Public transit systems are often accepted as energy and environmental improvements to automobile travel, however, few life cycle assessments exist to understand the effects of implementation of transit policy decisions. To better inform decision-makers, this project evaluates the decision to construct and operate public transportation systems and the expected energy and environmental benefits over continued automobile use. The public transit systems are selected based on screening criteria. Initial screening included advanced implementation (5 to 10 years so change in ridership could be observed), similar geographic regions to ensure consistency of analysis parameters, common transit agencies or authorities to ensure a consistent management culture, and modes reflecting large infrastructure investments to provide an opportunity for robust life cycle assessment of large impact components. An in-depth screening process including consideration of data availability, project age, energy consumption, infrastructure information, access and egress information, and socio-demographic characteristics was used as the second filter. The results of this selection process led to Los Angeles Metro’s Orange and Gold lines.

In this study, the life cycle assessment framework is used to evaluate energy inputs and emissions of greenhouse gases, particulate matter (10 and 2.5 microns), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. For the Orange line, Gold line, and competing automobile trip, an analysis system boundary that includes vehicle, infrastructure, and energy production components is specified. Life cycle energy use and emissions inventories are developed for each mode considering direct (vehicle operation), ancillary (non-vehicle operation including vehicle maintenance, infrastructure construction, infrastructure operation, etc.), and supply chain processes and services. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the inventories are linked to their potential for respiratory impacts and smog formation, and the time it takes to payback in the lifetime of each transit system.

Results show that for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, the inclusion of life cycle components increases the footprint between 42% and 91% from vehicle propulsion exclusively. Conventional air emissions show much more dramatic increases highlighting the effectiveness of “tailpipe” environmental policy. Within the life cycle, vehicle operation is often small compared to other components. Particulate matter emissions increase between 270% and 5400%. Sulfur dioxide emissions increase by several orders of magnitude for the on road modes due to electricity use throughout the life cycle. NOx emissions increase between 31% and 760% due to supply chain truck and rail transport. VOC emissions increase due to infrastructure material production and placement by 420% and 1500%. CO emissions increase by between 20% and 320%. The dominating contributions from life cycle components show that the decision to build an infrastructure and operate a transportation mode in Los Angeles has impacts far outside of the city and region. Life cycle results are initially compared at each system’s average occupancy and a breakeven analysis is performed to compare the range at which modes are energy and environmentally competitive.

The results show that including a broad suite of energy and environmental indicators produces potential tradeoffs that are critical to decision makers. While the Orange and Gold line require less energy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile traveled than the automobile, this ordering is not necessarily the case for the conventional air emissions. It is possible that a policy that focuses on one pollutant may increase another, highlighting the need for a broad set of indicators and life cycle thinking when making transportation infrastructure decisions.

The goal of this working paper is to provide the methodological background for several upcoming reports and peer-reviewed journal publications. This manuscript only provides background methodology and does not show or interpret any of the results that are being generated by the research team. The methodology is consistent with the transportation LCA approach developed by the author in previous research. The discussion in this working paper provides the detailed background data and steps used by the research team for their assessment of Los Angeles Metro transit lines and a competing automobile trip.

Better methods are necessary to fully account for anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and the essential services provided by ecosystems that sustain human life. Current methods for assessing sustainability, such as life cycle assessment (LCA), typically focus on easily quantifiable indicators such as air emissions with no accounting for the essential ecosystem benefits that support human or industrial processes. For this reason, more comprehensive, transparent, and robust methods are necessary for holistic understanding of urban technosphere and ecosphere systems, including their interfaces. Incorporating ecosystem service indicators into LCA is an important step in spanning this knowledge gap.

For urban systems, many built environment processes have been investigated but need to be expanded with life cycle assessment for understanding ecosphere impacts. To pilot these new methods, a material inventory of the building infrastructure of Phoenix, Arizona can be coupled with LCA to gain perspective on the impacts assessment for built structures in Phoenix. This inventory will identify the origins of materials stocks, and the solid and air emissions waste associated with their raw material extraction, processing, and construction and identify key areas of future research necessary to fully account for ecosystem services in urban sustainability assessments. Based on this preliminary study, the ecosystem service impacts of metropolitan Phoenix stretch far beyond the county boundaries. A life cycle accounting of the Phoenix’s embedded building materials will inform policy and decision makers, assist with community education, and inform the urban sustainability community of consequences.

En la zona metropolitana de Phoenix, el calor urbano está afectando la salud, la seguridad y la economía y se espera que estos impactos empeoren con el tiempo. Se prevé que el número de días por encima de 110˚F aumentará más del doble para el 2060. En mayo de 2017, The Nature Conservancy, el Departamento de Salud Pública del condado de Maricopa, Central Arizona Conservation Alliance, la Red de Investigación en Sostenibilidad sobre la Resiliencia Urbana a Eventos Extremos, el Centro de Investigación del Clima Urbano de Arizona State University y el Center for Whole Communities lanzaron un proceso participativo de planificación de acciones contra el calor para identificar tanto estrategias de mitigación como de adaptación a fin de reducir directamente el calor y mejorar la capacidad de los residentes para lidiar con el calor. Las organizaciones comunitarias con relaciones existentes en tres vecindarios seleccionados para la planificación de acciones contra el calor se unieron más tarde al equipo del proyecto: Phoenix Revitalization Corporation, RAILMesa y Puente Movement. Más allá de construir un plan de acción comunitario contra el calor y completar proyectos de demostración, este proceso participativo fue diseñado para desarrollar conciencia, iniciativa y cohesión social en las comunidades subrepresentadas. Asimismo el proceso de planificación de acciones contra el calor fue diseñado para servir como modelo para esfuerzos futuros de resiliencia al calor y crear una visión local, contextual y culturalmente apropiada de un futuro más seguro y saludable. El método iterativo de planificación y participación utilizado por el equipo del proyecto fortaleció las relaciones dentro y entre los vecindarios, las organizaciones comunitarias, los responsables de la toma de decisiones y el equipo núcleo, y combinó la sabiduría de la narración de historias y la evidencia científica para comprender mejor los desafíos actuales y futuros que enfrentan los residentes durante eventos de calor extremo. Como resultado de tres talleres en cada comunidad, los residentes presentaron ideas que quieren ver implementadas para aumentar su comodidad y seguridad térmica durante los días de calor extremo.

Como se muestra a continuación, las ideas de los residentes se interceptaron en torno a conceptos similares, pero las soluciones específicas variaron entre los vecindarios. Por ejemplo, a todos los vecindarios les gustaría agregar sombra a sus corredores peatonales, pero variaron las preferencias para la ubicación de las mejoras para dar sombra. Algunos vecindarios priorizaron las rutas de transporte público, otros priorizaron las rutas utilizadas por los niños en su camino a la escuela y otros quieren paradas de descanso con sombra en lugares clave. Surgieron cuatro temas estratégicos generales en los tres vecindarios: promover y educar; mejorar la comodidad/capacidad de afrontamiento; mejorar la seguridad; fortalecer la capacidad. Estos temas señalan que existen serios desafíos de seguridad contra el calor en la vida diaria de los residentes y que la comunidad, los negocios y los sectores responsables de la toma de decisión deben abordar esos desafíos.

Los elementos del plan de acción contra el calor están diseñados para incorporarse a otros esfuerzos para aliviar el calor, crear ciudades resilientes al clima y brindar salud y seguridad pública. Los socios de implementación del plan de acción contra el calor provienen de la región de la zona metropolitana de Phoenix, y se brindan recomendaciones para apoyar la transformación a una ciudad más fresca.

Para ampliar la escala de este enfoque, los miembros del equipo del proyecto recomiendan a) compromiso continuo e inversiones en estos vecindarios para implementar el cambio señalado como vital por los residentes, b) repetir el proceso de planificación de acción contra el calor con líderes comunitarios en otros vecindarios, y c) trabajar con las ciudades, los planificadores urbanos y otras partes interesadas para institucionalizar este proceso, apoyando las políticas y el uso de las métricas propuestas para crear comunidades más frescas.

Study Background: Researchers at ASU have determined that significant energy and environmental benefits are possible in the Phoenix metro area over the next 60 years from transit-oriented development along the current Valley Metro light rail line. The team evaluated infill densification outcomes when vacant lots and some dedicated surface parking lots are repurposed for residential development. Life cycle building (construction, use, and energy production) and transportation (manufacturing, operation, and energy production) changes were included and energy use and greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated in addition to the potential for respiratory impacts and smog formation. All light rail infill scenarios are compared against new single family home construction in outlying areas.

Overview of Results: In the most conservative scenario, the Phoenix area can place 2,200 homes near light rail and achieve 9-15% reductions in energy use and emissions. By allowing multi-family apartments to fill vacant lots, 12,000 new dwelling units can be infilled achieving a 28-42% reduction. When surface lots are developed in addition to vacant lots then multi-family apartment buildings around light rail can deliver 30-46% energy and environmental reductions. These reductions occur even after new trains are put into operation to meet the increased demand.

Building energy assessment often focuses on the use of electricity and natural gas during the use phase of a structure while ignoring the energy investments necessary to construct the facility. This research develops a methodology for quantifying the “embedded” energy and greenhouse gases (GHG) in the building infrastructure of an entire metropolitan region. “Embedded” energy and GHGs refer to the energy necessary to manufacture materials and construct the infrastructure. Using these methods, a case study is developed for Los Angeles County.

Phoenix is the sixth most populated city in the United States and the 12th largest metropolitan area by population, with about 4.4 million people. As the region continues to grow, the demand for housing and jobs within the metropolitan area is projected to rise under uncertain climate conditions.

Undergraduate and graduate students from Engineering, Sustainability, and Urban Planning in ASU’s Urban Infrastructure Anatomy and Sustainable Development course evaluated the water, energy, and infrastructure changes that result from smart growth in Phoenix, Arizona. The Maricopa Association of Government's Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study identified a market for 485,000 residential dwelling units in the urban core. Household water and energy use changes, changes in infrastructure needs, and financial and economic savings are assessed along with associated energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

The course project has produced data on sustainable development in Phoenix and the findings will be made available through ASU’s Urban Sustainability Lab.