1. Calculating the Carbon Footprint of
Development Projects
Lynn Richards
US EPA Smart Growth Program
June 13th 2008
CNU 17 - Experiencing the New Urbanism

2. What are you counting?
• Construction
• Building Energy Use
• Transportation Related Emissions
– Residential
– Office
– Retail, Entertainment & Services
– Manufacturing, Distribution Facilities, etc.

3. Difference in CO2 Emissions -
High vs. Low Density Residential Development
6.0
5.0
4.0
Metric Tons of CO2
Low Density
3.0
High Density
2.0
1.0
0.0
Construction Building Operations Transportation
Source – Norman et al (2006) “Comparing High & Low Residential Density”

4. Where do the transportation
reductions come from?
• Where and How you build
– Easy access to retail, services, entertainment =
more walking and biking for non-work trips
– Safe routes to school = fewer drop-off trips
– Proximity to transit = less commuting by car
– Regional Accessibility = shorter car trips
• E.g. driving 1 mile vs. 3 miles to the grocery store

5. The Five D’s
• Density
• Diversity of Land Use Types
• Neighborhood Design
• Distance to Transit
• Access to Regional Destinations

6. Neighborhood Scale D s

7. (1) Residential Density
4 Units per AcreAcre
11 Units per
Source: Campoli (2007) Visualizing Density, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

8. (2) Diversity of Land Use
Source: EPA White Paper: The Placemaking Premium. Victor Dover. 2007. Illustrations
courtesy of Dover Kohl and Partners.

9. (3) Neighborhood Design - Network Connectivity

10. (3) Neighborhood Design, con’t
Transit & Pedestrian Friendly Design

11. Regional Scale D s

12. (4) Distance to Transit
What Kind of Transit Are You Accessing?
LA
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Wash. DC Chicago
Boston

13. How Close are You to the Station?
Source – Cervero (2006) Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices

14. (5) Proximity to Destinations

15. Arlington, VA– (4) Distance to Transit and (5)
Regional Destinations
M
M Lower Density Zoning
Lower M
Density
M
Zoning
M

16. Doubling of Each D Reduces VMT by…
n s
tio
it
s
a
an
tin
Tr
es
D
o
et
ty
al
y
nc
rsi
on
n
sit
ig
a
e
gi
ist
en
es
iv
Re
D
D
D
D
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
-16%
Source – Ewing (2009) Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis

17. Different Modeling Approaches
• Simple adjustment factors (aka back of the
envelope)
• Analysis using baseline data from census or
regional transportation models
• Sketch planning models (INDEX, Places, etc)
• Site-level analysis combined with a regional
transportation model run (Atlanta Station
INDEX + ARC Model--standard regional travel
model)

18. Mixed Use Trip Generation Tool
• National Study of Mixed Use Areas
– 239 mixed use developments
– In six different regions
– Over 30,000 trip records
• Resulting Tool More Accurately Accounts for…
– Trips that stay on site
– Trips that leave, but use transit
– Trips that leave, but are on-foot

19. Example: Traditional Residential and Office
Project
• 100 Acres
• 200 Single Family
Homes
• 40,000 sq ft
Supermarket
• 5,000 sq ft Fast
Food Restaurant
• 200,000 sq ft office
building

20. Traditional Residential, Office, Retail Project
10,000 Daily Trips

21. Smaller Grocery Store and Different Retail /
Residential Configuration
(apply density, diversity, and design)
• 100 Acres
• 100 Single Family Homes
• 100 Multi Family Homes
• 30,000 sq ft Supermarket
• 5,000 sq ft Sit Down
Restaurant
• 10,000 sq ft Health Club
• 200,000 sq ft office
building

22. Smaller Grocery Store and Different Retail
8,000 Daily Trips

23. Better Local and Regional Accessibility
(apply distance to transit and regional destination)
• Same land use
configuration M
M
• Double M
intersection M
density on site
• 500,000 jobs M
within a 30 min
transit trip
• 50,000 jobs
within 1 mile

24. Better Local and Regional Accessibility
6,500 Daily Trips

25. An Example: Tysons Corner / Dulles Metro
Extension

26. Existing Conditions…

27. Planned Future…
Source: PB PlaceMaking “Tysons Corner: Path to the 21st Century: Draft Summary of
Findings” Prepared for Tysons Land Use Task Force 27 February 2008

28. Tysons: What’s the GHG Impact?
• Households built somewhere else in Fairfax County
– 0.5 Million Metric Tons CO2 per year
• Increased transit share for work trips
– 1.6 Million Metric Tons CO2 per year
• Retail and other trips staying “on-site”
– 0.2 Million Metric Tons CO2 per year
• Total = 2.3 Million Metric Tons CO2 per year
– More than double the reductions from Fairfax County‘s
current Climate Action Plan
– About ¼ of the emissions from a coal fired power plant
(annual)

29. Take Away Points…
• Where and how you grow can reduce carbon
footprint
• Good development can be a strategy to help
communities meet their carbon reduction
goals
• Some tools exist, more are needed– its an
emerging area

30. Thank You
Lynn Richards,
EPA’s Smart Growth Program
202-566-2858
Richards.Lynn@epa.gov
But who you *really* want:
John Thomas, resident transportation geek
202 566 1285
Thomas.john@epa.gov