estimated
Data from NJDOT and U.S. Census Bureau
6,000
6
000
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
P e r C a p ita E le c tr ic ity S a le s (n o t in c lu d in g s e lf-g e n e r a tio n )
(k W h /p e r s o n ) (2 0 0 6 to 2 0 0 8 a r e fo r e c a s t d a ta )
1 4 ,0 0 0
1 2 ,0 0 0
U n ite d
S ta te s
2 0 0 5 D iffe r e n c e s
= 5 ,3 0 0 k W h /y r
= $ 1 6 5 /c a p ita
1 0 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0
C a lifo r n ia
6 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
C o n s ta n t 2 0 0 0 $
2 0 0 5
% c h a n g e
2008
2004
9 4 %
7 9 %
2002
2000
1998
3 1 ,4 4 2
3 3 ,5 3 6
1996
1994
1992
1 6 ,2 4 1
1 8 ,7 6 0
1990
1988
1986
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1966
1964
1962
1968
JFA Lem Chami Mans
1984
U S G D P /c a p ita
C a l G S P /c a p ita
0
in
2006
P e r C a p ita In c o m e
1 9 7 5
2 ,0 0 0
1960
Miles per year per
p person
9 000
9,000
11
Transit Infrastructure and Land Use
y How Does Transit and Land Use Interact ?
JFA Lem Chami Mans
Land Use
Transportation
VKT
VKT
12
Transit reduces (displaces) GHG emissions in three ways:
1. Mode Shift (transit riders make f
fewer private vehicle trips)
h l
)
2 Congestion Relief 2.
3.Associated Land Use changes (i.e. land use multiplier)
JFA Lem Chami Mans
13
TRANSIT ASSOCIATED REDUCED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
y Transit reduces (displaces) Scope 3 GHG emissions in three ways:
Mode shift(transit riders take less private vehicle trips)
2. Congestion relief 3. Land use changes (i.e. land use multiplier)
1.
y
APTA provides guidance on how to estimate each of these GHG reduction mechanisms at the transit agency level
JFA Lem Chami Mans
14
Initial results from Kentucky
Initial results from Kentucky
TARGGET Estimates of (1) Total and (2) Incremental Transit Associated Reduced Emissions for Kentucky Transit Agencies
GHG Reductions
(MMtCO2e)
Total
2020
(1) Kentucky Transit Agencies
Total Reduction Estimate
2030
(2011–
2030)
Energy
Net
Savings
Present
CostCost
(Million
Value Effective- gallons
(Million
fuel saved
ness
$2005) ($/tCO2e) in 2030)
0.20
0.32
4.21
-$767
-$182
26.64
0.07
0.15
1.56
-274
-174
12.48
(2) Kentucky Transit Agencies
Incremental Reduction Estimate
10/19/2010
JFA TARGGET 1.0
15
(1) TARGGET Results for Transit Total Displaced Emissions in Kentucky with transit agency specific estimates
GHG Reductions
R d i
(MMtCO2e)
Total
Transit Agency
Location
2020
2030
(2011–
2030)
Energy
E
Savings
(Million
Net
Costgallons
Present
Value Effective- fuel
(Million
ness
saved in
$2005) ($/tCO2e) 2030)
Lexington Transit
Authority
Lexington
0.02
0.04
0.50
-$86
-$173
3.13
Transit Authority of
River City
Louisville
0.13
0.21
2.80
-$507
-$181
17.82
Transit Authority of
Northern Kentucky
Fort Wright
0.04
0.07
0.92
-$174
-$190
5.69
Sum of Three
Agencies
Kentucky
0.20
0.32
4.21
-$767
-$182*
26.64
* Average
JFA Lem Chami Mans
16
(2) TARGGET Results for Transit Incremental Displaced Emissions in Kentucky with transit agency specific estimates
GHG Reductions
R d i
(MMtCO2e)
Total
Transit Agency
Location
2020
2030
(2011–
2030)
Energy
E
Savings
Net
(Million
Present
Costgallons
Value Effective- fuel
(Million
ness
saved in
$2005) ($/tCO2e) 2030)
Lexington Transit
Authority
Lexington
0.01
0.02
0.19
-$32
-$165
1.55
Transit Authority of
River City
Louisville
0.05
0.10
1.01
-$178
-$176
8.14
Transit Authority of
Northern Kentucky
Fort Wright
0.02
0.03
0.35
-$64
-$182
2.78
Sum of Three
Agencies
Kentucky
0.07
0.15
1.56
-274
-174*
12.48
* Average
JFA Lem Chami Mans
17
Initial Analysis of Census Tract Characteristics
U.S., California, and LA County Maps
19
JFA Lem Chami Mans
LA M t
lit R i H
U i
LA Metropolitan Region Has a Unique Density to VMT per Capita Ratio
Average d
daily VMT per capita
a
y LA region has high density and high VMT per capita
Population per square mile
20
JFA Lem Chami Mans
Source: Rand Corporation. 2009. Moving Los Angeles.
Objective
y To use census level data to examine the relationship between transit commute mode share and census tract characteristics
y Characteristics include
y Demographics (age)
y Proximity of various types of public transportation stops
y Housing and Population Density
g
p
y
y Streetscape
JFA Lem Chami Mans
21
Data
y American Community Survey (2004‐2009 5 year estimates) from the US Census Bureau for all L.A. County Census Tracts
y Mode share, vehicle ownership
y 2010 U.S. Census Data from the US Census Bureau for 2010 U S Census Data from the US Census Bureau for all L.A. County Census Tracts
y Population and housing density
p
g
y
y Google map
y Proximity of transit stops and streetscape
JFA Lem Chami Mans
22
How do these areas differ in terms of density?
How do these areas differ in terms of density?
Average Population Density of LA County Census
Tracts
off Transit
T t by
b Prevalence
P
l
T
it as Commute
C
t
Mode, 2005-09
60000
Very high
550000
50,664
45,868
45
40000
30000
20000
10000
26,707
18 164
18,164
13,382
8,997
5,529
0
Percent of Labor Force Taking Public Transit to Work
Greater than or equal to 60%
Greater than or equal to 40% Hi h
High
b t l th 6 %
but less than 60%
Moderately Greater than or equal to 20% High
but less than 40%
Greater than or equal to 10% Moderate
but less than 20%
Greater than or equal to 5% Moderately Low but less than 10%
Greater than or equal to 1% Low
but less than 5%
Very low
JFA Lem Chami Mans
Less than 1%
23
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
Comparison of Commute Mode Share
Top 25 Bottom 25 Walk, 5%
Walk, 2%
Other 4%
Other, 4%
Bike, 0%
Drove alone, 29
%
Public P
bli transport (excluding taxicab), 5
2%
Carpool, 9
%
JFA Lem Chami Mans
,9
Other, 9%
Public transport Bike, 0%
(excluding taxicab) 0%
Carpool, 9
%
Drove alone, 80
%
24
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
3 vehicles available, 2
il bl %
Comparison of Vehicle Ownership
4 or more No vehicle Top 25 Bottom 25 4 or more 2 vehicles available, 1
%
3%
vehicles vehicles hi l available, available, 1
8%
%
No vehicle available, 4
7%
1 vehicle available, 3
6%
3 vehicles available, il bl 16%
available, 3%
1 vehicle available, 31%
2 vehicles available, 42%
JFA Lem Chami Mans
25
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
y Population Density
y Top 25 y Range from 5,711 persons per mi2 to 90,703 persons per mi2
y Combined average population density of 31,005 persons per mi
C bi d l ti d it f i2
y Bottom 25 y Range from 833 persons per mi2 to 24,282 persons per mi2
2
y Combined average population density of 4,250 persons per mi
g p p
y
p
p
y Housing Density
y Top 25 y Range from 1,892 housing units per mi2 to 29,988 housing units per mi2
y Combined average population density of 11,357 housing units per mi2
y Bottom 25 y Range from 509 housing units per mi2 to 10,650 housing units per mi2
y Combined average population density of 1,467 housing units per mi2
JFA Lem Chami Mans
26
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
y Presence of bus stop within ½ mile of center of census tract
y Top 25 : 100%
y Bottom 25 : 64%
y Presence of metro or light rail stop within 1 mile of P
f li h il i hi il f center of census tract
y Top 25 : 84%
y Bottom 25 : 8%
JFA Lem Chami Mans
27
Analysis of Top 25 and Bottom 25
y Population Density
y Top 25 y Range from 5,711 persons per mi2 to 90,703 persons per mi2
y Combined average population density of 31,005 persons per mi
C bi d l ti d it f i2
y Bottom 25 y Range from 833 persons per mi2 to 24,282 persons per mi2
2
y Combined average population density of 4,250 persons per mi
g p p
y
p
p
y Housing Density
y Top 25 y Range from 1,892 housing units per mi2 to 29,988 housing units per mi2
y Combined average population density of 11,357 housing units per mi2
y Bottom 25 y Range from 509 housing units per mi2 to 10,650 housing units per mi2
y Combined average population density of 1,467 housing units per mi2
JFA Lem Chami Mans
28
Visual Example of High Use and
Visual Example of High Use and Low Use Census Tracts
High Use Census Tract Low Use Census Tract
Census Tract 2089.02, LA County, CA
County, CA
JFA Lem Chami Mans
Census Tract 1343.03, LA
29
Visual Example of High Use and
Visual Example of High Use and Low Use Census Tracts
High Use Census Tract Low Use Census Tract
Census Tract 2089.02, LA County, CA
County, CA
JFA Lem Chami Mans
Census Tract 1343.03, LA
30
JFA Lem Chami Mans
31
Thank you for your interest:
Lewison Lem, Ph.D. and Rami Chami
Jack Faucett Associates (JFA)
[email protected]
(415) 525
525-6163
6163
http://www.jfaucett.com/
JFA Lem Chami Mans
32