RATING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS:
CORRIDORS AS A CASE STUDY
Michelle Oswald
Advisor: Sue McNeil
Submitted: 7/30/08
University of Delaware
Department of Civil Engineering
4307B Scholar Drive
Newark, DE 19711
Phone Number: 410-207-5267
[email protected]
Word count: 5,786 + 200 (1 table) + 400 (2 figures) = 6,386
ABSTRACT
Interest in sustainable, “green” practices has risen throughout the United States, particularly in
relation to green building. Currently, programs such as Leadership for Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) and Green Globes assess the eco-efficiency of a variety of
building types and communities. These existing rating systems involve aspects of transportation;
however, currently there is no program that focuses on transportation investments. This research
develops a rating system for transportation investments focusing on corridors. Transportation
corridors are fundamental to providing mobility and interaction between and within
communities.
Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS), a “LEED for Corridors,” is necessary to
alter behavior and induce sustainable transportation practices. Focusing on corridor development
in terms of land use, infrastructure, and construction, sustainable transportation indicators have
been developed using similar principles as the existing green programs (LEED for Neighborhood
Development and Green Globes) as well as sustainable implementation frameworks. These
frameworks, such as ecological footprint, lifecycle assessment, material flow analysis, material
intensity per service unit, and Planning for Community Energy, Economic, and Environmental
3
Sustainability (PLACE S), serve as the concepts used to develop the indicators. The indicators
are the basis for the individual credits that make up the rating system for sustainable
transportation corridors.
This paper documents the concepts and then describes the proposed research that will
develop the specific rating system and its application.
Michelle Oswald
1
INTRODUCTION
Interest in sustainable, “green” practices has risen throughout the United States, particularly in
relation to green building. This section provides background information about the research such
as the motivation of why this research is significant, the problem statement, and the objectives.
Motivation
Emphasis on sustainable development practices is rising (1). The term “green design” has
become well-known throughout the private and public sector with regards to environmentally
friendly techniques, specifically related to building. In response, programs such as Leadership
for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and Green Globes have been developed in order
to promote eco-efficiency throughout various types of infrastructure. The focus of these
programs has been toward buildings, and more recently, neighborhood development. These
programs address some aspects of transportation, however, there is no program that specifically
focuses on transportation investments such as corridor development.
Transportation corridors play a significant role in vehicular mobility, specifically within
the United States. Projections show that by 2030 there will be 314 million vehicles owned based
on an average annual growth rate of 1.1% (2). In order to accommodate the number of vehicles
on the road, corridor development/redevelopment must not only satisfy the needs of the public,
but it must also adapt to the needs of the environment. Therefore, green design principles should
be applied to transportation investments, particularly corridor development, in order to reduce
environmental impacts and promote sustainability.
Problem Statement
Transportation corridor development/redevelopment inherently imposes many impacts on the
environment. Environmental impacts such as stimulation of urban sprawl, loss of open space,
and noise pollution are some of the resulting affects of corridor development. Therefore,
improvements can be made toward corridor sustainability, particularly related to the land use,
infrastructure, and construction aspects.
Currently, green design programs such as LEED and Green Globes, focus on building
design and more recently, neighborhood development. Jeon and Amekudzi (3) have addressed
transportation systems through the development of a sustainability index with an emphasis on the
usage of facilities. Therefore it is worth developing a green design rating system such as a
“LEED for Corridors” that promotes corridor sustainability from a development and construction
perspective. This rating system is necessary to alter behavior and promote sustainable practices
throughout the transportation sector.
Objectives
The objective of this research is to develop a Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS), such
as a “LEED for Corridors,” in order to promote sustainability throughout the transportation
sector. The rating system will reflect existing green design programs such as LEED and Green
Globes as well as incorporate principles from sustainable implementation frameworks such as
ecological footprint, lifecycle assessment, material flow analysis, material intensity per service
unit, and PLACE 3 S. The objectives in developing SCRS include the following:
• Extend sustainability both spatially and temporally throughout transportation
investments
• Expand green design programs to incorporate transportation infrastructure
• Reduce environmental impacts of transportation corridor development/redevelopment
Michelle Oswald
2
• Recommend corridor redevelopment/development projects on the basis of sustainable
rating systems
The objectives listed above address the following secondary objectives achieved
throughout the process:
• Identify what constitutes a sustainable transportation corridor
• Identify existing green design programs used in practice
• Identify already established sustainability implementation frameworks
• Determine how green design practices can be applied to development/redevelopment of a
transportation corridor
SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS
This section defines sustainability and its relationship to transportation systems based on a
literature review. It describes the impacts transportation poses on sustainable development and
the use of indicators to quantify sustainability.
What is Sustainability?
The term sustainability has no universally accepted definition; however, in 1987 it was defined
in the Bruntland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development (4).
Sustainability was defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs” (5). This definition was selected as the basis of
this research, however, other definitions include the following:
• “Sustainability is equity and harmony extended into the future, a careful journey
without an endpoint, a continuous striving for the harmonious co-evolution of environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural goals” (6).
• “Relationship between human economic systems and larger dynamic, but normally
slower-changing ecological systems, in which human life can continue indefinitely, human
individuals can flourish, and human cultures can develop; but in which effects of human
activities remain within bounds, so as not to destroy the diversity, complexity, and function of
the ecological support system” (7).
Generally it is the ability of a system to continue on an indefinite basis typically referring to
economic, social, and environmental issues. It emphasizes the integration of humans in nature
and requires that human activity remain within bounds avoiding impact on ecological systems
(1).
Sustainable Transportation
Definition of Sustainable Transportation
Sustainable transportation refers to the transportation sector’s concept of sustainable
development (8). Similar to the term sustainability, sustainable transportation does not formally
have one universally accepted definition. The following definitions are used to define
sustainable transportation:
• “Transportation that does not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets mobility
needs consistent with the use of renewable resources at below their rates of regeneration and the
use of non-renewable resources at below the rates of development of renewable substitutes” (8).
• “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
Michelle Oswald
3
generations; is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transportation mode, and supports
a vibrant economy; limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them,
minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources, reuses and recycles its components and
minimizes the use of land and the production of noise” (9).
For the purposes of my research, the second definition is used to define sustainable
transportation.
Transportation Impacts
Transportation and mobility is fundamental to society and therefore there is a strong demand for
viable transportation systems. In terms of transportation growth within the United States, in
1960 there were 74.4 million vehicles owned and by 2002 there were 233.9 million, with an
average annual growth rate of 2.8% (2). Projections indicate a future average annual growth rate
of 1.1% and 314 million vehicles owned by 2030 (2). In order to accommodate the number of
drivers on the road, the interstate highway system is being developed at a rate that promotes this
growth. Recently there has been a radical change in typical corridor construction where over
90% of highway improvements are on existing corridors rather than new facilities (10).
In addition to monetary costs, transportation systems also impose environmental costs.
As drivers continue to rely on their personal vehicles and utilize corridors for mobility, emissions
will continue to impact the environment on local, regional, and global scales. Emissions not only
impact the natural system through global warming and climate change, but they also lead to
health related issues such as asthma and other lung-related implications.
Due to the costs that result from transportation systems, many claim that they are far from
sustainable; therefore making them unsustainable systems (11). Unsustainable activity is defined
as “one that cannot continue to be carried on the way it is now without serious difficulties” (8).
In order to combat these unsustainable practices, green techniques can be applied to the
transportation sector through the development of sustainable transportation indicators.
Sustainable Development Indicators
Due to the vast information available regarding social, environmental, and economic issues in
sustainable development, indicators are used to facilitate order. Indicators provide an orientation
given the complexities of measuring sustainability (12). Indicators are described as an index or a
“means devised to reduce a large quantity of data down to its simplest form, retaining essential
meaning for the questions that are being asked of the data” (13). In terms of sustainability,
indicators simplify the process of answering the main question of how to reduce human impact
and protect future generations. Sustainable development indicators are a useful tool that can be
used to promote sustainable techniques within the public and policy sectors (14).
Therefore sustainable transportation indicators are used as a way to measure
sustainability related to corridor development/redevelopment.
BACKGROUND ON SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS, FRAMEWORKS, AND DECISION
MAKING TOOLS
This section focuses on the existing programs, frameworks, and models that will be drawn on to
create SCRS. Green building programs such as LEED and Green Globes, and sustainability
implementation frameworks such as ecological footprint, lifecycle assessment, material flow
analysis, material intensity per service unit, and PLACE 3 S are described. In addition, decision
making models, such as analytical hierarchy process and multi-attribute utility theory, are
reviewed as ways to prioritize sustainability indicators.
Michelle Oswald
4
Green Building Programs
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Within the United States, the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) public rating system,
called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is the most recognized standard
for green building programs (15). LEED is currently made up of nine programs, each
referencing a different aspect of green building. The following programs are currently available:
New Construction, Existing Buildings, Schools, Homes, Retail, Neighborhood Development
(pilot), Core and Shell, Commercial Interiors, and Healthcare. Each of these programs is a third
party certification process providing owners, engineers, and planners with the tools necessary to
have immediate and measurable impacts on their building/neighborhood performance (16). In
terms of government involvement, at least 25 states have mandated LEED for public buildings
and a minimum of 48 cities have mandated that LEED should be applied to all new building
projects (15).
The information stated within the rating systems is gathered by committees that adhere to
the USGBC policies and procedures used to guide development (17). The rating systems are
market-driven, and formulated using accepted energy and environmental principles that
encompass both established and innovative practices (17). Each rating system consists of
mandatory prerequisites as well as credits that can be achieved in order to obtain certification. In
order for a project to be certified, the minimum point total for that rating system must be
achieved, and, if exceeded, additional points may apply to silver, gold, or platinum certification.
Green Globes Design
Green Globes, an alternative to the LEED green building program, was developed in 2002 in
Canada and was recently introduced to the United States by the Green Building Initiative (GBI)
(18). Currently few states such as Maryland and Arkansas accept the “Green Globes” rating
system (15).
Green Globes Design is an online green building tool that currently focuses on new
buildings, existing buildings, and interior fit-ups. The main goals of the program are relatively
similar to the LEED program, however, the criteria differ. The Green Globes Design program,
used by the federal government and the private sector, is based on objectives rather than credits.
Another major difference is that Green Globes does not hold projects accountable for
objectives/credits that are not applicable. Therefore, the point system is altered based on the
applicability to the individual projects being assessed. Similar to LEED, the projects are rated by
a third party who verifies that the project has integrated green building technologies into the
design. Once the verification is complete, the project is awarded certification.
Sustainable Implementation Frameworks
Sustainable implementation frameworks such as lifecycle assessment, ecological footprint,
material flow analysis, material intensity per service unit, and PLACE 3 S, have already been
established as ways to quantify and define sustainability in practice. These frameworks served
as inputs into SCRS through the development of the individual sustainability indicators.
Lifecycle Assessment
Achieving sustainable design requires clear understanding of the environmental effects of
materials from a cradle to grave approach. Lifecycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that
“determines the environmental impacts of products, processes, or services through production,
Michelle Oswald
5
usage, and disposal” (19). The main goal of this framework is to assess the environmental
performance of a product over its entire lifecycle (18).
In terms of construction, there are six stages of material production which refer to the
process that raw materials undergo from start to finish: resource extraction, manufacturing, onsite construction, occupancy/maintenance, demolition, recycle/reuse/disposal (20). This six-step
process is typical for raw materials, however, depending on the use and purpose of the building
products, the individual steps may vary.
Ecological Footprint
In recent years, ecological footprint has become a popular way of analyzing sustainability,
specifically in North America and Europe (21). Originally developed by William Rees and
Mathis Wackernagel, ecological footprint is used to calculate the land/water area needed to
sustain human consumption and absorb its wastes (22). It measures the population’s demand on
nature using the single metric of global area biocapacity (22). Therefore, ecological footprint is
defined as “a measurement of the land/water area required to sustain a population of any size”
specifically focusing on the “amount of arable land and aquatic resources that must be used to
sustain a population based on its consumption levels at a given point in time” (23). For example,
it measures the amount of farmland needed to provide food, or the amount of forest needed to
provide wood and paper (24).
Using this measurement, a sustainable ecological footprint is achieved when the
population’s footprint is smaller than the available biocapacity. However, when the footprint is
larger, it is said to hold a negative ecological balance (22).
Material Flow Analysis
Material flow analysis (MFA) is a sustainable tool that focuses on the environmental burden
created by the flow of materials and energy through the economy. It is defined as a quantitative
procedure that captures the flow of materials and energy as a mass balance using basic laws of
thermodynamics (25). The mass balance relationship, where the inputs into a system must
always equal the outputs, means that nothing is lost within the process.
3
PLACE S
PLACE 3 S stands for Planning for Community Energy, Economic, and Environmental
Sustainability and is a planning tool that uses energy as a yardstick for urban sustainability (26).
PLACE 3 S, for the purposes of this research, provides a conceptual framework that enables
communities and neighborhoods to make informative land use and development decisions based
on efficient energy production, distribution and usage. The method is based on three main
questions related to energy efficiency within a specific community (26):
• How energy efficient is the community today?
• How much more or less energy efficient will the community become in the future?
• How much can energy efficiency contribute to the community’s economy,
environment, and sustainability?
These fundamental questions regarding energy efficiency are posed throughout the three main
steps of the method: public participation, planning and design, and measurement (26).
Material Intensity per Service Unit
Material Intensity per Service Unit (MIPS) is a unit of measure used to estimate the ecological
stress potential of goods and services from cradle to grave (27). It quantifies the material
Michelle Oswald
6
intensity required through the process from extraction to delivery of the material (15). The
measurement can be utilized toward conceptualizing sustainability in terms of material inputs
and outputs over its life span.
Decision Making Models
Analytical Hierarchical Process
Analytical hierarchical process (AHP), developed by Saaty (28), is a method used to simplify
complex decision making processes. AHP “breaks down a complex, unstructured situation into
its component parts; arranging these parts, or variables into a hierarchic order; assigning
numerical values to subjective judgments on the relative importance of each variable; and
synthesizing the judgments to determine which variables have the highest priority and should be
acted upon to influence the outcome of the situation” (28). Due to the difficulty of measuring
relationships between elements that are of different scales, AHP provides a new scale for
measuring intangibles through pairwise comparisons. The pairwise comparison allows the
decision maker to specify his/her preference for each pair of alternatives.
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
The multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), developed by Keeney and Raiffa (29), is an intuitive
approach that provides an objective measurement to decision making (30). MAUT is formulated
on the basis that any decision problem holds a real valued function, also known as a utility which
is defined by the maximized set of alternatives (31). The individual alternatives result in an
outcome that typically holds a value on various dimensions that MAUT seeks to measure (31).
MAUT measures each alternative, one dimension at a time, and uses a weighting process in
order to aggregate the dimension values. In terms of aggregation, the final utilities are typically
produced from a weighted linear average.
METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION
The methodology of SCRS includes a seven step process defined based on sustainable indicator
literature and experience with using existing rating systems:
1. Define criteria of the corridor under evaluation
2. Develop sustainability indicator categories
3. Develop sustainability indicators
4. Identify measurements associated to each indicator
5. Assign weights based on the prioritization of credits
6. Allocate points and determine prerequisites
7. Develop rating scale
This section focuses on the methods currently completed, which includes steps 1-4. Steps 5-7
will be discussed in section 5 (Future Work and Conclusions).
Corridor Criteria
In order to identify which type of corridor SCRS focuses on, criteria were defined. The criteria
are necessary in order to ensure that the final rating system is applied to corridors that are similar
in nature. By providing corridor criteria, credits can then be applied with equal opportunity
rather than favoring a specific type of corridor design. Corridors evaluated under SCRS will be
subject to the following established requirements:
• The term “corridor” refers only to the road only
Michelle Oswald
7
• Corridor must be local in nature
• Corridor must be within a range of 2-5 miles long
• Corridor can be proposed or existing (to be redeveloped), therefore the construction
category refers to either the development or redevelopment process, respectively.
Indicator Categories
In order to establish SCRS, indicators were developed. Indicators are used to simplify the
process of answering the question of how to reduce human impact on the environment and
protect future generations. They are a useful approach used to promote sustainable techniques
within the public and policy sectors (14). Indicator measurements eventually serve to define the
credits that make up the rating system.
The first step towards developing the indicators involves narrowing down the factors
used to assess the infrastructure under evaluation, the corridor. Five major factors were
established to assess corridors: policies, land use, usage of the corridor, infrastructure, and
construction. Policies refer to the governmental regulations that influence the corridor from a
management perspective. Land use refers to the site selection/location of the corridor and its
relation to surrounding land uses. Usage of the corridor focuses on how the corridor is utilized
by drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists. Infrastructure relates to the physical components that make
up the corridor as a whole including lanes, sidewalks, signals, and other structural aspects.
Construction focuses on the actual redevelopment or new development process of a corridor.
These five factors were analyzed based on existing LEED and Green Globes rating
systems. In order to determine the focus of existing rating systems, three established rating
systems (LEED for New Construction, LEED for Neighborhood Development, and Green
Globes New and Existing Buildings) were evaluated. These three rating systems were chosen
based on their potential relevance to a corridor rating system. The first step involved identifying
the existing credits from LEED and the existing objectives from Green Globes that were already
related to transportation to determine if they can be applied specifically to corridors.
The next step of evaluating the existing rating systems was to determine already
established credits/objectives that could be manipulated or refined in order to relate to
transportation, specifically corridor development/redevelopment. For example, in LEED ND
there is a credit titled Agricultural Land Conservation. The purpose of this credit is to avoid sites
that contain farmlands when developing neighborhoods. This credit can be reworded to relate to
corridors through the following requirements:
• Option 1: Corridor must be located on a site that contains no more than 25% prime soils,
unique soils, or soils of significant states as identified by Natural Resources Conservation
Service soil survey.
• Option 2: Corridor must be located on site that is within a designated receiving area for
development rights a under publicly administered farmland protection program that provides for
transfer of development rights from lands designated for conservation to lands designated for
development.
This rewording process was followed for the same three rating systems previously used (LEED
for New Construction, LEED for Neighborhood Development, and Green Globes for New
Buildings and Retrofits).
Once the credits/objectives that had the potential to relate to corridors were identified,
they were categorized based on the five original aspects of corridor assessment (policies, land
use, usage, construction, and infrastructure) in order to determine the focus of existing rating
Michelle Oswald
8
systems. Table 1 displays the categorization process where each credit/objective (indicated by
the credit/objective abbreviation) was placed into its relative assessment category.
The categorization process identified that existing rating systems focus on the direct
factors of infrastructure development including land use, infrastructure, and construction. The
majority of the credits fell into these three categories suggesting that these should be selected as
the focus of the corridor rating system. These results imply that policies and usage are simply
influences of the corridor and are not directly addressing the corridor as a structural entity.
Therefore, the factors used to assess corridor development for the rating system were land use,
infrastructure, and construction. These three factors will serve as the three main credit categories
for SCRS.
In addition to these three factors, a fourth category was added in reference to the structure
of a typical LEED rating system. Each LEED rating system includes a category of credits titled
Innovation and Design Process. This category is a “catch all” section meaning that projects that
go above and beyond the standard credits stated in the rating system may potentially earn points
for exceptional performance. This category also includes a credit that grants points to those
projects that involve a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP) within the design team. A
LEED AP is a professional who has successfully passed the LEED accreditation exam proving
that they are familiar with green techniques and the LEED submittal process.
With the goal of developing a tool similar to LEED, the Innovation and Design Process
was adapted as the fourth category of SCRS. Therefore the final four indicator categories that
were used to develop SCRS were land use, infrastructure, construction, and innovation/design.
Indicator Development
After developing the indicator categories, sustainable corridor indicators were established with
the knowledge that they would become the credits for SCRS.
Using established green rating systems as examples, such as LEED and Green Globes,
existing sustainability credits were utilized and manipulated to relate to corridor development as
discussed prior. For the indicator development, only two existing rating systems were selected
as examples (LEED ND and Green Globes for New Buildings and Retrofits) due to the repetition
in credits between LEED NC and LEED ND. The valuable credits that pertained to corridor
development found in LEED NC were overlapped in LEED ND, specifically within the “Green
Construction and Technology” category. In addition, findings suggest the credits in LEED ND
relate more strongly to corridor development as a whole. Therefore, only LEED ND and Green
Globes were used as references for the sustainable corridor indicators. Based on the list of
“potentially corridor-related credits” from LEED ND and Green Globes, each existing credit was
adapted and reworded to reflect corridor development/redevelopment.
In addition to the existing rating systems, sustainable implementation frameworks were
used as inputs to the indicators. The theories and concepts behind lifecycle assessment,
ecological footprint, material flow analysis, PLACE 3 S, and material intensity per service unit
were used as the fundamentals for which the indicators were developed. Therefore, each
indicator developed incorporates aspects of at least one of the implementation frameworks.
To complete the indicator development process, indicators not already established in an
existing rating system were created. These indicators were primarily based on literature review
pertaining to sustainable transportation. For example, an indicator titled Smart Signals was
developed in reference to promoting solar powered signals along the corridor. Since this
indicator is unique to corridor design, existing rating systems such as LEED ND and Green
Michelle Oswald
9
Globes did not include a credit that addressed this issue. Therefore, this corridor-specific
indicator, in addition others, was developed in order to fully address all components of corridor
development.
Figure 1 displays the methodology behind the development of the sustainable corridor
indicators. As shown, the indicators are an integration of existing sustainability programs,
implementation frameworks, and sustainable transportation literature. These three components
served as the fundamentals behind the development of the indicators.
Indicator Measurements
In order to transform the sustainable corridor indicators into credits for SCRS, measurements,
also referred to as credit requirements, were established. Since the rating system must be
applicable to a “real world” corridor project, each indicator must be measurable in the field. The
measurements enable the engineers, designers, planners and other design team members
applying for project certification, to be able to determine whether their project meets the
requirements of the individual credits. Each credit is measured in the field and if the
requirements are met, then the credit is successfully achieved.
Therefore, measurements were created for each sustainable corridor indicator. For
indicators that were originally based on an existing credit/objective in LEED ND or Green
Globes, the associated requirements were manipulated into measurements that reflect corridor
development. For example, the Agricultural Land Conservation measurement (option 1) was
manipulated to state that the corridor must be located on a site that contains no more than 25%
prime soils, unique soils, or soils of significant state as identified by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service soil survey. Therefore, the measurement required for this credit is the
percentage of prime soils, unique soils or soils of a significant state.
For the indicators that were based on sustainable transportation literature, measurements
were established based on engineering judgment and reflected the format of existing
requirements. For example, the Smart Signals indicator requires that at least 75% of all signs
and signals along the corridor must be solar powered. Therefore, the measurement of this credit
is the number of signals along the corridor that are solar powered.
After the measurements were developed for each sustainable corridor indicator, the
indicators were then referred to as credits for SCRS. For each category, a table was developed
in order to list each credit and its characteristics such as scale, type of construction
(new/existing), programs and implementation frameworks used, and the purpose of the credit.
Table 2 displays selected credits under the land use category as an example of the tables
developed for each category.
FUTURE WORK AND CONCLUSION
This section focuses on the future tasks (steps 5-7) that will be accomplished in order to
complete the research including a participatory phase and the application of a decision making
model. In addition, recommendations and implications of the rating system are discussed.
Future Methodology
Participatory Phase
After the credits are defined, a participatory phase will be held involving transportation planning
stakeholders. The purpose of the participatory phase is to prioritize the credits in order to assign
points to the credits and determine prerequisites for SCRS. To accomplish this, a survey will be
Michelle Oswald
10
developed and submitted to transportation practitioners such as members of the state Department
of Transportation and local Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The survey will include a
pairwise comparison of each credit and overall categories used to rank the credits in order of
priority.
Decision Making Model Application
The survey results of the participatory phase will serve as an input to the next step which is the
application of a decision making model. Analytical hierarchical process has been selected based
on its strengths in assigning weights, its use of pairwise comparisons, and its ability to determine
the consistency of survey responses. Using AHP, the credits will be prioritized in order to assign
points and determine prerequisites. After the credits are weighted, points will be assigned to
each and a final rating scale will be developed for SCRS.
Recommendations
Implementation of Rating System
SCRS is an example of a tool that can be utilized by private and public transportation
practitioners throughout the country. This assessment tool is capable of quantifying sustainable
practices within the transportation sector specifically related to corridor
development/redevelopment. Similar to LEED and Green Globes, this program should be
applied with the goal of promoting green building in order to reduce environmental impacts of
development.
Implications
The sustainable transportation corridor rating system developed in this research focuses on the
environmental impacts of the corridor as a structural entity. The corridor aspects of land use,
infrastructure, and construction were the three categories chosen for indicator development and
therefore does not address issues related to policies and corridor usage.
In terms of the submission requirements for each credit, the necessary documents should
be defined prior to application. The development of these documents for each credit is out of the
scope of this research. In addition, the point allocation will be strictly based on the survey results
of the participatory phase and the results of the decision making model.
Therefore, in order to verify that the points were sufficiently assigned in this research and
that the credits cover all aspects of corridor development sustainability, a pilot phase should be
implemented. Similar to the LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program, a trial period
should be utilized in order to test the performance of the rating system in the field. Based on the
results of the pilot phase, changes should be made accordingly to the rating system prior to
application.
Michelle Oswald
11
REFERENCES
1. Litman, T. and Burwell, D. Issues in Sustainable Transportation. Journal of Global
Environmental Issues, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2006, pp. 331-346.
2. Dargay, J., Gately, D., and Sommer, M. Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth Worldwide:
1960-2030. January 2007.
http://www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/gately/DGS_Vehicle%20Ownership_2007.pdf. Accessed
April 2008.
3. Jeon, C. M. and Amekudzi, A. Evaluating the Sustainability of Transportation Plans or
Scenarios using a Composite Sustainability Index in the Context of Multiple Attribute Decision
Making. CD-ROM. Proceedings of 2nd Annual Inter-university Symposium on Infrastructure
Management (AISIM), University of Delaware, Newark, June 9-10, 2006.
4. Hull, Z., Warminsko-Mazurski, U., Huanistyczny, W., Filozofii, I., and Ekofilozofii, P.
Sustainable Development: Premises, Understanding and Prospects, New York. Sustainable
Development, Vol. 16, 2007, pp. 73-80.
5. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future: The
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
6. Mega, V., and Pederson, J. Urban Sustainability Indicators. 1998.
eurofound.europa.edu/pubdocs/1998/07/en/1/ef9807en.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2008.
7. Costanza, R. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability.
Columbia University Press, New York, 1991.
8. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Towards Sustainable
Transportation. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Vancover, 1997.
9. Centre for Sustainable Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Monitor No. 1. University
of Winnipeg, Toronto, 1998, pp. 2-11.
10. Kassoff, H. Statement on Sustainable Highways. House Committee on Science and
Technology Subcommittee on Technology of Innovation, United States House of
Representatives, Washington D.C., 2007.
11. Black, W. R. Sustainable Transportation: A US Perspective. Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1996, pp. 151-159.
12. Bossel, H. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 1999.
Michelle Oswald
12
13. Ott, W.R. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor
1978.
14. Mitchell, G. Problems and Fundamentals of Sustainable Development Indicators. Leeds: The
Environmental Centre, Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, 1996, pp. 1-11.
15. O'Grady, V. A Preliminary Assessment of Green Building Practices in the United States
from a Sustainability Standpoint. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at University of
Delaware, Newark, 2007.
16. United States Green Building Council. LEED Rating Systems, 2008.
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222. Accessed April 15, 2008.
17. US Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System, 2007.
www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumnetID=2310. Accessed February 11, 2008.
18. Carmody, J. and Trusty, W. Lifecycle Assessment Tools. University of Minnesota:
InformeDesign, Implications, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2005.
19. Srinivas, H. Lifecycle Assessment: Defining Life Cycle Assessment. Undated.
www.gdrc.org/uem/lca/lca-define.html. Accessed March 11, 2008.
20. Fuller, S. Whole Building Design Guide: Lifecycle Cost Analysis. April 3, 2007.
www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php. Accessed April18, 2008.
21. Doughty, M. and Hammond, G. Sustainability and the Built Environment At and Beyond
The City Scale. Building and Environment, Vol. 39, 10, 2004, pp. 1223-1233.
22. Venetoulis, J. and Talberth, J. Ecological Footprint of Nations 2005 Update. Redefining
Progress, Oakland, 2005.
23. Srinivas, H. What is an Ecological Footprint? Undated. www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/whatis-ef.html. Accessed March, 11, 2008.
24. Litman, T. Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable
Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, 2008.
25. Santa Barbara Family Foundation. Sustainable Scale: Material Flows Analysis. 2003.
www.sustainablescale.org/conceptualframework/understandingscale/Measuringscale/Materialflo
wanalysis.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2008.
26. California Energy Commission, Oregon Department of Energy, and Washington State
Energy Office. The Energy Yardstick: Using PLACES3 to Create More Sustainable
Communities. www.energy.ca.gov//places/PLACESGB.PDF. Accessed February 22, 2008.
Michelle Oswald
13
27. Schmidt-Bleek, F. The MIPS Concept: Bridging Ecological, Economic, and Social
Dimensions with Sustainability Indicators. Zero Emissions Forum, Tokyo, 1999.
28. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in
a Complex World. Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, 1982.
29. Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Tradeoffs. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1976.
30. Zietsman, J., Knowles, W.E., Ramani, T.L., Lee, J.S., and Bochner, B.S. Sustainability
Enhancement Tool for State DOT's Using Performance Measurement. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 08-1766, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 2008, pp. 1-16.
31. Zietsman, J., Rilett, L.R., and Kim, S.J. Transportation Corridor Decision-Making with
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. International Journal of Management and Decision Making,
Vol. 7, No. 2/3, 2006, pp. 254-266.
Michelle Oswald
14
TABLES AND FIGURES
List of Tables
TABLE 1 Categorization of Transportation–Related Credits.......................................................15
TABLE 2 Land Use Credits..........................................................................................................17
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 Methodology of Indicator Development.....................................................................16
Michelle Oswald
TABLE 1 Categorization of Transportation-Related Credits
15
Michelle Oswald
16
FIGURE 1 Methodology of Indicator Development.
Michelle Oswald
17
TABLE 2 Land Use Credits
Credit
Title
Description
Source Scale New/Existing
LU1
Diversity of Uses
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect to a diversity of uses
LEED ND
Local
Both
provide access to residential development and promote connectivity at least 7 diverse uses
and mixed land use
PLACES3
LU2
Reduced Automobile Dependence
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in areas that have superior transportation accessibility through modes other than vehicular
LEED ND
Both
Both
1. develop along public transit route where 20+ reduce vehicle miles rides/weekday 2. established MPO with 80% traveled
VMT of average metropolitan region PLACES3
LU3
Smart Location
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located within existing communities that have established public transit, MPO, or is an infill site
Both
1. infill site 2. existing or planned transit service with at least 50% of businesses/ residential reduce vehicle miles have 1/2 mile access 3. MPO and home based traveled and promote Ecological Footprint
trips are less than avg annual rate 4.MPO and infill development VMT on roads within 10 mile will be lower than average annual rate
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland
LU5
Reduced Sprawl
LU6
Compact Development
LU7
Transportation Demand Management
LEED ND
LEED ND
encourage development/redevelopment of a Sustainable corridor that is located in existing communities Transport in order to reduce urban sprawl
Literature
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to areas that already have high density and promote community connectedness
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that it is located in a jurisdiction that has already an established TDM plan through MPO or local agency
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Measurement Summary
Purpose
Sustainable Framework
1. no more than 25% prime soils, 2. development rights must be provided for land preserve agricultural designated as farmland, 3. abundant farmland land and resources
region N/A
Ecological Footprint
reduce development footprint and reduce urban sprawl
Ecological Footprint
corridor must be located on infill site, previously developed or adjacent site
LEED ND
Both
Both
promote high density to reduce corridor developed on site that has density of development Ecological Footprint
seven units/acre or more
footprint and protect open space
LEED ND
Both
Both
TDM must be established for the location in reduce vehicle miles which the corridor is located and must reduce traveled
trip generation by 20% on roads
PLACES3