Infrastructure Rating System Status Report

(1)

G R

E

N

Infrastructure Rating System

Status Report

(2)

Acknowledgements

This Report was developed through the Parsons Brinckerhoff Green Infrastructure Rating System Working Group with Lindsey Sousa as principal author. Members of the group and their contact

information are shown below.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Green Infrastructure Rating System Working Group:

Lindsey Sousa [email protected] Hal Kassoff [email protected] Gary McVoy [email protected] Scott Snelling [email protected] Kara Swanson [email protected] Sine Adams [email protected]

(3)

1.0 Introduction

As a transportation industry leader, Parsons Brinckerhoff has long maintained an emphasis on project sustainability from planning through operations and maintenance. Green infrastructure rating systems provide a means through which to measure and solidify sustainability practices. This report provides an updated review of these systems and builds on two earlier newsletters published in September 2011 and May 2012. The intended audience is the staff and clients of Parsons Brinckerhoff; our aim is to inform and assist clients in this evolving area of work. The report will be shared online and updated as the systems evolve over time. Though similar in their use of criteria to measure sustainability practices, the systems and their applications are very diverse. Mode, project phase, and method of measurement are just a few of the differences among these systems. When evaluated together, continuums of form and complexity are evident. Some systems are open, online self‐assessment tools that may be completed within a few hours. At the other end of the continuum are proprietary systems that require detailed documentation, calculations and deliverables, and are submitted to and reviewed by a third party entity for a fee. All of the systems are relatively new and evolving, and unlike the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system under the auspices of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), none have emerged as the predominant system. This is not surprising in that the sustainability implications of “horizontal infrastructure” are much more complex than the issues surrounding “vertical construction.” The systems have generally published multiple iterations that continuously refine the standards by which sustainable practices are measured. It is likely that they will continue to evolve over time. Since no one system has become the “national standard,” a strong understanding of each is important before deciding which is the most appropriate to a client’s expectations and requirements. Parsons Brinckerhoff staff has devoted time and resources to understanding these different systems. A working group has been applying the various systems to projects to gain a thorough understanding of the unique attributes of each. Our involvement has varied; we have staff that have worked with systems from the ground up such as GreenLITES (Gary McVoy in his former position with New York State DOT), developed credits or provided input into refining credits (for systems such as STARS, EnvisionTM and GreenroadsTM) and applied the systems directly to projects of different sizes and scales. We have gained expertise in all of these systems and seek to maintain a neutral and objective approach to comparative analyses. The goal is to help clients determine the system that may best meet their needs, or to develop a custom system if more appropriate and effective. This report begins with an overview of sustainable transportation and agency approaches. It then gives a synopsis of a diverse set of rating systems including the purpose and structure, key attributes, project application(s) and anticipated next steps.

1.1 Sustainability

and

Transportation

A considerable amount of literature exists covering the subjects of sustainability, sustainable transportation and performance measurement. Sustainability is defined differently in various communities and contexts, though the underlying premise of serving the needs of present as well as future generations and the triple bottom line (economic, environmental and societal ) has typically been embraced in some fashion. The University of Plymouth Centre for Sustainable Transport provides a widely accepted definition of a sustainable transportation system, stating that it:

(6)

Define Sustainability for the Organization Develop Sustainable Transportation

Goals & Objectives

Develop & Implement Performance Measures Track Performance Measures & Refine/Improve

 Allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations;  Is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant

economy; and

 Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes consumption of non‐renewable resources to the sustainable yield level, reuses and recycles its components, and minimizes the use of land and the production of noise.1

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook2 summarizes surveys from state DOTs on the topic of sustainability planning practices. Results show that agencies fall within a spectrum of action (or relative lack of action); some are in the process of executing sustainability plans with dedicated staff and funding while others have not yet embarked on a

sustainability plan or process.

1.2 Developing a Framework

Much of the recent literature on sustainable transportation emphasizes the process steps needed to move from initial sustainability goal setting to performance

measurement/management. The figure on the right represents a simple, streamlined approach to developing a sustainable transportation

framework.

 Define Sustainability for the Organization: The triple bottom line is often the starting point for defining sustainability. An agency’s sustainability definition should include principles and values unique to that agency, and should be holistic in nature.

 Develop Sustainable Transportation Goals and Objectives: Research shows that goals for sustainable transportation may range from maximizing accessibility, safety and pedestrian/bike usage to minimizing ecosystem impact and costs. This process often begins with identifying focus areas followed by more specific goals. It is important to realize the holistic nature of sustainability and not focus exclusively on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example, to the exclusion of all else.

 Develop & Implement Performance Measures: Performance measures are broadly defined as quantifiable criteria that can be used to track progress toward specific goals or objectives. Ideal performance measures are easily understood, provide a clear indication of moving toward an established goal, can be tracked using available data, and can be influenced by the actions of the agency. Performance measures should be tailored to the policies and processes already in place, with an eye toward integrating sustainability into all agency activities. The primary method for measuring performance to‐date has been through infrastructure rating systems which trend to focus on projects to varying degrees. 1 www.ssb.plymouth.ac.uk/cst/ 2

Georgia Institute of Technology; Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook; January 2011.

Figure 1: Sustainable

(7)

 Track Performance Measures & Refine/Improve: Setting performance measures is only part of the task; tracking these performance measures over time to identify agency successes and limitations is also crucial. Agencies need a system for tracking the progress of performance measures and then consolidating that information into a format that managers can utilize on current and future projects and programs. By identifying lessons learned across a department or agency, a repository will evolve that will help avoid past mistakes, refine current practices, and push new ideas further.

1.3 Evolution of Infrastructure Rating Systems

To measure and evaluate transportation projects in terms of how well they may achieve sustainability goals, various public and private entities have developed infrastructure rating systems. These systems are generally modeled after the USGBC’s LEED system for buildings with criteria organized under different themes or categories. While some agencies have begun to use these systems “off the shelf,” others have developed their own systems customized to their existing policies and geographical conditions.

Figure 2: Sustainability Analysis Through Rating Systems

Green infrastructure rating systems vary in scope, applicability, and criteria. The primary national systems evaluated in this report (listed alphabetically) include:

 Envision TM (Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure – a joint effort between the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Public Works Association (APWA) and American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC))

 GreenLITES (New York State DOT)

 GreenroadsTM (Greenroads Foundation)3

 Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST) (FHWA)

3_{Muench, S.T., Anderson, J.L., Hatfield, J.P., Koester, J.R., & Söderlund, M. et al. (2011).}

Greenroads Manual v1.5. (J.L. Anderson, C.D. Weiland, and S.T. Muench, Eds.). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

(8)

 Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Rating System (STARS) (North American Sustainable Transportation Council (STC))

The rating systems are described in the following sections. PRISMTM tblv (triple bottom line valuation), a Parsons Brinckerhoff developed tool, is introduced at the end as a new approach to measurement which assigns dollar values to sustainability metrics. This system is gaining momentum and visibility within the industry, and is included here for the sake of completeness.

Table 1: Green Infrastructure Rating System Characteristics

System Sponsor Scope Organization Review/

Certification Website EnvisionTM Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure Infrastructure

60 credits in five categories (Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World and Climate and Risk);

bonus point opportunity

Stage 1: Self-assessment and Stage 2: Fee-based review www.sustai nableinfrast ructure.org

GreenLITES New York

State DOT Transportation

Project Design Certification Program: 180 points Operations Certification Program: 40 categories Planning Tool: 25 points

Self-Assessment www.dot.ny .gov/progra ms/greenlit es?nd=nys dot GreenroadsTM Greenroads Foundation Highways 11 Project Requirements; 37 Voluntary Credits; focused on

design and construction

Fee-based review

www.greenr oads.org

INVEST FHWA Highways

System Planning: 16 criteria Project Development: 29

criteria

Operations and Maintenance: 14 criteria Self-Assessment www.sustai nablehighw ays.org STARS North American Sustainable Transportation Council (STC) Multi-Modal Transportation

STARS Project: 29 project credits

STARS Plan: 8 credits STARS Employer Programs:

not yet developed

Fee-based review

www.transp ortationcou ncil.org

(9)

2.0 Envision

TM

Sustainability

Rating

System

EnvisionTM was developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) in cooperation with the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. ISI is a not‐for‐ profit education and research organization founded by three professional and industry organizations (ASCE, APWA and ACEC). According to the ISI website4, each of the founding organizations were developing sustainable infrastructure programs and saw the need to work together to produce a standardized framework for documenting sustainability practices. The most recent version of EnvisionTM was released in February 2012.

Unlike other rating systems discussed in this report, the EnvisionTM Version 2.0 system covers infrastructure in general – dams, water supply and treatment systems, energy transmission and distribution – and all modes of transportation. It covers planning, design, construction and maintenance, and it continues to evolve.

EnvisionTM Version 2.0 is organized into four stages, or assessment tools:

 Stage 1‐Self‐assessment checklist

o A self‐assessment checklist and educational tool that helps familiarize people involved in infrastructure projects with the sustainability aspects of the project.

o 60 credits in five categories (Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World and Climate and Risk). Innovation Points are bonuses assigned in each of the five categories for both exceptional performance and innovative methods. Points for each credit are on a scale encompassing the levels of improved, enhanced, superior, conserving and restorative.

 Stage 2 — Third‐party, objective rating verification.

o Allows the owner or project team to submit the project for recognition. o Includes a guidance manual and scoring system.

o Requires someone trained in the use of the Envision™ rating system to be an integral part of the project team to document sustainability achievements for certification. o An independent, third‐party Verifier will validate the project team's assessment.

 Stage 3 — Tool for complex or multi‐stage projects. Available after 2012.

 Stage 4 — Optimization support tool. Available after 2012.

A significant and unique feature is that to qualify for awards, at least one person on the project team (referred to as an ENV PV or Provisional Sustainability Professional) must be credentialed to use the EnvisionTM rating system. When the project team and ENV PV have completed the project and evaluation, they can submit the project to ISI for verification. ISI then assigns Verifiers to review and confirm the points achieved. ENV PV “assessors” as well as verifiers will be required to take training courses offered and approved by ISI.

4

(10)

2.1 Key Attributes

 Founded by three professional/industry organizations who brought their collective expertise to the table

 Broader than other systems in covering civil infrastructure

 Addresses planning, design, construction and maintenance

 4‐Stage set of tools at varying levels of complexity (self‐assessment checklist, third‐party rating, multi‐stage project tool and optimization support tool – only the checklist is fully operational)

 Requires a Sustainability Professional trained in the system to guide the team; and requires a Verifier to review and confirm points

Table 2: EnvisionTM_Stage₁_Self_Assessment_Checklist_–Sample_Credits

Category Sample Credits*

Quality of Life  Stimulate sustainable growth

 Develop local skills and capabilities  Enhance health and safety

 Improve mobility

 Preserve cultural resources, views, local character  Enhance public space

Leadership  Sustainability Management System

 Collaboration

 Stakeholder involvement

 Long-term monitoring

 Address conflicting regulations and policies

Resource Allocation  Sustainable procurement

 Recycled & regional materials

 Deconstruction

 Reduced& renewable energy  Potable water, monitor water

Natural World  Preserve prime habitat, wetlands, farmland, floodplains,

greenfields

 Manage stormwater

 Control invasives

Climate and Risk  Reduce emissions

 Assess climate threat

 Prepare for short-term hazards

*Due to the large number of credits in these categories this represents only a sampling of credits

2.2 Project Application

We have applied a previous version of Envision (prior to the release of Version 2.0 in February 2012) to various transportation projects. Two notable examples include the 14th Street project (described in further detail in the GreenroadsTM section of this report) as well as the National Park Service –Kolob Terrace project (described in the GreenLITES section of this report). The most recent version has fewer credits than the previous one and the system has evolved into a four‐stage set of tools. Future versions of this report will cover the assessment of projects against Version 2.0 of Envision.

(11)

2.3 Observations

In providing a rating system that would apply to any and all infrastructure projects, and by requiring trained project participants as well as trained Verifiers under the independent auspices of ISI, EnvisionTM is in many ways the most ambitious of all systems. Since it transcends surface transportation, and has the backing of several key professional and industry associations some would argue that EnvisionTM offers the most promise as achieving the “LEED of infrastructure” status that it is striving to achieve. On the other hand, trying to span the unique attributes of earthen and concrete dams, electric power grids, water supply and sewage treatment systems, as well as transit systems and roads, ports and airports, railroads and canals represents a tall order for a single system.

Another unknown is the degree to which owners of infrastructure – most of whom are public agencies or authorities, or regulated utilities ‐ will have the appetite for a system which requires trained staff as well as fees to cover the cost of the review and verification process. It is yet to be determined whether EnvisionTM will succeed in its quest to become the gold standard of systems.

3.0 GreenLITES

Green Leadership in Transportation Environmental Sustainability, known as GreenLITES, is a self‐ certification program originally issued in 2008 by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). It is intended to serve as an internal management program for NYSDOT to measure

sustainability performance, recognize good practices, and identify opportunities for improvement across planning, design, construction, maintenance and operations programs as needed. In addition, NYSDOT has encouraged others to use, improve and modify the system to fit their own unique needs. This has been and is being done in several other states such as Illinois and Colorado who have initiated their own systems modeled after GreenLITES.

GreenLITES has several certification programs for planning, design and operations. GreenLITES recognizes varying certification levels with the highest level awarded to designs that advance sustainable transportations solutions. The system is keyed to NYSDOT’s annual Earth Day Awards program to promote continuing interest and recognition. The criteria applicable to the project can be chosen based on the local context and the balancing of project priorities. The GreenLITES Design Certification Program, for example, is flexible by providing the Sustainable Sites category, which responds to local context. Within this category, consideration is given to what is possible given the particular project’s scale and context, choices made during alignment selection both on the macro and micro level and the balance of potential effects on wetlands, historic resources, and other natural features.

3.1 Key Attributes

 Internal program led by a State DOT (NYSDOT); certification process is embedded within the NYSDOT Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) process. Generally, all regional programs and individually advertised and awarded projects are evaluated under GreenLITES.

 Hundreds of projects and dozens of programs have been through the process, making

GreenLITES the rating system applied to the most projects, albeit within the geographic confines of one state

 Open approach encourages other states to utilize and improve upon the system for their own needs, and some have done so.

(12)

 Other government agencies and authorities, local municipalities, and non‐governmental organizations are also encouraged to use GreenLITES and some are using it to evaluate their transportation projects.

 Separate certification processes for planning, design and operations programs as well as regional projects.

 Innovative practices are evaluated for inclusion into the DOT's toolbox of acceptable practices on a continuing basis. This open approach ensures that innovations are fed back into the NYSDOT design process to improve efficiency and enhancements over time.

Table 3: GreenLITES Tools, Applications and Sample Credits

Tool Application

Sample Credits*

Planning Tool (Draft)

Assists municipalities in identifying projects for inclusion in the State’s transportation program. Emphasis placed on projects that support sustainability.

 Consistency with local comprehensive plan  Support of livability principles

 Protect and enhance environment  Support economic vitality

 Increase accessibility and mobility  Employ unique financing

Project Design Certification

Self-certification program that distinguishes transportation projects based on the extent to which they incorporate sustainable design choices. This is primarily an internal management program for NYSDOT to measure

performance, recognize good practices, and identify and improve where needed.

Sustainable Sites:

 Alignment Selection  Context Sensitive Solutions

 Land Use/Community Planning

 Protect, Enhance, or Restore Wildlife Habitat  Protect, Plant, or Mitigate for Removal of Trees and

Plant Communities

Water Quality:

 Stormwater management

 Reduce runoff through BMPs

Materials and Resources:

 Reuse

 Recycled content

 Regional  Bioengineering

 Hazardous materials minimized

Energy and Atmosphere:

 Improve Traffic Flow

 Reduce Electrical Consumption

 Reduce Petroleum Consumption

 Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

 Noise Abatement

 Stray Light Reduction

Operations Certification

Self-certification that distinguishes transportation Maintenance Residencies, Regional Bridge Maintenance Groups, Main Office and Regional Operations Program Areas based on the extent to which they incorporate or introduce sustainable practices into their work.

 Bridges

 Pavement

 Drainage

 Signals and lighting  Snow and ice

 Facilities and rest areas

 Roadside environment and signs

(13)

3.2 Project Application: Kolob Terrace Road Rehabilitation, Zion National Park

Sustainability is an inherent part of National Park Service (NPS) projects, from planning through construction. The Denver office of the NPS sought to document their transportation sustainability efforts and worked with Parsons Brinckerhoff to apply a sample project to GreenLITES. The Kolob Terrace project focused on restoring and rehabilitating a 9.8 mile segment of highway by correcting structural deficiencies and widening narrow sections. It represents a typical park transportation project and thus was a logical candidate.

NPS staff found the system straightforward and easy to use (the Kolob Terrace Scorecard was completed in less than two hours). It also covers a broad range of sustainability factors. Since the system is specific to New York State policies, some of the credits were not applicable to the project. After having tested the Kolob Terrace project against the different rating systems, the team found that each system

presents limitations when applied to NPS projects. The natural settings and corresponding issues of NPS projects vary tremendously, as do the project types (new roadways to small reconstruction projects). Resource sensitive public lands have significant and diverse stakeholders, regulations, management goals, environmental resources and cultural resources, all of which need to be considered in a rating system.

3.3 Observations

GreenLITES has become an established system within the NYSDOT planning, project development, design and construction, maintenance and operations programs. It is the most utilized system of those that were evaluated, with application to an estimated 300 projects statewide to‐date. The system requires not only completion of a scorecard, but also documentation of innovative strategies that are tested and then incorporated into future projects and programs. This approach ensures that

performance is recognized on a systematic basis and sustainability continually matures and evolves within the organization.

4.0 Greenroads

TM

Version

1.5

GreenroadsTM is a rating system focused on roadway design and construction. Initiated as a Master’s thesis published in 2007, GreenroadsTM is now managed by the Greenroads Foundation, a non‐profit third party corporation established to manage certification reviews. Version 1.5 of the GreenroadsTM Manual was published in February 2011. GreenroadsTM has 11 project requirements and 37 voluntary credits that total 108 possible points. The project requirements represent a minimum set of credits that must be met and are considered characteristics common to all GreenroadsTM. Project applicants submit materials to the Foundation for review with a fee calculated as a percentage of the overall project capital cost.

GreenroadsTM is intended to assist owners and consultants in designing and constructing more sustainable roadways. GreenroadsTM also has a marketing component to give recognition to agencies and help raise awareness of sustainability efforts.

4.1 Key Attributes

 Fee‐based third‐party certification system.

 Detailed implementation framework and system of credits. The background material encompassed in a 400‐page manual details methods and case studies.

 The system focuses primarily on the design and construction phases of a project, and less on the early planning stages.

(14)

Table 4: Greenroads Credits

Category Sample Credits*

Project Requirements

 Environmental Review Process  Lifecycle Cost Analysis & Inventory

 Quality Control, Noise Mitigation, Waste Management, Pollution Prevention & Site Maintenance Plans  Low Impact Development (LID)

 Pavement Management System

 Educational Outreach

Environment & Water

 Environmental Management System

 Runoff

 Stormwater Cost

 Vegetation & Habitat  Light Pollution

Access & Equity

 Safety Audit  ITS

 Context-Sensitive Solutions

 Emissions Reduction

 Pedestrian, Bike, Transit Access

 Scenic Views  Cultural Outreach Construction Activities  Quality Management  Contractor Training  Site Recycling

 Fossil Fuel, Equipment and Paving Emissions Reduction

 Water Tracking

 Warranties Materials & Resources

 Life Cycle Assessment

 Pavement Reuse

 Earthwork Balance

 Recycled & Regional Materials  Energy Efficiency

Pavement Technologies _ Long-life, permeable, cool, quiet pavements

Warm-mix asphalt

 Performance tracking

Custom Credits _

New voluntary credit(s)

4.2 Project Application: 14th Street, Denver, Colorado

The 14th Street project, led by the City and County of Denver, reconstructed 12 blocks from Market Street to Colfax Avenue through downtown. Improvements included the addition of an on‐street bicycle lane, bulbouts, widened sidewalks, elongated planters and planter pots, street trees, lighting,

wayfinding signage and intersection safety upgrades. One unique feature of the project is formation of a General Improvement District (GID), a mechanism to ensure the funding of maintenance over time. The project is located in a downtown urban environment, and transformed a three‐lane cross‐section into two lanes with a bicycle lane, wider sidewalks and on‐street parking. As part of our involvement in design and project management, Parsons Brinckerhoff led the formation of sustainability strategies. The team worked with the City’s Sustainability Committee to ensure adherence to a Better Denver Bond Program Sustainability Checklist for infrastructure projects which required elements such as recycled

(15)

materials, regional materials, minimization of water usage, energy efficient lighting, native landscaping, and other streetscape enhancements. Adherence to this checklist evolved into a pilot project, and now pursuance of full certification, under the

GreenroadsTM program.

4.3 Observations

GreenroadsTM has credibility in its supporting documentation of each criterion. The question is on the approach to certification: will transportation agencies be willing to fund the certification of projects? Will the system become a standard for agencies to use given the existence of comparable systems? That

question extends to all fee‐based third‐party rating systems and is a pivotal question in the evolution of all of these systems.

In terms of its application, the Greenroads system focuses on the design and construction phases of a project’s lifecycle. It is not intended to help differentiate among alternatives in the planning phase of a project (i.e. doing right the project vs. doing the project right). Thus, its application may need to be paired or supplemented with other rating systems that incorporate the planning phase.

5.0 FHWA

‐

Infrastructure

Voluntary

Evaluation

Sustainability

Tool

(INVEST)

FHWA’s INVEST is a voluntary rating tool that can be used by states or other project sponsors to

measure sustainability on roadway projects. Initially published online (www.sustainablehighways.org) as a Beta version in 2010, Version 1 was released in October 2012. The criteria in the tool have some similarities to the GreenroadsTM system criteria described above, although INVEST has separate systems for system planning, project development and operations and maintenance.

The INVEST system has three separate scorecards: system planning, project development and operations and maintenance. System planning (SP) encompasses 16 credits and is focused on agency‐ wide practices such as integrating long range transportation plans (LRTP) with economic, environmental and community goals, linking planning with the environmental process, ensuring financial sustainability of the transportation system, etc. The project development scorecard includes 29 credits and is focused on project‐level sustainability decisions such as multi‐modal accommodations, lifecycle cost analyses, recycled materials, and construction practices, among others. The operations and maintenance (OM) scorecard includes 14 credits with a focus on maintenance programs for bridges, pavement, traffic control, and infrastructure, among others. There is one scorecard each for the SP and OM modules that includes all of the criteria in the respective module. The PD module includes six scorecard options which vary based on project context and type (categories include paving, basic rural, basic urban, extended rural, extended urban, and custom).

Per the FHWA website, the tool is intended to provide a method for practitioners to evaluate their transportation projects and to encourage progress in the sustainability arena. It is not intended to encourage comparisons across transportation agencies and projects. The tool is being developed with ongoing input from state and local transportation agency officials and staff and professional

organizations such as AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and ASCE. FHWA plans to continue to update this tool as the transportation sustainability field advances.

Figure 3: View of the completed

(16)

Page 16

5.1 Key Attributes

 Led by a federal agency (FHWA)

 Online, voluntary self‐assessment tool

 Extends across all major phases of a project’s lifecycle

 Captures social, economic and environmental credit categories and indicates which of the triple bottom line components each credit addresses

 No fees for usage

Table 5: INVEST Tools, Applications and Sample Credits

Tool Application

Sample Credits*

System Planning

Primarily written for the scoring of an agency's fiscally

constrained long range transportation plan (LRTP), which is considered to include the agency's transportation planning process, project selection criteria, the TIP/STIP, and project programming. Other transportation planning documents, such as a unified planning work program (UPWP), corridor plans, and/or related plans (e.g. modal plans, visioning plans, etc) may also be scored, as appropriate.

 Integrate economic, natural and social goals into long range transportation planning

 Access and affordability for all users

 Freight and goods movement

 Travel demand management

 Air quality  Energy and fuels  Financial sustainability

 Asset management

 Linking Planning and NEPA

Project Design Certification

Includes criteria that span the entire project development process from early planning, alternatives analysis,

environmental documentation, preliminary and final design, and construction.

 Economic analysis

 Lifecycle analysis  Context-sensitive

 Roadway safety

 Stormwater & habitat & vegetation

 Multi-modal access

 Cultural resource preservation  Energy efficiency

 Recycle, reduce, reuse materials

 Construction practices (emission reduction, control plans, warranties, etc)

Operations Certification

Primarily written for the scoring of an agency's internal and system operations as well as asset management and maintenance activities performed on the agency's infrastructure.

 Internal sustainability plan

 Energy use

 Recycle and reuse

 Commitments tracking

 Safety, bridge, pavement, maintenance, infrastructure, & traffic control management systems

5.2 Project Application: State Route 76, San Diego California

The state of California has become a national leader in addressing climate change and the integration of land use and transportation through such legislation as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32); the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill

(17)

375); and the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358). Many of Caltrans’ practices exceed typical environmental mitigation commitments, but have not been gathered collectively into one set of sustainability practices. In order to evaluate current Caltrans District 11 sustainability practices against national standards and identify areas in which to improve upon or consider for future projects, Parsons Brinckerhoff assessed the SR 76 project against two rating systems: FHWA’s INVEST and the GreenroadsTM Rating System (Version 1.5).

SR 76 project improvements consist of realignment and widening of SR 76 from two lanes to four lanes with shoulders,

as well as traffic and safety improvements. Both habitat restoration and ecological connectivity are evident in the project efforts to enhance the river valley, preserve open space, and install wildlife and exclusionary toad fencing. Thus, the project scored well under natural resource preservation credits but less so with pavement practices such as warm‐mix asphalt and cool pavement. These pavement

sustainability practices are not typical of Caltrans projects and have not been translated into guidance for design and construction. Parsons Brinckerhoff delivered a report to Caltrans summarizing the sustainability features of the projects as well as areas that could be improved upon (such as pavement). This report will help Caltrans focus on targeted areas of research and innovation in the future.

5.3 Observations

The INVEST tool is most helpful in identifying a list of individual sustainability practices that may enhance the overall sustainability of a project. Since this project is intended for FHWA projects across the country, project managers could utilize the feedback from other projects to learn and apply to their project. Sharing of best practices represents a key opportunity in the field of transportation and moving sustainability forward; however, each of the rating systems described in this report needs a platform for sharing those best practices. This may be through an online database of projects and scorecards, one‐ page fact sheets with project descriptions and innovative practices, or other strategies.

(18)

Source: STC. STARS Pilot Plan Application Manual,

Version 1.0. January 10, 2012. Accessed June 29, 2012 at:

http://www.transportationcouncil.org/wp‐

content/uploads/2011/12/Plan_Report_Introduction.pdf.

6.0 STARS

(Sustainable

Transportation

Analysis

&

Rating

System)

STARS is an integrated planning framework for transportation plans and projects.5 The North American Sustainable Transportation Council (STC), rooted in Portland, Oregon with a municipal agency, was founded in 2009 with the intent to develop a system to promote sustainability in the transportation sector similar to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the Living Building Challenge systems. The STC’s mission is to transform the way transportation is planned and implemented in order to create more vibrant, healthy, equitable and sustainable communities. Based on the triple bottom line and informed by the

principles of sustainability from The Natural Step6, the STC has developed a family of tools to assist

transportation agencies and professionals seeking sustainable solutions for their plans and projects. To date, the STC has developed two manuals, including STARS‐Project and STARS‐Plan, as well as the STARS Safety, Health, and Equity Credits to supplement STARS‐ Project. The manuals are structured into a suite of credits. Most of the credits are organized in a similar fashion: they have goals, objectives, and performance measures.

The STARS family of tools is intended to help identify the most sustainable solution to transportation projects and plans. The rating, or certification, process has not yet been fully developed but, in general, will be available at

three stages: 1) once the project/plan has been planned using one of the STARS manuals; 2) after the project/plan has been constructed/implemented; and 3) after the project/plan has been functional for a number of years.

6.1 Key Attributes

 Focus on lifecycle costs and benefits (20 to 50 years)

 Most useful as a comparison of alternatives in the planning phase; less emphasis on construction, operations and maintenance.

 Intended to be utilized alongside the FTA Alternatives Analysis and NEPA processes.

 The STARS manuals provide guidance for establishing goals around each credit topic area. The process of identifying the goals prior to technical analysis allows decision makers and

stakeholders to set goals without the influence of existing data. 5 North American Sustainable Transportation Council. http://www.transportationcouncil.org/. 6 The Natural Step is a non‐profit founded in Sweden in 1989, which basis its approach on the 1987 Brundtland Report. It is a comprehensive model for planning in complex systems by providing a framework for strategic sustainable development. The Natural Step pioneered the backcasting approach which is a fundamental component of the STARS process. More information about The Natural Step can be found here: http://www.naturalstep.org/.

(19)

Table 6: STARS Tools, Uses and Sample Credits

Tool Applications Sample Credits

STARS-Project Planning tool and rating system for

corridor-level transportation projects.

Integrated Process

Access

Climate & Energy

Ecological Function

Cost Effectiveness

Innovation

STARS-Plan

Framework to integrate sustainability into transportation plans, specifically, Regional Transportation Plans and Transportation System Plans.

Integrated Process

Community Context

Access & Mobility

Safety & Health

Economic Benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Climate Pollution & Energy Use

Ecological Function STARS Safety, Health, and Equity

Credits

A stand-alone tool to help users develop transportation projects that improve health, safety, and equity for those impacted by the project.

Safety Health Equity

6.2 Project Application:

C‐TRAN Fourth Plain

Bus Rapid Transit

Staff in the Portland, Oregon office of Parsons

Brinckerhoff are using STARS‐Project on the C‐TRAN Fourth Plain Transit

Improvement Project in Vancouver, Washington. The use of STARS has allowed the community to base their goals and objectives and evaluate project alternatives on sustainable principles. The use of STARS has introduced non‐typical data and findings to the decision making process, such as how

each alternative addresses fuel use and carbon emissions reduction and the amount of money retained in the community by the implementation of each alternative project. Further, the findings of the STARS analysis will be used to help seek and qualify for local and statewide funding and grants.

6.3 Observations

STARS is currently in its pilot phase and is seeking projects and plans to use the tools. The STARS‐Plan manual is already being used for a purpose that differs from its original intent. It is helping project staff develop and analyze land use scenarios near a LRT station that will be constructed soon to

(20)

accommodate a new LRT line in the Portland metropolitan region. The manuals are proving to be useful in many ways and can be used in part or as a whole. As a planning tool, STARS is most effective when used to inform how transportation projects and plans are developed before alternatives have been devised; the tools are not intended to be applied to projects or plans after they have been completed.

7.0 A

Different

Approach

to

Rating

Systems:

PRISM

TM

tblv

The emergence of multiple rating systems to measure the “green” and sustainability attributes of transportation and general infrastructure plans and projects represents a significant step forward in raising awareness of and interest in achieving sustainability outcomes. However, across the array of systems there is a high degree of subjectivity in determining which characteristics to measure, how they are measured, which thresholds should define more desirable versus less desirable practice, the relative importance of each characteristic in contributing to an aggregate score, and how they can be applied universally for differing projects in different circumstances and geographies. Some have observed that if sustainability goals are to become ingrained in planning and deploying infrastructure, there is a serious need to develop an ability to more objectively measure, evaluate and make tradeoffs among a diverse array of triple‐bottom line factors across a variety of situations in a transparent manner.

Such an approach would need to address all factors relevant to the specific context of an individual plan or project and not merely rely upon only those factors that were pre‐selected by the architects of a “generic” system. The relative weights assigned to each factor by the architects of rating systems are not likely to reflect the relative significance among stakeholders concerned about a particular project. In addition, rating systems that incorporate a disparate array of factors, with their own unique apples‐to‐ oranges units, can inadvertently bias tradeoffs in decision‐making as the applicant seeks to maximize their score given the lack of evidence based proportionality in terms of relative significance of one factor to another.

It is difficult for a project to meet every sustainability objective. Most require trade‐offs based on project context. The PRISMTM tblv approach is designed to link triple bottom line factors with tradeoffs in

quantitative terms by using dollars and dollar equivalents as the common apples‐to‐apples metric on the basis of stakeholder input and defensible market data. In doing so it provides a vehicle for informed, transparent trade‐off analyses that can help support the triple bottom line decision‐making needed for infrastructure investment.7

By using a common metric – dollars and dollar equivalents, this approach is able to provide a proportionate sense of scale and context among relevant factors, and to measure the relative magnitude and distribution of benefits and impacts. While this might seem to be "forcing" the monetization of certain factors that are not readily quantifiable, the PRISMTM tblv approach is able to draw upon a body of long standing and proven techniques to arrive at a range of consistent, monetized metrics for disparate factors. For example, federal requirements for evaluating cost‐benefit of highway safety projects require economic analysis that place dollar values on human lives, and cap and trade systems have established a range of market values for carbon emission. For parameters that may seem completely subjective, such as aesthetics or neighborhood cohesion, standard valuation techniques already exist to determine what people would be willing to pay for varying levels of satisfaction across a range of values. PRISMTM tblv uses these valuation techniques to rationalize the process by translating disparate unit valuations into ranges of a common, monetized metric (dollar equivalents) that can be used to compare transportation alternatives using probability density functions and Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The following table shows a comparison between three hypothetical alternatives

7

(21)

(surface arterial, urban boulevard and parkway) and the triple bottom line metrics utilized to compare each one.

PRISMTM tblv is most useful in helping compare the sustainability attributes of different alternatives. The system can be revisited as the project moves forward and data collection/analysis evolves. The system is unique from other rating systems in its emphasis on assigning value to all aspect of a project or program. PRISMTM tblv is fully operational and has been applied to a variety of applications including project prioritization in Minnesota.

(22)

8.0 Concluding

Observations

The rating systems described above evolved because a cross‐section of transportation organizations recognized the need to measure sustainability. Federal and state agencies, professional and industry organizations, universities and private foundations have worked to develop metrics that capture the triple bottom line. The systems are constantly evolving; some are in their third or fourth iteration. They tend to apply to different project types or phases; the key is to find the system or systems most relevant to the project and to use the system to foster improvements. The following are considerations when differentiating between the use of these systems for a project or even an entire agency:

 The intent behind utilizing a system (improve and enhance overall sustainability, focus on marketing/awards),

 The credibility of the system from the perspective of those that will implement the credit requirements,

 A hard look at existing practices and those that need to be improved upon (the “baseline” for the agency),

 The long‐term plan for utilizing the system (Is it for a single project? Agency wide? Program based?),

 The time and resources available (considering time involved in completing the

checklist/scorecard, certification fees, costs to implement criteria, tracking of progress over time, etc), and

 Ability to remain flexible and adapt to changing metrics and criteria.

Having evaluated these systems, we feel that they should be utilized to enhance sustainability on current projects and to encourage sustainability practices on future projects. This is going well beyond traditional avoidance and mitigation of impacts. And rather than “checking a box,” the focus needs to be on learning and testing new strategies and sharing successes and lessons learned. These systems can and should raise awareness, encourage creative thinking, and focus on long‐term sustainability outcomes.

In doing so, the ultimate measure of success for these systems is less likely to be in the number of plaques that an agency might earn (although recognition of this kind can be of great value to the

reputation and credibility of project sponsors) but more in the transformation of sustainability within an organization and among infrastructure professionals from a concept that was largely foreign and unfathomable just a few years ago to a goal, a set of clear and consistent sustainability policies, and an embodiment of sustainability practices whose time has come and which have become an essential and accepted part of what we do. As these rating systems evolve, this is the long‐term outcome that will mean the most to infrastructure professionals and to the clients and communities we serve.

Infrastructure Rating System Status Report

G R

E

E

N

Infrastructure Rating System

Status Report

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Sustainability

and

Transportation

1.2

Developing a Framework

1.3

Evolution of Infrastructure Rating Systems

2.0

Envision

Sustainability

Rating

System

2.1

Key Attributes

2.2

Project Application

2.3

Observations

3.0

GreenLITES

3.1

Key Attributes

3.2

Project Application: Kolob Terrace Road Rehabilitation, Zion National Park

3.3

Observations

4.0

Greenroads

Version

1.5

4.1

Key Attributes

4.2

Project Application: 14th Street, Denver, Colorado

4.3

Observations

5.0

FHWA

‐

Infrastructure

Voluntary

Evaluation

Sustainability

Tool

(INVEST)

5.1

Key Attributes

5.2

Project Application: State Route 76, San Diego California

5.3

Observations

6.0

STARS

(Sustainable

Transportation

Analysis

&

Rating

System)

6.1

Key Attributes

6.2

Project Application:

C‐TRAN Fourth Plain

Bus Rapid Transit

6.3

Observations

7.0