RATING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS:
CORRIDORS AS A CASE STUDY
by
Michelle Renee Oswald
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Civil Engineering
Fall 2008
Copyright 2008 Michelle Renee Oswald
All Rights Reserved
RATING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS:
CORRIDORS AS A CASE STUDY
by
Michelle Renee Oswald
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Sue McNeil, Ph.D.
Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Harry W. Shenton, III, Ph.D.
Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Michael J. Chajes, Ph.D.
Dean of the College of Engineering
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Debra Hess Norris, M.S.
Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the
motivation and support of my advisor, Sue McNeil. Her continued guidance has
enabled me to step beyond my boundaries and find my passion in transportation
planning.
I am also thankful for the love and dedication from my mom, my dad, my
sister, and my fiancé. Their encouragement has enabled me to continue my education
as a graduate student and to truly believe that anything is possible.
Additional thanks are due to the many individuals whose help has been
fundamental throughout this research. I appreciate the participation of the
transportation practitioners who provided their valuable input through the completion
of the research survey. I am also grateful for the support of the University of
Delaware University Transportation Center (UDUTC).
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................vii GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. ix ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................xii Chapter 1- Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem Statement..................................................................................... 3 1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Overview of Approach .............................................................................. 5 1.5 Scope ......................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Outline of the Thesis ................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2- Sustainability Concepts ................................................................................ 9 2.1 What is Sustainability? .............................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Definition of Sustainability ........................................................... 9 2.1.2 Triple Bottom Line...................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Sustainability versus Sustainable Development.......................... 12 2.1.4 Green Building and Design ......................................................... 15 2.2 Sustainable Transportation ...................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Definition of Sustainable Transportation .................................... 18 2.2.2 Relationship between Transportation and Sustainability ............ 19 2.2.3 Transportation Impacts................................................................ 20 2.2.4 Sustainable Transportation Applications .................................... 23 2.3 Measuring Sustainability ......................................................................... 28 2.3.1 Sustainable Development Indicators ........................................... 28 2.3.2 Methodology for Developing Indicators ..................................... 30 2.3.3 Sustainable Transportation Indicators......................................... 34 Chapter 3- Background On Sustainable Programs, Frameworks, and Decision
Making Models................................................................................................. 39 3.1 Green Building Programs ........................................................................ 39 3.1.1 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)......... 39 3.1.2 Green Globes Design................................................................... 42 3.2 Sustainable Implementation Frameworks ............................................... 44 3.2.1 Lifecycle Assessment .................................................................. 45 3.2.2 Ecological Footprint .................................................................... 48 iv
3.2.3 Material Flow Analysis ............................................................... 51 3.2.4 PLACE 3 S.................................................................................... 53 3.2.5 Material Intensity per Service Unit ............................................. 58 3.3 Decision Making Models ........................................................................ 60 3.3.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process ......................................................... 60 3.3.2 Multi-Attribute Utility Theory .................................................... 63 Chapter 4- Methodology and Application .................................................................... 66 4.1 Definition of Corridor Criteria ................................................................ 66 4.2 Development of Sustainable Corridor Categories, Indicators, and
Measurements.......................................................................................... 68 4.2.1 Indicator Categories .................................................................... 68 4.2.2 Indicator Development ................................................................ 74 4.2.3 Indicator Measurements .............................................................. 77 4.3 Prioritization of Credits ........................................................................... 80 4.3.1 Selection of Decision Making Model.......................................... 81 4.3.2 Participatory Phase ...................................................................... 84 4.3.3 AHP Application ......................................................................... 87 4.4 Point Designation .................................................................................... 97 4.4.1 Prerequisite Evaluation ............................................................... 97 4.4.2 Allocation of Credit Points........................................................ 102 4.5 Rating Scale Development .................................................................... 112 Chapter 5- Case Study ................................................................................................ 115 5.1 Selection of Case Study Corridor .......................................................... 115 5.2 Data Sources and Collection ................................................................. 116 5.3 SCRS Application ................................................................................. 118 5.4 Case Study Results ................................................................................ 119 5.5 Evaluation of Results............................................................................. 121 5.6 Observations .......................................................................................... 129 Chapter 6- Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 132 6.1 Implementation of Rating System Methodology .................................. 132 6.2 Implementation of SCRS....................................................................... 133 6.3 Implications of SCRS ............................................................................ 135 6.4 Future Research ..................................................................................... 136 References .................................................................................................................. 139 Appendix A. Potential Corridor Credits ..................................................................... 145 Appendix B. SCRS Credit Tables .............................................................................. 151 Appendix C. Survey Package ..................................................................................... 156 Appendix D. AHP Data Results ................................................................................. 178 Appendix E. Case Study Data .................................................................................... 182 Appendix F. SCRS Documents .................................................................................. 187 v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1-Criteria for Sustainable Issues ..................................................................... 12 Table 2.2-U.S. Emissions of Selected Transport-related Pollutants ............................ 21 Table 2.3-Green Roads Categories............................................................................... 27 Table 2.4-Sustainable Transportation Indicators by Category..................................... 35 Table 3.1-LEED ND Rating Scale ............................................................................... 42 Table 4.1-Existing Transportation Related Credits...................................................... 70 Table 4.2-Categorization of Transportation Credits..................................................... 72 Table 4.3-Sustainable Corridor Credit Examples......................................................... 80 Table 4.4-Pairwise Comparison Scale.......................................................................... 86 Table 4.5-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Non-Normalized) Synthesis data .. 94 Table 4.6-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Normalized) Synthesis .................. 96 Table 4.7-Example of Prerequisite Evaluation........................................................... 100 Table 4.8-Prerequisite Process Applied to SCRS ...................................................... 101 Table 4.9-Credit Scores Ranges and Weights for Weighted Approach ..................... 104 Table 4.10-Point Assignment based on Point Breaks for Approximate Approach.... 107 Table 4.11-Point Breaks in SCRS for Approximate Approach.................................. 108 Table 4.12-Allocation of Points for Approximate Approach..................................... 109 Table 4.13-Credit Points for Approximate Approach ................................................ 111 Table 4.14-Development of Rating Scales................................................................. 113 Table 4.15-SCRS Rating Scales ................................................................................. 114 Table 5.1-Case Study Results for LU1....................................................................... 119 Table B.1-SCRS Land Use Credits ............................................................................ 152
Table B.2-SCRS Infrastructure Credits...................................................................... 153 Table B.3-SCRS Construction Credits ....................................................................... 154 Table B.4-SCRS Innovation and Design Process Credits .......................................... 155 Table C.1-Paiwise Comparison Example....................................................................... 1
Table C.2-Land Use Credit Pairwise Comparisons........................................................ 1 Table C.3-Infrastructure Credit Pairwise Comparisons ................................................. 1 Table C.4-Construction Credit Pairwise Comparisons .................................................. 1 Table C.5-Innovation and Design Credit Pairwise Comparisons............................... 164 Table C.6-Category Pairwise Comparisons ............................................................... 165 Table E.1-Case Study Data and Results ..................................................................... 183
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-Triple Bottom Line Approach .................................................................... 11 Figure 2.2-Sustainable Development ........................................................................... 14 Figure 2.3-Relationship between Sustainable Building and Green Building............... 16 Figure 2.4-Green Building Versus Sustainable Building............................................. 17 Figure 2.5-Relationship between Transportation and Sustainability ........................... 20 Figure 2.6-Green Highway Characteristics .................................................................. 26 Figure 2.7-Relationship between Orientors and Indicators.......................................... 32 Figure 2.8-Unified Framework for Sustainability Transportation Indicators .............. 36 Figure 3.1-Percentage Weighting for Point Distribution in Green Globes Design...... 44 Figure 3.2-Lifecycle of Building Products................................................................... 46 Figure 3.3-Lifecycle Assessment Process .................................................................... 47 Figure 3.4-Ecological Footprint Areas ......................................................................... 49 Figure 3.5-Material Flow Analysis Mass Balance ....................................................... 52 Figure 3.6-Material Flow Analysis Applied to Buildings............................................ 53 Figure 3.7-Calculation of Energy Effect for Planning Alternatives............................. 55 Figure 3.8-Regional vs. Neighborhood Scale of PLACE 3 S ........................................ 57 Figure 3.9-Flow of Materials Throughout Life Span ................................................... 59 Figure 3.10-Hierarchy for Choosing the Site Location of a Corridor .......................... 63 Figure 4.1-Methodology of Indicator Development .................................................... 76 Figure 4.2-Credit Prioritization Methodology.............................................................. 83 Figure 4.3-Importance of Intensity Scale ..................................................................... 85 Figure 4.4-Sample Pairwise Comparison ..................................................................... 86 Figure 4.5-SCRS Hierarchy.......................................................................................... 88 Figure 4.6-ModelView Screen ..................................................................................... 89 Figure 4.7-Pairwise Numerical Comparison Entry Screen .......................................... 90 Figure 4.8-ModelView of Local Category and Land Use Credit Weights................... 91 Figure 5.1-Map of Case Study Location .................................................................... 115 Figure 5.2-Diverse Uses along Route 40.................................................................... 118 Figure 5.3-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results (Weighted Approach) ......... 123 Figure 5.4-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results (Approximate Approach).... 124 Figure 5.5-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results based on Upward Shift in Point
Breaks (Approximate Approach) ............................................................................... 127 Figure 5.6-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results based on Downward Shift in
Point Breaks (Approximate Approach) ...................................................................... 128 Figure C.1-Credit Measurements for SCRS Attachment ........................................... 177
Figure D.1-Land Use Local Credit Weights............................................................... 178
Figure D.2-Infrastructure Local Credit Weights ........................................................ 179 Figure D.3-Construction Local Credit Weights ......................................................... 179 Figure D.4-Innovation and Design Local Credit Weights ......................................... 179 Figure D.5-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Non-Normalized) Synthesis ...... 180 vii
Figure D.6-Global Credit Weights using Ideal (Normalized) Synthesis.................... 181 Figure F.1-SCRS Document (Option 1: Weighted Approach) .................................. 203
Figure F.2-SCRS Document (Option 2: Approximate Approach)............................. 219 viii
GLOSSARY
Approximate Approach- a user-friendly Sustainable Corridor Rating System
application that is based on an approximation of the global credit weights to assign
relative whole number points to the credits. The points assigned to each credit are
based on their rank within the point breaks.
Category- a classification that groups credits (originally indicators) in a rating system
based on a similar concern or interest related to the infrastructure under evaluation.
Credit- a sustainability indicator with a defined measurement that can be achieved by
a project team in order to determine the project’s certification level within a rating
system.
Credit Score- a value from zero to one assigned to each credit requirement that is
used to determine the final credit points by multiplying the credit score by the global
credit weight (specific to the Weighted Approach).
Credit Sensitivity Value- the maximum final credit points possible for a credit added
to the total points earned in the case study.
Final Credit Points- the value determined for each credit based on the achievement
of the credit requirements. Using the Weighted Approach, the final credit points are
determined by multiplying the credit score by the global credit weight. Using the
Approximate Approach, the final credit points have been assigned to each credit
requirement.
Global Weight- a numerical value that represents the importance of a credit after the
local category weights and local credit weights have been synthesized.
Ideal Normalized Synthesis- an analysis process that assigns the full weight of each
category to the best (highest local weight) credit for each covering category. The other
credits receive weights under each covering category, proportionate to their local
weight, and relative to the best credit under each covering category. The
weights/priorities for all the credits are then normalized on a scale of zero to one.
Indicator- a way to quantify sustainability for the infrastructure under evaluation for a
rating system, prior to defining the specific measurements of a credit.
Infrastructure Criteria- the required characteristics of the type of infrastructure
project under evaluation for a specific rating system. Projects that do not meet the
rating system’s infrastructure criteria should not be applied.
ix
Issue- a consideration that should be managed from a sustainability perspective.
Local Weight- a numerical value that represents the importance of a credit or
category prior to synthesis. The local category weights as well as the local credit
weights under a particular category both sum to one.
Measurement- the defined requirements, both qualitative and quantitative, used to
determine a project’s achievement of a credit.
Objective- a goal or purpose behind the development of a particular rating system.
Orientor- a category of concern or interest related to the infrastructure under
evaluation for a rating system.
Opinion- a perspective beyond the decision-maker’s point of view that can be used to
enhance the validity of a rating system.
Perspective- a viewpoint on a particular aspect of sustainability.
Prerequisite- a mandatory credit that must be successfully achieved by a project in
order to obtain certification in a rating system. No points are assigned to prerequisites
since they are mandatory for certification.
Prerequisite Break- a separation between prerequisites and point-based credits that is
determined when the difference between the global credit weights is greater than the
threshold of triple the average of the differences.
Point Break- a separation between credits that is determined when the difference
between the global credit weights is greater than the threshold of twice the average of
the differences (specific to the Approximate Approach).
Ranking- a credit’s position within the synthesis results based on a credit’s
importance after determining the global credit weights.
Rating Scale- a table that displays the range of total points associated to each level of
certification for a rating system.
Requirement- a credit’s measurement that can be used to determine whether a project
has met the quantitative and/or qualitative measures required.
x
Requirement Option- a credit measurement that is based on a gradation of possible
levels of achievement for that credit. Each requirement option has a specified
gradation of points/scores possible.
Shift Up- a method used for the case study sensitivity analysis where the point breaks
are shifted up in location by one credit and credits are then reassigned an adjusted
point value.
Shift Down- a method used for the case study sensitivity analysis where the point
breaks are shifted down in location by one credit and credits are reassigned an
adjusted point value.
Threshold- a limit that determines either a prerequisite break or point break. The
threshold for prerequisite breaks is triple the average of the differences between global
credit weights. The threshold for point breaks is twice the average of the differences
between global credit weights.
Total Points- the sum of all of the final credit points used to determine a project’s
certification level for a rating system.
Weighted Approach- a systematic Sustainable Corridor Rating System application
that uses the global credit weights as the maximum points available for each credit.
The final credit points are calculated by multiplying the credit scores by the global
credit weights.
xi
ABSTRACT
Interest in sustainable, “green” practices continues to rise 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. The existing rating
systems include some aspects of transportation; however, currently there is no
program that focuses on transportation investments. In addition, there is little
documentation of the development of these rating systems. This research develops a
methodology for rating systems and applies the system to transportation investments,
focusing on corridors. Transportation corridors were selected based on their essential
role of providing mobility and interaction between and within communities. The
Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS) is a “LEED for Corridors.”
The use of SCRS is intended to alter behavior and induce sustainable
transportation practices, by defining a methodology for developing green rating
systems. Focusing on corridor development in terms of land use, infrastructure, and
construction, sustainable transportation indicators were developed using similar
principles to the existing green programs (LEED for Neighborhood Development and
Green Globes) as well as drawing on 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,
3
and Environmental 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.
xii
The purpose of a green rating system is to be able to apply sustainable
concepts to the real world and to be able to quantify each credit for project
certification. Therefore, each credit must be able to be measured in the field through
individual requirements. For each credit, a set of requirements, or measurements,
have been developed and used to determine whether the project has or has not
achieved the credit. If the credit is achieved, then the associated points are granted to
that project and then summed to determine the total credit points.
In order to assign points to the credits, a participatory phase surveyed
transportation planning stakeholders to obtain a pairwise comparison of the credits.
Inputs on the relative significance of each credit were gathered in order to rank the
credits based on priority. The participatory phase used a decision making model, the
Analytic Hierarchy Process, to allocate points and evaluate prerequisites for the
program. Two approaches are used to allocate points to the credits: the Weighted
Approach, a systematic method, and the Approximate Approach, a more user-friendly
option.
A case study application assesses the applicability of SCRS in the field.
The case study site is a segment on U.S. Route 40 in Delaware. Each credit within
SCRS is evaluated using both point allocation approaches. The results of the case
study are compared in terms of their effectiveness, ease of use, repeatability, and
relevance.
SCRS is a tool that can be applied to corridor development and
redevelopment. In addition, the methodology defined in this research can be applied
universally to the development of green rating systems, similar to SCRS.
xiii
Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION
Interest in sustainable, “green” practices continues to rise throughout the
United States (Litman and Burwell, 2006). This thesis develops a methodology for
developing green rating systems and applies the methodology to transportation
corridor investments. This chapter provides background information about the
research including the motivation for this research and its significance, as well as the
problem statement. The objectives, approach, and scope of the research are then
defined. An outline of the thesis follows, providing a synopsis of the research.
1.1
Motivation
Motivation for this research stems from two areas- the need for consistent,
repeatable rating systems for sustainable investments in transportation and the
emerging emphasis on corridors as a transportation facility. These motivations are
further elaborated on.
Emphasis on sustainable practice throughout the United States is rising
(Litman and Burwell, 2006). 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) (United States Green Building
Council, 2008), and Green Globes (Energy and Environment Canada Ltd., 2004) have
been developed in order to promote eco-efficiency for and throughout various types of
1
infrastructure. The methodology behind the development of these rating systems is
ill-defined and poorly documented. Therefore, each program, although unique, is
challenging from the methodological process. In addition, 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 facilities such as corridors.
Transportation corridors play a significant role in vehicular mobility,
specifically within the United States (Williams, 2005). Projections show that by 2030
there will be 314 million vehicles owned based on an average annual growth rate of
1.1% (Dargay, Gately, and Sommer, 2007), compared to over 247 million vehicles
owned in 2005 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008). Based on the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), this growth is going to add to the peak-period
congestion which affected 28% of urban portions of the National Highway System in
1998 and is expected to affect 46% of urban portions in 2020 (FHWA, 2008). In
response, FHWA’s "Corridors of the Future" program focuses on developing
innovative national and regional approaches to address the needs of the public through
reducing congestion (FHWA, 2007). In addition to monetary costs, transportation
systems induce environmental costs as well. As drivers continue to utilize corridors
and rely on their personal vehicles as their main mode of mobility, energy
consumption and emissions will continue to impact the environment locally,
regionally, and globally (Williams, 2005).
In order to accommodate the number of vehicles on the road, corridor
development, which includes the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of
a road and its adjacent land uses, must not only satisfy the needs of the public, but also
2
adapt to the needs of the environment. Green design principles serve as a mechanism
to accommodate mobility while recognizing the challenges of the environment. A
defined methodology for applying green design principles to transportation
investments, particularly corridor development, is needed in order to reduce
environmental impacts and promote sustainability.
1.2
Problem Statement
Rating systems such as LEED and Green Globes are well established,
however, the methodology behind the development of these programs has not been
fully documented. The steps involved in developing the rating system, such as
defining the categories, developing credits, allocating points, and creating a rating
scale, are unique to each program. Therefore, a defined methodology for developing
sustainable rating systems is needed.
In terms of the application of this methodology, the transportation sector
can greatly benefit from the development of a sustainable rating system.
Transportation corridor development and 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 in the sustainability of
transportation corridors, particularly related to the land use, infrastructure, and
construction aspects, offer significant potential.
There is a gap in existing practices and recent research. Green design
programs such as LEED and Green Globes, focus on building design and more
recently, neighborhood development. Jeon and Amekudzi (2006) have evaluated
transportation systems through the development of a sustainability index with an
3
emphasis on usage of the facilities. Muench (2008) has developed a prototype green
building assessment tool, Green Roads, specifically focusing on sustainable road
design. Therefore, there is a need for a green design rating system such as a “LEED
for Corridors” that promotes corridor sustainability from a land development and
construction perspective. This rating system is necessary to alter behavior and
promote sustainable practices throughout the land use and transportation sectors.
1.3
Objectives
The objective of this research is to develop a methodology for a green
design rating system for transportation in order to promote sustainability throughout
the transportation sector. A secondary objective is to apply the methodology to
develop a Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS), similar to a “LEED for
Corridors” program. Through the development of SCRS, the methodology defines a
unique step by step process that can be applied universally to green rating systems.
The rating system reflects experience with 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 for developing the methodology for sustainable rating
systems include the following:
• Develop a documented methodology for constructing sustainable rating
systems
• Identify existing green design programs used in practice
• Identify already established sustainability implementation frameworks
4
• Extend the application of sustainable practices both spatially and
temporally to transportation infrastructure
• Expand green design programs to incorporate transportation
infrastructure
Using the defined methodology, the objectives for developing SCRS include the
following:
• Reduce environmental impacts of transportation corridor
development/redevelopment
• Identify what constitutes a sustainable transportation corridor
• Determine how green design practices can be applied to the
development/redevelopment of a transportation corridor
• Propose the use of the rating system for corridor
development/redevelopment projects
• Evaluate the rating system through application of an existing corridor
as a case study
1.4
Overview of Approach
This research is based on developing a rating system methodology that is
then applied to corridors. SCRS promotes green design practices within corridor
development/redevelopment. In practice, a methodology was developed specifically
for investments in transportation corridors and this methodology was then generalized.
In order to develop the rating system methodology and create SCRS, it was necessary
to understand basic sustainability concepts, the purpose of green design, and to
determine sustainability programs and frameworks already established. Therefore, the
methodology for developing SCRS draws on sustainability concepts illustrated in the
5
literature review (Chapter 2). These concepts are then applied to the development of
SCRS in the application section (Chapter 4), based on what constitutes a sustainable
transportation corridor. Once SCRS was complete, the rating system was evaluated
through a case study application in order to determine its suitability and applicability
to corridor projects.
The rating system methodology and SCRS are developed using the
following approach:
• Review information on sustainability, transportation impacts, and
sustainable transportation applications
• Review existing green design rating system programs, sustainable
implementation frameworks, and decision making models
• Define a methodology for developing rating systems and apply to the
development of SCRS:
o Define infrastructure criteria for the facility (corridor) under
evaluation
o Develop sustainable indicator categories
o Develop sustainable indicators
o Determine indicator measurements in order to transform
indicators into credits
o Prioritize credits based on a participatory phase and application
of a decision making model
o Designate points based on credit prioritization and determine
prerequisites if necessary
6
o Develop the rating scale to determine the minimum points
necessary to achieve certification
• Evaluate the rating system based on a case study in order to determine
applicability and suitability
1.5
Scope
The scope of this research is to develop SCRS as an assessment tool for
corridor development/redevelopment. In doing so, a methodological process was
developed for creating green rating systems. The process of developing the rating
system draws on the literature review, the participatory phase, the Analytic Hierarchy
Process synthesis, and engineering judgment. The rating system developed in this
research is intended to promote sustainable corridors through the structural inputs of
land use, infrastructure, and construction practices. Aspects of usage and policies that
influence the corridor development are not included. In addition, the submittals
(written documents justifying the achievement of credit requirements) for each credit
are not provided and are not included in the scope of this research. Also excluded is
the application of a pilot phase, where the rating system is tested on numerous projects
and further refined prior to implementation. SCRS is simply, a recommendation for a
green rating system that addresses transportation corridor sustainability from a land
use and development perspective.
1.6
Outline of the Thesis
This thesis documents the research behind the defined rating system
methodology and the development of SCRS in the following chapters:
7
• Chapter 2 describes sustainability, current transportation impacts, and
sustainable transportation applications used in the development of
SCRS based on a literature review
• Chapter 3 focuses on existing sustainable programs, implementation
frameworks, and decision making models based on a literature review
• Chapter 4 explains the rating system methodology and applies the
literature review concepts to the application of developing SCRS
• Chapter 5 describes a case study evaluation which applies SCRS to an
existing corridor project
• Chapter 6 provides recommendations and conclusions about SCRS as
well as future work to be completed
8
Chapter 2- SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS
This chapter defines sustainability and its relationship to transportation
systems based on a literature review. The impacts of transportation investments and
the use of indicators to quantify sustainability are described.
2.1
What is Sustainability?
2.1.1
Definition of Sustainability
The term sustainability has no universally accepted definition. However,
in 1987 the Bruntland Report by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (Hull et al., 2007) defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). This definition
was selected as the basis of this research, however, other definitions help provide a
better understanding of the concept and 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 sociocultural goals” (Mega and Pederson, 1998).
•
“Relationship between human economic systems and larger dynamic,
but normally slower-changing ecological systems, in which (1) human
9
life can continue indefinitely, (2) human individuals can flourish, and
(3) 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” (Costanza,
R. (ed.), 1991).
Generally, sustainability is the ability of a system to continue on an indefinite basis
typically incorporating economic, social, and environmental issues. The concept
emphasizes the integration of humans in nature and requires that human activity
remain within bounds avoiding impact on ecological systems (Litman and Burwell,
2006).
2.1.2
Triple Bottom Line
The concept of sustainability many times is narrowly viewed from an
ecological perspective focusing on issues such as pollution and resource depletion
(Litman and Burwell, 2006). A more useful approach is to look at sustainability in the
context of the triple bottom line approach, also referred to as the three pillar approach,
which requires an integrated view of environmental, social, and economic issues
(Belka, 2005). The easiest way to visualize the triple bottom line approach to
sustainability is through a Venn-diagram format where each circle represents the
environment, economic, and social perspectives. Figure 2.1 represents sustainability
in terms of the triple bottom line showing the context for specific sustainability issues.
10
Figure 2.1-Triple Bottom Line Approach (source data from CIRIA, 2008)
This multidimensional view illustrates that sustainability issues are interrelated and
are each fundamental to achieving sustainability that addresses “people, planet, and
prosperity” (Doughty and Hammond, 2004).
Within the triple bottom line perspective, each issue is associated with
individual criteria that help to define the economic, social, and environmental
implications. For instance, the economic issue relates to employment, trade, and
business activity. The social issue relates to human health, public involvement, and
community livability. The environmental issue refers to climate change, biodiversity,
and emissions. Table 2.1 categorizes the criteria for each perspective of sustainability.
11
Table 2.1-Criteria for Sustainable Issues (source data from Litman, 2008)
Economic
Productivity
Business Activity
Employment
Tax Burden
Trade
2.1.3
Social
Equity
Human Health
Community Livability
Cultural and Historical
Public Involvement
Environmental
Pollution Emission
Climate Change
Biodiversity
Habitat Preservation
Aesthetics
Sustainability versus Sustainable Development
The terms sustainability and sustainable development have been used
interchangeably throughout literature, particularly in the Bruntland Report; however
there is a distinct difference in definitions (Geerlings, 1999). Sustainability refers
generally to a system that can prolong over an infinite amount of time. Sustainable
development directly relates to the growth of human population inherently involving
economics (O'Grady, 2007). Therefore, the definition of sustainable development is
“development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Bossel, 1999). This
definition embodies the four following principles that guide sustainable development
(Zietsman et al., 2008):
1. Intergenerational Equity- equitable distribution of resources so that
future generations can enjoy a high quality of life
2. Multi-dimensional- triple bottom line approach of sustainability
focusing on social, economic, and environmental issues
3. Dynamic- necessity of adaptation in order to accommodate the
changing needs of society
12
4. Continuum- sustainable development defined through varying degrees
of sustainability rather than discrete indications of what is or is not
sustainable
For the purposes of this research, a sustainable corridor refers to the
sustainable development of a transportation corridor which incorporates the four
guiding principles. In contrast, corridor sustainability refers to a corridor that lasts
over an infinite amount of time. Therefore, this research focuses on sustainable
corridors relating to the growth of human population involving economics,
specifically transportation investments.
Litman (2008) suggests that the main goal of sustainable development
from an individual’s perspective is to maximize the efficiency with which material
wealth provides social welfare (happiness). This same correlation can be made with
increased happiness to satisfied mobility (Litman, 2008). As material wealth and
mobility increase, the more increased social welfare (happiness) is witnessed;
however, in order to maintain sustainability, the material wealth and mobility must
remain within the comfort level and may not exceed the measures of luxury to
extravagance (Litman, 2008). Therefore, the ideal target of sustainable development,
based on Litman’s (2008) correlation, includes a maximization of increased happiness
with a level of comfort in regards to material wealth and mobility. However, once
material wealth falls below the comfort level toward poverty, sustainability from a
social perspective is not achieved. The sustainable development relationship of social
welfare to increased material wealth and mobility is depicted in Figure 2.2.
13
Figure 2.2-Sustainable Development (Litman, 2008)
Sustainable development extends beyond the three multidimensional
(economic, social, and environmental) issues of sustainability. It relates to human
society through environmental, material, ecological, social, economic, legal, cultural,
political, and psychological dimensions (Bossel, 1999). For each dimension, human
society strives for sufficiency in order to obtain a high level of social welfare while
minimizing resources and environmental impacts.
Through achieving a balance between each sustainable development
dimension, restrictions can be found (Bossel, 1999). Many claim that development,
per se, cannot be sustainable and therefore, regard the term as being an oxymoron
(Doughty and Hammond, 2004). The following constraints restrict societal
development from obtaining sustainability (Zietsman et al., 2008):
• Resource Constraints –consumption of renewable resources should not
exceed the rate at which they are reproduced
14
• Ecological Constraints- waste should not enter the ecological system at
a rate faster than can be safely absorbed
• Environmental Constraints- excessive pollution can result in health
implications for humans, plants, and animals as well as induce
climate changes
Due to these constraints, some prefer the term “equilibrium engineering” to describe
development that is based on the goals of sustainability in place of the typically used
term, sustainable development (Doughty and Hammond, 2004).
2.1.4
Green Building and Design
Recently, the awareness and importance of maintaining sustainable
developments within the planning and engineering sector has led many to look toward
new and innovative ways to incorporate sustainability into their designs. The term
“green” building has been used to define environmentally friendly techniques and
technologies used in the design and construction of the built environment (O'Grady,
2007). According to O’Grady (2007), the necessity for “green building” is based on
the trends that buildings are:
• Responsible for a major portion of the human footprint on Earth
• Relatively fixed assets lasting many decades
• Rapidly growing in the U.S. both in structural size and spatial
separation
• Significant influences in transportation system design
• Influential in determining quality of life and economic vitality
Another term, sustainable building, is a simile for green building and
tends to be used interchangeably. However, sustainable building is part of the
15
development known as green building. Figure 2.3 displays the relationship between
sustainable building and green building.
Figure 2.3-Relationship between Sustainable Building and Green Building (source data from
O'Grady, 2007)
The main difference between the two terms is that the goal of green
building is not directly to achieve sustainability; instead it aims to achieve ecoefficiency (O'Grady, 2007). Eco-efficiency relates to the improvement of economic
efficiency by a factor of 10 in order to decrease the materialization impacts such as
waste, packaging, and transportation of goods (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999). Programs such
as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (United States Green
Building Council, 2008), and Green Globes (Energy and Environment Canada Ltd.,
2004) have been incorporating this concept through green building rating systems.
These rating systems will be discussed in detail in section 3.1. In contrast, sustainable
building focuses on sustainability and aims to achieve a built environment that is self-
16
sufficient resulting in net-zero structures (buildings with a net energy consumption of
zero over a typical year) and infrastructure that is self-regulating (systems that
function automatically without outside control) (O'Grady, 2007). Therefore,
sustainable building is one aspect of green building, but not all green buildings are
sustainable buildings. Figure 2.4 displays the difference between green building and
sustainable building.
Figure 2.4-Green Building Versus Sustainable Building (source data from O'Grady, 2007)
The focus of this report is mainly on sustainable development practices
and their influence on green building rating systems rather than sustainable building.
Expanding on the concept of green building, all aspects of infrastructure, not only
buildings, are incorporated in order to include the development of corridors.
17
2.2
Sustainable Transportation
2.2.1
Definition of Sustainable Transportation
Sustainable transportation refers to the transportation sector’s concept of
sustainable development (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
1997). As with the other sustainable terms, 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”
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997).
• “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 transportation mode, and
supports a vibrant economy; limits emissions and waste within the
planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes consumption of nonrenewable resources, reuses and recycles its components and
minimizes the use of land and the production of noise” (Centre for
Sustainable Transportation, 2005).
• “One in which fuel consumption, emissions, safety, congestion, and
social and economic access are of such levels that they can be
sustained into the indefinite future without causing great or
18
irreparable harm to future generations of people throughout the
world” (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004).
For the purposes of this research, the second definition is used to define sustainable
transportation due to the thorough description that embraces all aspects of
transportation. However, all of the definitions have a strong commonality where each
refers to meeting the economic, social, environmental, and mobility needs of society
(Williams, 2005). Emphasis is placed on environmental sustainability and reducing
transportation impacts on the natural system (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya, 2002).
2.2.2
Relationship between Transportation and Sustainability
Transportation is simply one aspect of achieving sustainability and is
incorporated within the layers of the economy, and the environment. Transportation
can be regulated through policy making in order to result in a more sustainable
transportation system. The regulations can encourage environmental and economic
decisions related to transportation that determine the system’s long term viability.
Figure 2.5 displays the relationship between transportation and sustainability.
19
Figure 2.5-Relationship between Transportation and Sustainability (source data from Nagurney,
2000)
2.2.3
Transportation Impacts
Transportation and mobility are fundamental to the proper functioning of
society, and therefore, necessitate viable transportation systems. In terms of
transportation growth within the United States, in 1960 there were 74.4 million
vehicles and by 2002 there were approximately 234 vehicles owned, with an average
annual growth rate of 2.8% (Dargay, Gately, and Sommer, 2007). Projections indicate
a future average annual growth rate of 1.1% and 314 million vehicles owned by 2030
(Dargay, Gately, and Sommer, 2007). In order to accommodate the number of drivers
on the road without further environmental degradation, new development techniques
are required. In addition, in order to address recent changes in typical corridor
construction, where over 90% of highway improvements are on existing corridors
rather than new facilities, new redevelopment techniques are also needed (Kassoff,
2007).
20
In addition to monetary costs, transportation systems induce
environmental costs as well. As drivers continue to utilize corridors and rely on their
personal vehicles as their main mode of mobility, emissions will continue to impact
the environment on the local, regional, and global scale (Williams, 2005). The
following pollutants have been found to have an impact on the natural system:
suspended particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, tropospheric ozone, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and
chlorofluorocarbons (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
1997). Table 2.2 displays emissions from selected transportation pollutants in 1985
and 1994.
Table 2.2-U.S. Emissions of Selected Transport-related Pollutants (source data from
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997)
These 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 health problems.
Due to these costs that result from transportation systems, many claim that
they are far from sustainable; therefore, making them unsustainable systems (Black,
21
1996). Unsustainable activity is defined as “one that cannot continue to be carried on
the way it is now without serious difficulties” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1997). Transportation is most typically related to
problems such as air pollution and climate change due to the increased dependence on
automobiles; however, there are many other reasons why current transport systems are
unsustainable (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya, 2002). The following list contains both
short and long term impacts induced by current transportation systems (Black, 1996):
1. Reliance on oil reserves which are finite
2. Petroleum-based emissions impact air quality and the environment
3. Vehicle coolants impacting the ozone shield
4. Vehicle inducing excessive injury and fatality
5. Traffic congestion
6. Stimulation of urban sprawl
7. Noise pollution
8. Structural damage due to vibration
9. Water pollution due to runoff
10. Loss of wetlands
11. Loss of open space
12. Loss of historic buildings
13. Marine pollution due to oil spills
14. Productivity losses due to accidents
15. Decreases in property value
16. National security concerns
22
These impacts are just a few of the many reasons why the current transportation
system cannot be considered a sustainable form of development.
In order to look toward more sustainable transportation systems, the
impacts associated with corridor development can be categorized into the triple
bottom line approach to sustainability. Each impact can be manipulated and divided
into economic, social, and environmental issues, building on the criteria listed in Table
2.1. For example, traffic congestion can be considered a transportation impact which
increases travel time, resulting in a loss of productivity. Therefore, traffic congestion
falls under at least one category of the triple bottom line approach, the economic issue.
These sustainable impacts can be used to develop indicators that constitute a
sustainable transportation system. The development of these sustainability indicators
are discussed further in section 2.3.1.
2.2.4
Sustainable Transportation Applications
The understanding that current transportation systems rely heavily on
corridors and their development, encourages planners and engineers to look toward
ways to reduce the environmental, economic, and social impacts. By having a greater
awareness of the impacts, new development techniques can be implemented to ensure
the ability of future generations to support their own mobility needs. Although it is
more sustainable not to support usage of personal vehicles and development of
corridors, the goal of “green” transportation is to find ways to promote eco-efficiency
within the system. By minimizing the impacts, transportation corridors can become
more sustainable and promote more eco-efficient ways to use the system.
23
Shiftan, Kaplan, and Kakkert (2003) identified nine sustainable
transportation development goals divided into three main categories of economic,
environmental, and social goals:
• Environmental Goals
1. Reductions in air pollution and noise from road vehicles
2. Preservation of open land
3. Protection of wildlife and natural habitats
• Economic Goals
1. Energy savings
2. Minimizing the costs of transportation infrastructure
3. Travel time savings
• Social Goals
1. Improvement of accessibility to employment, cultural activities,
and open land areas
2. Maximization of the availability of public transport to the
population
3. Increasing road safety by decreasing the number of road
accidents and their severity
Many times the individual goals overlap issues forcing an interrelationship between
sustainability issues, consistent with Figure 2.1 (Shiftan, Kaplan, and Hakkert, 2003).
This interrelationship becomes more apparent as these goals are divided into separate
indicators for the sustainable transportation rating system. These goals serve as the
basis for sustainability indicators. Each indicator developed in SCRS applies to at
24
least one of the three sustainability goals. This is the basis for the sustainable
indicator development (section 4.2.2).
One initiative that has begun to connect sustainable techniques and
transportation infrastructure is the Green Highways Partnership (2007). The
partnership is a voluntary, public/private initiative that specifically targets highway
infrastructure. Their main goal is to “incorporate environmental streamlining and
stewardship into all aspects of highway lifecycle” through the use of market-based
rewards, integrated planning, and regulatory flexibility (Green Highways Partnership,
2007). In order to define what constitutes a “green highway,” they have composed a
list of “green highway characteristics” shown in Figure 2.6 (Green Highways
Partnership, 2007).
25
Figure 2.6-Green Highway Characteristics (Green Highways Partnership, 2007)
This list of characteristics serves as a reference for developing the
sustainable corridor indicators in this research. Since SCRS is a rating system, the
principles behind the characteristics were used to develop related credits that can be
measured in the field.
26
Similar to the goals of the Green Highways Partnership, a proposed rating
system specific to roads, Green Roads, quantifies sustainability. The Green Roads
rating system focuses on sustainable practices related to road design and construction
(Muench, 2008). Currently, the rating system is under development and is not for use,
however, case studies have been applied under the Washington State Department of
Transportation (Muench, 2008). Green Roads is based on the format of green building
rating systems where credits are used to measure the level of sustainability of road
projects. The credits are divided into categories which are displayed in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3-Green Roads Categories (Muench, 2008)
Each category represents a different aspect of sustainable road design. The categories
and credits in Green Roads serve as examples for developing the sustainable corridor
indicators for SCRS.
27
In contrast to Green Roads, SCRS serves as a sustainable rating system
focusing on corridor development/redevelopment, including not only road design, but
also the assessment of adjacent land uses. Therefore, SCRS addresses both elements
of corridor projects: road construction and land development of the surrounding area.
For example, SCRS includes an assessment of public transit accessibility which
extends beyond road design. It requires the development of adjacent land uses along
the road and planning of transit facilities.
In addition to creating SCRS, the main focus of this research is to define a
methodology for creating sustainable rating systems. The methodology behind the
rating systems is extremely valuable and can serve as a universal process to
developing a sustainable rating system similar to SCRS, or Green Roads. The
methodology is discussed in Chapter 4 including the pairwise comparison survey and
point allocation process using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
2.3
Measuring Sustainability
2.3.1
Sustainable Development Indicators
Due to the vast amount of information available regarding social,
environmental, and economic issues in sustainable development, indicators are used to
facilitate ordering this information. 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” (Ott, 1978). Indicators
provide orientation, or direction, for measuring sustainability amongst its many
complexities (Bossel, 1999). In terms of sustainability, indicators simplify the process
of answering the question of how to reduce human impact and protect future
28
generations. Sustainable development indicators are a useful tool that can be used to
promote sustainable techniques within the public and policy sectors (Mitchell, 1996).
Therefore, sustainable transportation indicators are used as a way to quantify
sustainability related to corridor development/redevelopment.
When related to the transportation systems, sustainable development
indicators must hold two distinct requirements (Bossel, 1999):
1. Provide information that paints a picture of the current state and
corresponding viability of the transportation system
2. Provide sufficient information about the transportation systems
contribution to the performance of other systems that depend on them
In addition to these requirements, “good” indicators separate out the
policy aspects from their outcomes (Litman, 2008). For example, a set of bad
indicators would address both promoting hybrid vehicles (policies) and air quality
levels (outcomes) within the same rating system (Litman, 2008). Therefore, indicators
must be a simple, justifiable, and precise subset of observations that inform decisions
and direct actions (Brugmann, 1997). Some of the principles that determine “good”
indicators of transportation systems have been gathered by Litman (2008) and are
listed below:
• Comprehensive- indicators should reflect various economic, social,
and environmental impacts and various transport activities
• Data quality- data collection practices should reflect high standards to
insure that information is accurate and consistent
29
• Comparable- data collection should be standardized so the results are
suitable for comparison between various jurisdictions, times and
groups
• Easy to understand- indicators must be useful to decision-makers and
understandable to the general public
• Accessible and Transparent- indicators and analysis details should be
available to all stakeholders
• Cost effective- the suite of indicators should be cost effective to collect
and the decision making worth of the indicators must outweigh the
cost of collecting them
• Net Effects- indicators should differentiate between net (total) impacts
and shifts of impacts to different location and times
• Performance targets- select indicators that are suitable for establishing
usable performance targets
2.3.2
Methodology for Developing Indicators
Proper selection of effective indicators is fundamental to the success of an
index or rating system. A general procedure must be followed when finding
appropriate indicators. Bossel (1999) has developed four main steps for going from a
total system to individual indicators and implementing them into the participatory
process. The four main steps are (Bossel, 1999):
1. Understand, conceptually, the entire system
2. Identify representative indicators
3. Quantify basic orientor satisfaction
4. Conduct a participative process
30
The first step, understanding the total system, is fundamental to the
viability of the orientors and indicators that will later be developed. The second step,
identify the representative indicators, has its own sub-steps, which are discussed
below. Within these sub-steps, representative indicators must be chosen from the vast
number of potential candidates (Bossel, 1999). The third step requires a prioritization
of the indicators in order to translate indicator information into orientor satisfaction.
The final step requires input through external opinions in order to counterbalance the
choices and decisions made by the person who developed the indicators. By having
appropriate outside reviewers, a wide range of knowledge, experience, mental models,
and social/environmental concerns can be brought forward (Bossel, 1999).
As stated, the relationship between the total system, orientors, and
indicators must be established. Prior to developing indicators, total system and
subsystem orientors must be selected in order to focus on the indicator measurements
that directly relate to the system. Figure 2.7 shows the hierarchical relationship
between total system basic orientors, subsystem basic orientors, and system indicators.
31
Figure 2.7-Relationship between Orientors and Indicators (Bossel, 1999)
This figure displays the dependence between indicators and the orientors of the system
and subsystem. From the orientors, the sustainable indicators are defined and
eventually prioritized based on orientor satisfaction. The total sustainable
development system is applied to SCRS through the classification of four subsystem
orientors (referred to as categories): land use, infrastructure, construction, and
innovation/design (section 4.2.1).
After selection of the orientors (categories), a specific procedure for
defining the indicators must be followed. Mitchell (1996) has developed a
methodology, specific to sustainable development, for finding appropriate indicators
for the total system. The methodology is as follows:
1. Define the rating system objectives, specifying the purpose of the
indicators and their user group
2. State what is known in terms of sustainable development by specifying
sustainable development definitions and principles that can be applied
3. Define issues that are important on a local and global level
32
4. Match indicator properties to the types of users and objectives of the
rating system
5. Evaluate indicators against desirable characteristics and rating system
objectives
Once these steps have been followed it is important to simplify the results
through reducing the number of indicators down to a manageable set. Typically it is
found that a large number of indicators result when answering the assessment
questions, characterizing all aspects of the total system. Therefore, it is necessary to
condense the indicator set as much as possible without losing any essential
information (Bossel, 1999). There are many techniques that can be followed when
trying to condense the indicator set down to a minimum. Bossel (1999) has
determined seven major ways to go about this important step:
• Aggregation- combine indicators based on the highest level of
relationship as possible
• Condensation- locate an appropriate indicator that represents the
ultimate cause of a particular problem in order to negate intermediate
indicators
• Weakest-link approach- identify weakest links in the system and define
appropriate indicators without focusing on components that may be
vital but hold no immediate threat
• Basket average- define an index that provides an average reading of the
situation in order to take the place of several indicators that all
represent somewhat different aspects of one issue
33
• Basket minimum- adopt a particular orientor based on its performance
at the time of analysis as the representative indicator and use its
related indicators
• Representative indicator-identify the variable that provides reliable
information that is characteristic of a whole complex situation
• Subject viability assessment- use a summary subjective viability
assessment if little quantitative data is available
These possibilities may be used in combination to even further reduce the indicator set
as necessary.
Once the indicators have been condensed into a simplified yet thorough
set, they should be reviewed based on basic principles that determine “good”
indicators. The characteristics of good indicators should be applied to each indicator
in order to further refine and manage the indicator set. Once the indicators are
finalized, the rating system is ready for implementation and application.
2.3.3
Sustainable Transportation Indicators
Sustainable transportation indicators are a combination of the aspects of a
transportation system with the economic, environmental, and social issues of
sustainability. Examples of potential indicators for sustainable transportation have
been developed by Litman (2008) and organized based on the economic, social,
environmental categories of sustainability. Economic indicators refer to a
community’s progress toward economic objectives including wealth, employment,
productivity, social welfare, and increased income (Litman, 2008). Social indicators
relate to human health, equity, community livability, community cohesion, cultural
resources, and aesthetics (Litman, 2008). Environmental indicators encompass
34
impacts such as noise, air, water pollution, depletion of nonrenewable resources,
habitat fragmentation, hydrologic disruptions, heat island effects, wildlife deaths due
to collision, and other land use effects (Litman, 2008). Table 2.4 displays examples of
sustainable transportation indicators and are organized by the sustainability categories.
Table 2.4-Sustainable Transportation Indicators by Category (source data from Litman, 2008)
These example indicators refer to the entire transportation system and are simply
representative of the types of indicators that can be measured within the transportation
system.
In addition to Litman (2008), Jeon and Amekudzi (2005) synthesized their
own list of sustainable transportation indicators from a usage perspective. The
35
indicators were drawn from 16 different sustainability initiatives used both in practice
and in research (Jeon and Amekudzi, 2005). Similar to Litman (2008), the indicators
were organized into the following categories: transportation-related, economic,
environmental, and socio-cultural/equity-related, suggesting that an effective initiative
must include all four aspects.
Each sustainable transportation indicator developed can be assessed under
the unified framework developed by Jeon and Amekudzi (2005). The unified
framework consists of three axes each devoted toward three major questions that
should be asked when analyzing the individual indicators. Figure 2.8 displays the
unified framework used to help develop, as well as analyze the importance of each
indicator.
Figure 2.8-Unified Framework for Sustainability Transportation Indicators (source data from
Jeon and Amekudzi, 2005)
36
As shown, each axis (x, y, and z) relates to a scale of the influence, the input/outcome,
and the impact the indicators have on the system. More specifically, the following
questions should be posed toward each indicator in order to determine its relationship
in the unified framework. The questions are as follows:
1. Influence- What level of influence does the agency have over
this indicator?
2. Input/Outcome - Is the indicator an input or outcome of the
system?
3. Impact- What is the relative impact of this indicator on
achieving system sustainability?
Understanding the indicators from this unified framework organizes the
interrelations among the indicators and helps to identify whether indicators reflect a
system control approach versus a system monitoring approach. A system control
approach would include indicators that are inputs into the system, have a high impact
on sustainability, and greatly influence agency responsibilities. In contrast, a system
monitoring approach would typically include indicators that are outcomes of the
system, have a low impact on sustainability, and have a low influence on agency
responsibilities.
Generally, the unified framework provides a visual assessment of
sustainable transportation indicators from a user’s perspective. It can help in
developing and assessing the indicators as well as guide the application approach.
Using these indicators and their unified framework, Jeon and Amekudzi
(2006) developed a composite sustainability index as an effective decision making
tool for general transportation planning. Performance measures were defined,
37
focusing predominantly on the usage of transportation facilities. Multi-Attribute
Utility Theory (MAUT) (section 3.3.2), was used to assign weights to the measures in
order to create a comprehensive index (Jeon and Amekudzi, 2006). A composite
sustainability index was then applied to the Atlanta Metropolitan region to assess the
future of regional sustainability plans (Jeon, Amekudzi, and Guensler, 2007). Again,
the performance measures focus on the environmental impacts from a user’s
perspective such as emissions, safety, and vehicle miles traveled.
The methodology behind SCRS reflects a similar process to the one Jeon
and Amekudzi (2006) used to develop their index; however, the focus is on corridor
development/redevelopment rather than usage of transportation facilities. The
sustainable corridor indicators are based on land use, infrastructure, and construction
impacts on the environment. In addition, SCRS reflects the format of existing green
building rating systems rather than a general sustainable index.
38
Chapter 3- BACKGROUND ON SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS, FRAMEWORKS, AND DECISION
MAKING MODELS
This chapter focuses on the existing programs, frameworks, and models
that are drawn on to develop a methodology for sustainable rating systems in general,
and for SCRS in particular. 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 Analytic
Hierarchy Process and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, are reviewed as ways to
prioritize sustainability indicators.
3.1
Green Building Programs
3.1.1
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 (O'Grady, 2007). LEED
is currently made up of nine programs each referencing a different type of green
building infrastructure. 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
39
planners with the tools necessary to have immediate and measurable impacts on their
building/neighborhood performance (United States Green Building Council, 2008). In
terms of government involvement, at least 25 states have mandated LEED for public
buildings and over 48 cities have mandated that LEED should be applied to all new
building projects (O'Grady, 2007).
The information required by the rating systems is gathered by committees
that adhere to the USGBC policies and procedures used to guide development (U.S.
Green Building Council, 2007). The rating systems are market-driven, and formulated
using accepted energy and environmental principles that encompass both established
and innovative practices (U.S. Green Building Council, 2007). 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.
One particularly new program that incorporates green building with
communities, LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND), is currently in its
pilot phase where up to 120 projects have been selected to take part in the trial period.
It was developed by the USGBC in collaboration with the Congress for the New
Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The goal of this program is to
certify exemplary neighborhood development projects that incorporate aspects of
smart growth, green building, and new urbanism in order to improve land use patterns
(U.S. Green Building Council, 2007). The purpose of the pilot phase is to ensure
practicality and effectiveness of the rating system prior to being released. The LEED
40
for Neighborhood Development Core Committee assesses the results of the pilot
program and then makes necessary changes to the rating system as appropriate.
LEED ND is sectioned into four categories of credits, each focusing on a
different aspect of neighborhood design. The four categories are as follows: Smart
Location and Linkage, Neighborhood Pattern and Design, Green Construction and
Technology, and Innovation and Design Process. The Smart Location and Linkage
category focuses on land use preservation, particularly high priority areas such as
wetlands, floodplains, brownfields, and farmland. It also addresses habitat
preservation and protection of imperiled species and ecological communities. The
Neighborhood Pattern and Design category refers to the density and structure of the
community layout. The credits focus on accessibility within the development through
implementation of multimodal facilities and interconnected street networks. The
Green Construction and Technology category focuses on reducing environmental
impacts during the construction phase of development or redevelopment. Aspects
such as reducing the amount of virgin material produced and minimizing site
disturbance are addressed. The final category, Innovation and Design Process, is a
“catch all” section that allows for projects to earn credits for exemplary performance
that goes above and beyond the requirements listed in the rating system. It also
provides the opportunity for projects to earn an extra point for having a LEED
Accredited Professional (a professional who has successfully passed the LEED
accreditation exam) on the design team.
The maximum total number of points that can be acquired for this rating
system is 106 points. Table 3.1 displays the breakdown of points required for project
certification, silver, gold, and platinum ratings.
41
Table 3.1-LEED ND Rating Scale (source data from U.S. Green Building Council, 2007)
If a project receives the certified rating, it is understood that the development has
successfully achieved the goal of offering their residents accessibility, a convenient
location, and green technology, while minimizing environmental impacts. The silver,
gold, and platinum ratings are awarded when the project exceeds the certification
standards and earns additional credits, signifying a viable “green” community.
3.1.2
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) (Carmody and Trusty, 2005). Currently a few states,
such as Maryland and Arkansas, accept the “Green Globes” rating system (O'Grady,
2007).
Green Globes Design for New Buildings and Retrofits, developed in 2004,
is an online green building tool. The main goals of the program include the following
(Energy and Environment Canada Ltd., 2004):
• Evaluate energy and environmental performance of buildings
• Encourage peer reviews of design and management practices
• Increase awareness of environmental issues among building owners,
designers, and managers
42
• Provide action plans for improvement at varying stages of project
delivery
• Provide certification and awards for green building design and
management.
The 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 and
currently focuses on new/existing buildings (Energy and Environment Canada Ltd.,
2004). 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 (Energy
and Environment Canada Ltd., 2004). 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.
The Green Globes Design program is based on seven assessment areas,
each focusing on a different aspect of green building. The seven areas include: Project
Management, Site, Energy, Water, Resources, Emissions/Effluents/Other Impacts, and
Indoor Environment (Energy and Environment Canada Ltd., 2004). The points are
divided into the seven areas and are weighted based on priority, represented by
individual percentage scores. The percentage scores used for the point distribution are
shown in Figure 3.1.
43
Figure 3.1-Percentage Weighting for Point Distribution in Green Globes Design (Building Green,
LLC, 2005)
As shown in the pie chart, priority is given toward energy usage and indoor
environment objectives. The program is geared toward energy efficiency through
renewable sources and efficient transportation, as well as controlling indoor air quality
through adequate ventilation systems.
In general, the Green Globes Design rating system has a broader scope
than LEED and is somewhat hard to compare due to the differences in organization
and usage. Due to Green Globes being privatized, the opportunity for public
involvement is extremely limited. However, the fact that the program is altered in
relation to the applicability of the project allows for a more accurate assessment of
“green” practices.
3.2
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
44
in practice. These frameworks serve as inputs into SCRS through the development of
the individual sustainability indicators.
3.2.1
Lifecycle Assessment
Achieving sustainable design requires a 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, usage, and disposal” (Srinivas,
n/d). The main goal of this framework is to assess the environmental performance of a
product over its entire lifecycle (Carmody and Trusty, 2005). When applying LCA to
a study, the following four linked components should be followed (Srinivas, n/d):
• Goal definition and scoping
• Lifecycle inventory
• Impact analysis
• Improvement analysis
Goal definition and scoping begins with the identification of the lifecycle assessment
purpose and determination of the boundaries and assumptions followed throughout the
assessment. Lifecycle inventory is the first main implementation step which involves
quantifying the material production process through energy/raw material inputs and
environmental releases. In terms of building production, there are six stages of
material production which refer to the process that raw materials undergo from start
(resource extraction) to finish (recycle/reuse/disposal). The six stages of building
material production are shown in Figure 3.2.
45
Figure 3.2-Lifecycle of Building Products (Fuller, 2007)
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. In addition to the
production steps, the transport of the materials may impact the lifecycle of the product
and can vary based on the duration of transport, mode choice, and special
requirements such as refrigeration.
The third step, impact analysis, is based on an assessment of the impacts
that energy and raw material inputs have on the environment and human health. The
impacts should be evaluated through quantification rather than a qualitative
assessment. This way the individual steps can be compared and prioritized based on
the total impact induced on the environment and human health. Once prioritized the
next step, improvement analysis, should be performed.
The final step, improvement analysis, involves finding ways to reduce
energy inputs, environmental impacts, and material inputs at each major step of the
46
production phase (Srinivas, n/d). The major steps should be evaluated for ways to
reduce impacts and minimize the amount of virgin material required. Figure 3.3
displays a sample evaluation of the steps followed during raw material production.
Figure 3.3-Lifecycle Assessment Process (Srinivas, n/d)
For each major production step, there are examples of how to reduce impacts to the
environment and human health. For example, for the distribution step, options such as
maximizing transport efficiency through the use of low-pollution vehicles for delivery
are evaluated. This can minimize the amount of emissions released during transport
and, in turn, reduce the effects of global warming.
47
In general, LCA follows the production and process of goods over its full
lifecycle. The previous four steps aid in the quantification of the environmental
impacts of material and energy inputs. However, it is important to note that LCA
holds limitations in terms of uncertainty (Carmody and Trusty, 2005). Due to the
uncertainty of building life and usage duration, material impacts are projected based
on an approximation. The time of demolition is typically unknown, therefore, the time
of occupancy is assumed causing a large uncertainty related to material impact
(Carmody and Trusty, 2005). When assessing a product’s lifecycle it is necessary to
take the uncertainties into account when projecting future material impacts.
3.2.2
Ecological Footprint
In recent years, ecological footprint has become a popular way of
analyzing sustainability, specifically in North America and Europe (Doughty and
Hammond, 2004). 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 (Venetoulis and Talberth, 2005). It measures the
population’s demand on nature using the single metric of global area biocapacity
(Venetoulis and Talberth, 2005). 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”
(Srinivas, n/d). For example, it measures the amount of farmland needed to provide
food, or the amount of forest needed to provide wood and paper (Litman, 2008).
Using this measurement, a sustainable ecological footprint is achieved
when the population’s footprint is smaller than the available biocapacity. However,
48
when the footprint is larger, it is said to hold a negative ecological balance (Venetoulis
and Talberth, 2005). Therefore, the goal is to minimize the ecological footprint as
much as possible in order to reduce ecological impacts on the five ecological areas
(Best Foot Forward, 2005):
• Bioproductive land- land for crop production, grazing, timber, etc.
• Bioproductive sea- sea area that provides fish and seafood
• Energy land- ‘new’ forest needed for the absorption of carbon
emissions to stabilize CO2 levels in atmosphere
• Built land- land for buildings and roads
• Biodiversity- area of land or water needed to be set aside to preserve
biodiversity
Figure 3.4 displays the interrelationship between these five areas that make up the
ecological footprint.
Figure 3.4-Ecological Footprint Areas (Best Foot Forward, 2005)
49
The ecological footprint analysis requires several calculations based on
the nation’s footprint. The nation’s footprint is evaluated using statistics that track
consumption and translate the amount of biologically productive water and land area
needed to produce the resources consumed (Venetoulis and Talberth, 2005).
However, since aspects of ecological footprint affect areas throughout the entire
world, such as pollution, the footprint includes the sum of all these areas (Venetoulis
and Talberth, 2005).
The ecological footprint analysis is based on many assumptions. The term
consumption relates specifically to the four main categories determined by Rees and
Wackernagel: energy use, built environment, food, and forestry products (Doughty
and Hammond, 2004). The consumption of a population may extend beyond these
four types; however, the founders limited the term consumption to these four. In
addition, there are five major assumptions that oversee all of the calculations related to
ecological footprint. The assumptions are as follows (Venetoulis and Talberth, 2005):
1. Official statistics typically hold the information necessary to keep
track of most of the resources people consume and many of the wastes
people generate.
2. The resource and waste flows can be converted into the biologically
productive area that is required to maintain the flows.
3. Different areas can be expressed in either hectares or acres (similar
units) once they are scaled proportionally to their biomass
productivity. Therefore, each acre can be translated into an equivalent
area of world average land productivity.
50
4. Due to each standardized acre representing the same amount of
biomass productivity, a total representing human’s demand can be
determined by adding up the number of standardized acres.
5. Since it is possible to assess the area on the planet that is biologically
productive, the area for total human demand can be compared to
nature’s supply of ecological services.
In terms of sustainability, ecological footprint is a valuable framework for measuring
the area of human impact on natural resources and services (Venetoulis and Talberth,
2005). Depending on the different types and quantity of natural resources consumed
by a population, the size of the ecological footprint will vary (Srinivas, n/d).
Influences such as lifestyle choices, technology, and income levels will affect a
population’s consumption and therefore, have an indirect impact on the footprint.
Ecological footprint analysis provides both, the quantitative measure of total area
impacts, as well as a population’s consumption resulting from influential human
factors.
Today, humanity’s ecological footprint is over 23% larger than what the
planet can regenerate (Litman, 2008). This converts to more than one year and two
months required to regenerate what humans use in a single year (Litman, 2008).
Therefore, this necessary framework can be used throughout the world in order to
reduce the footprint and decrease the time required for regeneration.
3.2.3
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
51
and energy as a mass balance using basic laws of thermodynamics (Santa Barbara
Family Foundation, 2003). Figure 3.5 shows the mass balance relationship between
the inputs and outputs of the material flow analysis.
Figure 3.5-Material Flow Analysis Mass Balance (source data from Santa Barbara Family
Foundation, 2003)
The mass balance relationship, where the inputs into a system must always equal the
outputs, means that nothing is lost within the process. Extractions and imports are
either converted to consumption, export, accumulation, or waste.
MFA was developed in Europe and since has been adopted as a
methodology for sustainable development (Santa Barbara Family Foundation, 2003).
The main goal of the framework is to maximize human welfare while simultaneously
minimizing the flow of materials generated. The strengths of the framework include
the following (Santa Barbara Family Foundation, 2003):
• Quantifies the linkage of environmental problems and human activities
• Serves as a systems-wide diagnostic procedure related to
environmental problems
• Provides for monitoring the efficacy of environmental problems
• Detects problems between shifting regions and sectors
• Can be applied at different levels of economic activity
52
Typically MFA is performed on a national or regional scale in order to
determine a nation’s natural assets and ecological services (O'Grady, 2007).
However, MFA can theoretically be implemented on a municipal or local level. On an
even smaller scale, the framework can be applied to neighborhoods or specific
infrastructure such as “green” buildings. Figure 3.6 displays how material flow
analysis can be applied to infrastructure such as green buildings.
Figure 3.6-Material Flow Analysis Applied to Buildings (source data from O'Grady, 2007)
Based on this application, material flow analysis can be applied
successfully on a national level as well on a systems level. Therefore, this sustainable
implementation framework can be used to determine the flow of materials and energy
through the economic activity of corridor development. In terms of a corridor, the
main goal would be to maximize mobility while minimizing the flow of materials
required for development of the roadway.
3.2.4
PLACE 3 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 (California Energy Commission et al., 1996). PLACE 3 S, for the
53
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 (California
Energy Commission et al., 1996):
• 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 which include the following (California Energy
Commission et al., 1996):
1. Public participation- stakeholders must be committed and fully
engaged to the principles of sustainability and collaborative planning
2. Planning and design- the planning and design principles must represent
the community’s values and vision of sustainability for the future
3. Measurement- quantitative documentation must be provided of the
economic, energy, and environmental impacts used to support the
planning decisions before they are implemented
In terms of the energy efficiency measures, PLACE 3 S covers five major
categories including transportation, landform/microclimate, land-use/site design,
infrastructure efficiency, and on-site energy resources (California Energy Commission
et al., 1996). Transportation includes measurements of multimodal networks,
54
pavement minimization, and reduced parking footprint. Landform/microclimate
measures topography, vegetative cooling, wind buffering, and evaporative cooling.
Land use/site design focuses on density, mixed uses, pedestrian accessibility, transit
accessibility, solar orientation, and activity concentration. Infrastructure efficiency
measures water supply and usage, storm drainage, wastewater collection, traffic
signalization, recycling facilities, and street lighting. Lastly, on-site energy resources
include geothermal, wind, solar power, biomass, thermal storage, fuel cell power,
groundwater, and surface water.
These energy categories are used to simplify the energy inputs that go into
a calculation used to assess the community’s plan. The calculation is based on four
neighborhood criteria: housing, employment, transportation, and infrastructure and
their energy demands resulting from each of the energy categories listed above. Each
criteria is evaluated based on the gross, efficiency, net, and on-site energy demands
and is used to compare alternative plans. Figure 3.7 displays the calculation of energy
effect on planning alternatives.
Figure 3.7-Calculation of Energy Effect for Planning Alternatives (California Energy
Commission et al., 1996)
55
On the right side of the figure, the plan components are being assessed based on
energy measurements. The left side of the figure results in data used to contrast with
other alternative plans.
This calculation approach to the PLACE 3 S method can be applied both to
the local (neighborhood) level as well as to the regional level. At the local level,
PLACE 3 S looks toward planning opportunities on a more detailed scale focusing on
street design, infill planning, transit accessibility, greenfield development, and other
more localized inputs. In contrast, the regional level focuses on more broad aspects
such as land use, air pollution, economic development, and other factors that cross
over local boundaries. Figure 3.8 displays the relationship between the neighborhood
and regional approach to PLACE 3 S.
56
3
Figure 3.8-Regional vs. Neighborhood Scale of PLACE S (California Energy Commission et al.,
1996)
This figure shows that the neighborhood level is a sub-region within the regional
level. For each scale, there are three scenarios applied: business-as-usual, advanced
alternative, and preferred alternative. Business-as-usual refers to the future conditions
(typically 20 years from now) if no policy changes are made to the current system
(California Energy Commission et al., 1996). The advanced alternative is the scenario
that fully optimizes energy efficiency and provides both economic and environmental
benefits (California Energy Commission et al., 1996). In general, the preferred
alternative is chosen based on a variety of factors including monetary cost, cost to the
environment, and implementation feasibility. The purpose of PLACE 3 S is to aid in
57
the decision making of which alternative is more profitable from an energy and cost
standpoint.
3.2.5
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
(Schmidt-Bleek, 1999). MIPS quantifies the material intensity required through the
process from extraction to waste (O'Grady, 2007). The measurement can be utilized
toward conceptualizing sustainability in terms of inputs and outputs over a material’s
life span. Similar to the six step LCA process for building materials, Schmidt-Bleek
(1999) identifies seven major steps that general materials undergo throughout their life
span in which the MIPS can be measured: resource extraction, manufacturing,
transport, packaging, operating, re-use, recycling, re-manufacturing, and final waste
disposal. The flow and relationship between these steps is shown in Figure 3.9.
58
Figure 3.9-Flow of Materials Throughout Life Span (source data from Schmidt-Bleek, 1999)
For each step within the material process there are associated energy inputs which are
counted as material “fluxes” (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999). Each material holds a service,
or energy units, a total number of units of service delivered by the product during its
lifetime. This actual service unit can be compared to the expected total number of
service units that the product might supply over its lifetime in order to compare energy
efficiency (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999).
MIPS can also be termed “eco-intensity” and is the inverse measure of
resource productivity (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999). The two terms both refer to a material
undergoing the processes that take place from cradle to grave as well as looking at the
ecological rucksacks of all materials. Ecological rucksacks are the “total quantity of
natural material that is disturbed in its natural setting and thus considered a total input
59
in order to generate a product counted from the cradle to the point when the product is
ready for use, minus the weight of the product itself” (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999). A
rucksack factor is used to quantify the sum of total materials utilized during this
process (Schmidt-Bleek, 1999).
In relation to transportation, MIPS can be applied specifically to materials
used to develop and construct a corridor. The processes that the transportation
materials, such as pavement or concrete, undergo can be quantified using the MIPS
measurement.
3.3
Decision Making Models
Decision making models such as Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multi-
Attribute Utility Theory are tools that can be used to prioritize components of complex
decisions. The application of a decision making model is a necessary step in the
development of rating systems, such as SCRS. The selected model can be used to
prioritize credits and allocate points based on the credit’s importance to sustainable
development.
3.3.1
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty (1982) is a
method used to simplify complex decision making processes (Leskinen, 2000). 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” (Saaty, 1982). Due to the difficulty of
60
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. This enables the comparison between elements on different scales such
as apples to oranges, for example.
There are many advantages to using AHP as a model for problem solving
and decision making (Saaty, 1982). Each advantage of the model strengthens the
hierarchical process developed. The ten advantages identified by Saaty (1982) are
described in detail:
1. Unity- AHP is a single, easily understood, flexible model that can be
used for a variety of unstructured problems
2. Complexity- AHP integrates deductive and system approaches in
solving complex problems
3. Interdependence- AHP deals with the interdependence of elements in a
system without focusing on linear thinking
4. Hierarchic Structuring- AHP reflects the natural tendency of the
human mind to sort elements of a system into different levels and to
group similar elements in each level
5. Measurement- AHP provides a scale for measuring intangibles and a
method for establishing priorities
6. Consistency- AHP tracks the logical consistency of judgments used in
determining priorities
7. Synthesis- AHP leads to an overall estimate of the desirability of each
alternative
61
8. Tradeoffs- AHP takes into consideration the relative priorities of
factors in a system and enables people to select the best alternative
based on their goals
9. Judgment and Consensus- AHP is not based on a consensus but rather a
synthesis of representative outcomes from diverse judgments
10. Process Repetition-AHP enables people to refine their definition of a
problem and to improve their judgment and understanding through
repetition
In general, AHP has three basic principles that guide the model. The first
step, hierarchic representation and documentation, requires that the problem be broken
down into separate elements or categories (Saaty, 1982). For instance, if the problem
is choosing a site location for a roadway, the elements could be identified as
hydrology, economic viability, topography, environmental impacts, surrounding land
use, and accessibility. The second step, priority discrimination and synthesis, is when
the elements are ranked in order of importance. For the example of choosing a
location for a roadway, the decision maker may determine that the economic viability
of development is most important; therefore, it would be given a higher rank. The
third step, logical consistency, requires that the elements are grouped together and
ranked consistently according to logical criteria. In terms of the example, hydrology
and topography are typically related, and therefore, would be grouped accordingly on
a consistent basis. Once the elements are ranked and grouped, the best alternative can
then be selected. Figure 3.10 displays the hierarchy for the example described above,
choosing a site location for a corridor.
62
Figure 3.10-Hierarchy for Choosing the Site Location of a Corridor
This hierarchical process can be applied to numerous complex decisions and provides
a quantitative measurement to abstract, intangible elements. AHP enables the user to
start with a complex network and finish with a guiding organization that simplifies the
decision making process.
3.3.2
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
The Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), developed by Keeney and
Raiffa (1976), is a simple, intuitive approach that provides an objective measurement
to decision making (Zietsman et al., 2008). MAUT is formulated on the basis that any
decision problem holds a real valued function, also known as a utility (U) which is
defined by the maximized set of alternatives (Zietsman, Rilett, and Kim, 2006). The
individual alternatives each result in an outcome that typically holds a value on
various dimensions which MAUT seeks to measure (Zietsman, Rilett, and Kim, 2006).
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.
The MAUT approach is summarized in the following six steps (Zietsman,
Rilett, and Kim, 2006):
63
1. Identify the various criteria and sub-criteria to be used in the evaluation
process
2. Rank the different criteria and sub-criteria in order of importance
3. Rate the different criteria and sub-criteria on a scale from zero to one,
while reflecting the ratio of relative importance of one criterion over
the next
4. Convert the ratings to weights by normalizing
5. Determine criteria values for each alternative by using single-attribute
utility functions on linear, normalized scales
6. Calculate the utilities for the alternatives by obtaining the weighted
linear sum for the criteria (Equations 3.1 and 3.2)
MAUT is based on two equations that help to determine utility values and normalize
the scales. Equation 3.1 displays how the utility values are determined for each
alternative (Zietsman, Rilett, and Kim, 2006). Equation 3.2 shows how the
normalized criteria values are determined from single-attribute utility functions on
normalized scales (Zietsman, Rilett, and Kim, 2006).
nk
U j = ∑ wk nkj
k =1
Equation 3.1
nkj = f k ( skj )
Equation 3.2
Where:
U j = utility of alternative j;
wk = weight of the kth criterion;
64
nkj = normalized criterion k value for alternative j;
skj
= value of criterion k for alternative j;
f k (x) = single attribute utility function on a normalized scale.
Using the equations above, a normalized scale helps to compare and measure the
utilities. Once the utilities are determined, the alternatives can be chosen based on the
single-attribute utility function results, simplifying the decision making process.
65
Chapter 4- METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION
This chapter focuses on the methodology developed for sustainable rating
systems and its application to SCRS. The methodology includes a seven step process
defined based on sustainable indicator literature, experience with using existing rating
systems, and a review of existing decision making models. The steps are as follows:
1. Define infrastructure criteria for the facility (corridor) under
evaluation
2. Develop sustainability indicator categories
3. Develop sustainability indicators
4. Transform indicators into credits by identifying measurements
associated to each
5. Prioritize credits by assigning weights
6. Allocate points and evaluate prerequisites
7. Develop rating scale
Each step was applied to SCRS and is explained in detail in the five methodological
sections.
4.1
Definition of Corridor Criteria
Corridors vary in scale (for example, local or regional), and function (for
example, intercity travel or within a community). In order to identify the type of
corridor SCRS focuses on, infrastructure criteria were defined. The criteria are
66
necessary in order to ensure that the final rating system is applied to corridors that are
similar in nature. By providing corridor-specific criteria, credits can then be applied
with equal opportunity rather than favoring a specific type of corridor design.
Corridors evaluated under SCRS are characterized by the following established
infrastructure criteria:
• The term “corridor” refers to the road and adjacent land uses that factor
into the assessment
• The corridor must be local in nature in that the corridor serves the local
community
• The corridor must be within a range of 2-5 miles in length
• The corridor can be proposed or existing (to be redeveloped), therefore
the construction category refers to either the development or
redevelopment process, respectively
The criterion of a local corridor was selected with the intentions of
addressing aspects of sustainable communities, similar to the principles in LEED ND.
By selecting a local corridor, concepts used in LEED ND, such as smart growth and
new urbanism, are more applicable to corridor development/redevelopment. The
corridor length restriction was defined to maintain a standard scale for local corridors.
Although some of the credits can be related to corridors with
characteristics other than those previously defined, it is not recommended. This
recommendation is made in order to ensure that the credits within SCRS do not favor
a specific type of corridor, and in general, are only applied to corridors that are similar
in nature.
67
4.2
Development of Sustainable Corridor Categories, Indicators, and
Measurements
In order to establish SCRS, sustainability 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. Indicators are a
useful approach used to promote sustainable techniques within the public and policy
sectors (Mitchell, 1996). Categories for which the indicators are classified were first
defined, followed by the development of the indicators themselves. Indicator
measurements eventually serve to define the credits that make up SCRS. The
following sections describe steps 2-4 of the rating system methodology.
4.2.1
Indicator Categories
The first step toward developing the indicators involves narrowing down
the categories used to assess the infrastructure under evaluation, the corridor. This
step draws on Bossel’s (1999) methodology for developing indicators which begins
with the selection of “orientors”, also referred to as categories (section 2.3.2). 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.
68
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. Table 4.1
displays the existing transportation related credits/objectives from established rating
systems.
69
Table 4.1-Existing Transportation Related Credits
LEED for New Construction:
SS4: Alternative Transportation
4.1: Public Transportation Access
4.2: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
4.3: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles
4.4: Parking Capacity
LEED for Neighborhood Development:
SLLP1: Smart location
SLL4: Reduced Automobile Dependence
SLL5: Bicycle Network
NPD6: Reduced Parking Footprint
NPD7: Walkable Streets
NPD8: Street Network
NPD9: Transit Facilities
NPD10: Transportation Demand Management
NPD11: Access to Surrounding Vicinity
NPD12: Access to Public Spaces
NPD13: Access to Active Public Spaces
NPD14: Universal Accessibility
Green Globes
NONE
The second 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 farmland 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 a significant state as
identified by Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey.
70
• Option 2: Corridor must be located on site that is within a designated
receiving area for development rights under a 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). Refer to Appendix A for the list of
“Potential Corridor Credits” that can be manipulated in order to relate to corridor
development. Each credit/objective is listed with an overview of its original purpose
and a summary of the specified requirements from the rating systems.
Once the credits/objectives that had the potential to relate to corridors
were identified, they were categorized based on the five original factors of corridor
assessment (policies, land use, usage, construction, and infrastructure) in order to
determine the focus of existing rating systems. For example, the abbreviation SLLP5
(Site Location and Linkage Prerequisite 5) stands for the Agricultural Land
Conservation credit which can be applied to corridor development and redevelopment
through specifically reducing land use impacts. Therefore, this credit was placed
under the land use category of corridor assessment. Table 4.2 displays the
categorization process where each credit/objective listed above was placed into its
relative assessment category.
71
Table 4.2-Categorization of Transportation Credits
Category Acronyms
-LEED New Construction
-Green Globes
-SS(P): Sustainable Sites (Prerequisite)
-A: Project Management
-EA: Energy and Atmosphere
-B: Site
-MR: Materials and Resources
-C: Energy
-LEED Neighborhood Development
-E: Resources
-NPD: Neighborhood Pattern and Design
-F: Emissions, Effluents &
-SLL(P): Site Location and Linkage (Prerequisite)
and other Impacts
-GCT(P): Green Construction and Technology (Prerequisite)
*The numbers correspond to the individual credits under the specified category.
72
The categorization process identified that existing rating systems focus on
the physical and structural aspects of sustainable 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, or “orientors,” 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.
73
4.2.2
Indicator Development
After developing the indicator categories (orientors), the sustainable
corridor indicators were established with the knowledge that they would become the
credits for SCRS. Steps were adapted and manipulated from the suggested process
developed by Mitchell (1996), described previously in section 2.3.2.
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 pertain to corridor development found in LEED
NC overlap with those in LEED ND, specifically within the “Green Construction and
Technology” category. In addition, findings suggest that the credits in LEED ND
relate more strongly to corridor development as a whole. Therefore, LEED ND and
Green Globes were used as references for the sustainable corridor indicators. Based
on the list of “Potentially Corridor Credits” from LEED ND and Green Globes
(Appendix A), each existing credit was adapted and reworded to reflect corridor
development and redevelopment.
In addition to the existing rating systems, sustainable implementation
frameworks were used as inputs for developing 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 incorporates aspects
of at least one of the implementation frameworks.
74
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 such as the Green
Roads rating system (Muench, 2008), and the Green Highways Partnership (Green
Highways Partnership, 2007). 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 Globes did not include a credit that addressed this issue. Therefore, this
corridor-specific indicator, in addition to others, was developed in order to fully
address all components of corridor development and redevelopment.
Figure 4.1 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 serve as the fundamentals behind the development
of the indicators.
75
Figure 4.1-Methodology of Indicator Development
The final indicators developed in SCRS are directly applicable to at least
one component of the triple bottom line approach to sustainability (economic,
environmental, and social). For example, an indicator developed, titled Smart Signals,
is based on the purpose of increasing the number of solar powered signs and signals
along the corridor. This indicator provides both economic and environmental benefits
because it is not only increasing energy efficiency, but it is reducing the amount of
electricity required to power the signals and signs. Therefore, it is cost effective and
environmentally friendly.
76
4.2.3
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 measureable 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 a 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, Smart Signals 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.
77
All of the measurements were formatted similar to the style of the existing
LEED ND and Green Globes requirements. The format included providing multiple
options for achieving a gradation of points for each credit. Therefore, the design team
has the ability to earn a variation of points based on the requirement option achieved.
The more demanding the requirements, the more points granted to the associated
option. For example, the Smart Signals measurement explicitly states the following:
• Option 1: For 75% of all signage and signals along the corridor, solar
power must be used (50% of maximum points).
• Option 2: All signage and signaling must be powered strictly by solar
panels. No other power sources may be used (maximum points).
Therefore, the design team can either earn zero points (no options achieved), 50% of
the maximum points (option 1 achieved), or the maximum points possible (option 2
achieved) for Smart Signals. Only one requirement option may be achieved per credit,
so projects that satisfy multiple options are awarded based on the option with the
highest points.
For the category of Innovation and Design, the measurements were
developed strictly on the basis of existing LEED programs. In the process, one
deviation was made regarding ID1: Innovation and Exemplary Performance.
Typically requirements for ID1 are stated under each credit in the rating system as the
minimum that must be achieved in order to be granted additional points under ID1. In
addition to these requirements, projects can receive additional points for going above
and beyond requirements not stated in the rating system. For the purposes of SCRS,
points are granted for ID1 strictly on an individual project review basis, with a
standard maximum number of points possible. Individual credit requirements for ID1
78
are not stated, and therefore, are to be submitted in writing requesting the proposed
intent and proposed compliance of the credit.
After the indicator measurements were developed, the simplification
process, suggested by Bossel (1999), was used to condense the indicator set (section
2.3.2). The main goal during this process is to reduce the number of indicators down
to a manageable set while retaining essential information. The two major methods
used to reduce the indicator set were aggregation and condensation based on the
purpose and requirements of each individual indicator. In addition, each indicator was
reviewed based on the principles of a “good” indicator set defined by Litman (2008)
(section 2.3.2). The original indicator set included 44 indicators, however, after this
simplification step, the indicator set was reduced to 37 indicators.
After the measurements were assigned and the indicators were simplified
into the final indicator set, the indicators were then referred to as credits for SCRS.
Table 4.3 displays an example of three infrastructure credits developed and their
corresponding descriptions, measurements, and related sustainable frameworks. To
view the entire “SCRS Credit Tables” refer to Appendix B.
79
Table 4.3-Sustainable Corridor Credit Examples
4.3
Prioritization of Credits
Once the credits were established, the next step toward developing SCRS
was prioritizing the credits. Each credit was prioritized in order to complete the
following step which was to allocate points based on priority for the rating system.
The prioritization process included two main components: the participatory phase
survey and the application of a decision making model, Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP). The survey responses were used as inputs into AHP to determine the credit
weights.
80
4.3.1
Selection of Decision Making Model
Prior to beginning the prioritization process, a decision making model
utilized in the development of SCRS was selected. Since the participatory phase
survey needs to reflect the type of decision making model chosen for evaluation, the
model was first selected.
The purpose of the decision making model application is to determine
which credits hold more importance to corridor development/redevelopment and to
allow the rating system to reflect these priorities. The priorities are reflected in the
rating system through the number of points allocated to each credit and the evaluation
of prerequisites. Therefore, weights must be assigned to each credit through the use of
a decision making model.
The two decision making models under selection were Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). As stated in sections
3.3.1 and 3.3.2, there are strengths and weaknesses to each model. However, for the
purposes of this research, AHP was selected as the more applicable model for the
following reasons:
• AHP’s main purpose is to assign rankings to variables. This reflects
the purpose of the prioritization process which is to assign rankings to
the credits based on importance.
• AHP is based on a series of pairwise comparisons. Pairwise
comparisons are suitable for the construction of a valid survey where
each individual credit is compared based on importance and intensity
of importance.
81
• AHP includes the calculation of the consistency ratio. The consistency
ratio can be used to check the consistency of survey responses which
will serve as inputs into AHP.
• AHP allows for local and global priority rankings. SCRS includes four
categories of credits; therefore, the local credit rankings and local
category rankings will first be determined. The credit and category
local rankings will be combined to determine the global credit
rankings which represent the final credit weights for the rating system.
AHP was selected as the decision making model used to develop SCRS.
Therefore, all of the components of the prioritization process were based on this
model, including the participatory phase. Figure 4.2 displays the methodology behind
the credit prioritization process and the implementation of AHP in the participatory
phase.
82
Figure 4.2-Credit Prioritization Methodology
The credit prioritization process began with the participatory phase which
included a pairwise comparison survey distributed to transportation practitioners. The
survey allowed the participants to rank each of the individual credits and overall
categories based on their importance toward sustainable corridors. These results
served as the inputs into AHP in order to assign local credit weights and local
category weights. The local category weights are applied to the local credit weights in
order to determine the global credit weights for the final rating system.
83
4.3.2
Participatory Phase
In order to determine credit priorities, a participatory phase including an
AHP pairwise comparison survey was used. This phase was based on the final step in
Bossel’s (1999) methodology for developing indicators (section 2.3.2). The purpose
of the survey was to receive unbiased, practical, expert opinions regarding the
importance and intensity of importance of each credit in SCRS. The survey was
distributed by mail to seven transportation practitioners from local Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO’s) and state Department of Transportation agencies
(DOT’s). The results of the survey responses were used as inputs into AHP to evaluate
prerequisites and to adequately assign points to the credits.
The survey participants were selected based on their roles as
transportation practitioners. Since SCRS focuses on corridor development and
redevelopment from the land use, infrastructure, construction, and innovation/design
perspectives, transportation practitioners can provide knowledge regarding these
areas. Since usage and policies were two categories excluded from SCRS, corridor
users and policymakers were not included in the survey group. Refer to section 4.2.1
for the selection of the credit categories.
Prior to distributing the survey, a human subject’s protocol review by the
Institutional Review Board at the University of Delaware was completed. The survey
was approved as an exemption under research category #2 (from Title 45, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 46.101 (b), 6/18/91) due to the minimal risk posed to
participants. The survey responses were anonymous and entirely voluntary.
Once the human subjects review was complete, a trial survey was
pretested on four colleagues in order to receive feedback regarding the questions and
format of the survey. The pretest participants completed the surveys without problems
84
or issues regarding survey directions. After the pretest was complete, the surveys
were distributed to the transportation practitioners.
The survey consists of five sections, entirely based on AHP pairwise
comparisons. Sections 1-4 required the participants to compare the importance of
each credit with respect to the categories of land use, infrastructure, construction, and
innovation/design. Section 5 required the participants to compare the four overall
credit categories. Each comparison was based on which credit/category held more
importance (credit/category A or credit/category B) as well as the intensity of
importance, in relation to sustainable development. The scale used for the importance
of intensity was based on the fundamental AHP scale of one (equal) to nine (extreme)
for pairwise comparisons (Saaty, 1982). Figure 4.3 displays the scale and the
associated descriptors for the importance of intensity.
Figure 4.3-Importance of Intensity Scale (source data from Saaty, 1982)
The standard (1-9) scale is recommended for pairwise comparisons due to the
objectivity and ranges in available responses (Saaty, 1982). In order to maintain
consistency with the importance of intensity descriptors, Saaty (1982) provides a table
with a definition and explanation of each level of intensity of importance. Table 4.4
displays the pairwise comparison scale, definitions, and explanations.
85
Table 4.4-Pairwise Comparison Scale (source data from Saaty, 1982)
Using the recommended scale, the participants were asked to circle the intensity of
importance for each pairwise comparison.
In addition to the survey document, an attachment, titled “Credit
Measurements for SCRS” was provided in order to give the participants background
credit information. The credit description was stated on the survey document and the
requirements (measurements) were provided in the attachment. Refer to Appendix C
for the complete survey document and attachment included in the survey package.
Using the information given on both the survey and the attachment,
participants completed pairwise comparisons similar to the one shown below in Figure
4.4.
Figure 4.4-Sample Pairwise Comparison
86
The question shown above is read as the following, “With respect to land use, which
holds more importance, credit A (Transit Oriented Development) or credit B (Reduced
Development Area) and to what intensity?” As an example of how a participant can
respond, number 3 is circled under “A is more than B” and “moderate” which is read
as, “Credit A (Transit Oriented Development) is moderately more important than
credit B (Reduced Development Area) with respect to land use.”
The completed survey documents were collected by mail and the
responses were used as inputs for the AHP analysis.
4.3.3
AHP Application
AHP was selected as the decision making model for prioritizing the
credits within SCRS, based on the benefits stated in section 4.3.1. The first step in
using AHP was to create a hierarchy of the credits and categories within SCRS, shown
in Figure 4.5. The first level of the hierarchy consists of the main goal, to create a
Sustainable Corridor Rating System. The second level consists of objectives which
are the four credit categories that were defined: land use, infrastructure, construction,
and innovation/design. The third level is made up of the sub-objectives which are the
credits within SCRS.
87
Figure 4.5-SCRS Hierarchy
This hierarchy was entered into Expert Choice software, which is a
decision making program specializing in AHP (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008). The
categories and credits were entered in the ModelView screen based on the hierarchy
developed. Figure 4.6 displays the ModelView screen in Expert Choice highlighting,
the land use category and its associated credits.
88
Figure 4.6-ModelView Screen (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
Next, the survey results from the pretest were entered with the intentions
of becoming familiar with the software. The steps discussed below using the actual
survey participant responses were the same steps taken using the trial survey. The
pretest results were simply viewed as a trial and were not applied toward the
development of SCRS.
Each participant from the survey was input as a separate participant
(labeled P11-P17) and the scaled responses (ranging from 1-9) were entered using the
pairwise numerical comparisons. Figure 4.7 shows an example of the pairwise
numerical comparisons entry screen in Expert Choice (2008) for the infrastructure
category.
89
Figure 4.7-Pairwise Numerical Comparison Entry Screen (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
90
By entering the numerical responses for each of the pairwise comparisons,
the local credit and category weights are calculated and displayed on the ModelView
screen. These local weights are the combined responses of the participants prior to the
final synthesis with respect to the overall goal. The local credit weights under each
category sum to 1.0 as well as the four overseeing category weights. At this point, the
local category weights have yet to be distributed to the local credit weights. The
calculations used in the software to determine the local weights are based on the
standard AHP process defined by Saaty (1982). Figure 4.8 displays the local category
weights and the land use local credit weights. Refer to Appendix D (Figure D.1Figure D.4) for the complete local credit weights with respect to each of the four
categories.
Figure 4.8-ModelView of Local Category and Land Use Credit Weights (Expert Choice, Inc.,
2008)
91
The final step using AHP was to synthesize the combined results with
respect to the overall goal to determine the global credit weights. Global credit
weights are the final result of distributing the combined participant’s local category
weights to the local credit weights. The calculations used in the software to
synthesize the global credit weights are based on the standard AHP process defined by
Saaty (1982).
Prior to analyzing the synthesis results, the overall consistency ratio was
checked to ensure that the participant responses were consistent throughout each
survey. The overall consistency ratio is based on the combination of the category
“Incon” values for each participant, located in the lower left hand corner of each
pairwise numerical comparison screen (see Figure 4.7). According to Saaty (1982),
the overall consistency ratio should fall within a range of 0-0.10 in order for the
responses to be tolerable (Macharis et al., 2004). The final consistency ratio after
synthesizing the weights was 0.03, suggesting that the survey responses are valid.
The combined results were then analyzed based on the ideal synthesis
mode. Using the ideal synthesis, the highest weighted credit under a covering
category receives the priority of the covering category and each of the other credits
receive a percentage of the priority; the percentage being proportional to the ratio of
the credit’s priority to that of the highest weighted credit (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008).
The ideal synthesis mode was chosen due to the priority that is placed on the local
category weights over the local credit weights. Unlike the distributive mode, which
simply multiplies the local category weight times the local credit weight, the ideal
mode prevents a variation in the number of credits under each category from
influencing the global credit weights. Alternatively, the fewer credits under each
92
category, the higher the resulting local credit weight. For example, there are only two
ID credits (ID1 and ID2). Therefore, their local credit weights (0.777 and 0.223) are
high in comparison to the land use local credit weights (shown in Figure 4.8). Using
the distributive mode, the high local credit weights tend to override the local category
weights since they are multiplied together. However, the ideal mode places more
priority on the local category weight since it is distributed proportionately to the local
credit weights. This allows the global credit rankings to remain relative to the local
category weights. Table 4.5 displays the global credit weights based on the ideal
synthesis prior to normalization. Refer to Appendix D (Figure D.5) for the global
credit weights based on the ideal (non-normalized) synthesis.
93
Table 4.5-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Non-Normalized) Synthesis (source data from
Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
AHP RESULTS IDEAL SYNTHESIS (NON‐NORMALIZED)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8‐9
8‐9
10
11
12
13
14‐15
14‐15
16‐17
16‐17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24‐25
24‐25
26
27
28‐29
28‐29
30‐32
30‐32
30‐32
33‐34
33‐34
35
36
37
Credit Title
Weight
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
0.075
LU1
Diversity of Uses
0.064
LU3
Smart Location
0.056
LU6
Compact Development
0.051
IN5
Interconnected Street Network
0.049
LU12
Transit Oriented Development
0.048
ID1
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
0.047
LU2
Reduced Automobile Dependence
0.041
LU11
Park and Ride Proximity
0.041
LU5
Reduced Sprawl
0.039
LU9
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
0.038
LU13
Reduced Development Area
0.037
LU7
Tranportation Demand Management
0.035
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
0.031
CN10
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
0.031
LU8
Reduced Ecological Impact
0.028
0.028
IN2
Walkable Street
IN1
Public Transit Access
0.026
CN3
Stormwater Management
0.021
IN3
Bike Network
0.019
CN9
Minimum Consumption of Resources
0.018
IN12
Emergency Response Plan
0.016
CN8
Environmental Purchasing
0.015
IN4
Smart Signals
0.014
ID2
LEED Accredited Professional
0.014
CN5
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 0.013
IN10 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility 0.012
IN11
Smart Lighting
0.011
CN4
Minimize Site Disturbance
0.011
IN7
Access to Green Communities
0.010
IN8
Access to Green Buildings
0.010
CN2
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
0.010
CN1
Site Ecology Enhancement
0.009
CN7
Light Pollution Prevention
0.009
CN6
Noise Pollution Prevention
0.008
IN9
Natural Medians
0.007
IN6
Natural Barrier
0.006
94
The results of the ideal synthesis reflect the opinions of the seven
transportation practitioners that participated in the survey and their judgments on the
credits’ importance toward sustainability. As shown, the higher ranked credits such as
LU10 (Housing and Job Proximity), LU1 (Diversity of Uses), and LU3 (Smart
Location) deal with the broader, smart growth-related, neighborhood issues of corridor
development. In comparison, the credits ranked with a low importance were IN9
(Natural Medians) and IN6 (Natural Barriers) which are more detailed, structural
aspects of corridor development. These results are reflected in SCRS.
The next step in the synthesis process was to normalize the results in order
to allow for the global credit weights to be re-ranked on a scale of 0-1.0. By
normalizing the results on a scale of 0-1.0, the credit rankings become more precise
due to the larger weights that result, preventing significant rounding from occurring.
Therefore, credits that were “tied in rank” in the non-normalized ranking are now reranked based on the preciseness of the normalization process. Table 4.6 displays the
normalized results of the global credit weights and ranking using the ideal
(normalized) synthesis. Refer to Appendix D (Figure D.6) for the global credit
weights based on the ideal (normalized) synthesis.
95
Table 4.6-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Normalized) Synthesis (source data from Expert
Choice, Inc., 2008)
AHP RESULTS IDEAL SYNTHESIS (NORMALIZED)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Credit Title
Weight
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
1.000
LU1
Diversity of Uses
0.850
LU3
Smart Location
0.749
LU6
Compact Development
0.674
IN5
Interconnected Street Network
0.658
LU12
Transit Oriented Development
0.637
ID1
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
0.629
LU2
Reduced Automobile Dependence
0.549
LU11
Park and Ride Proximity
0.543
LU5
Reduced Sprawl
0.521
LU9
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
0.512
LU13
Reduced Development Area
0.491
LU7
Tranportation Demand Management
0.464
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
0.416
CN10
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
0.408
IN2
Walkable Street
0.372
LU8
Reduced Ecological Impact
0.368
IN1
Public Transit Access
0.343
CN3
Stormwater Management
0.277
IN3
Bike Network
0.248
CN9
Minimum Consumption of Resources
0.240
IN12
Emergency Response Plan
0.210
CN8
Environmental Purchasing
0.201
IN4
Smart Signals
0.188
ID2
LEED Accredited Professional
0.181
CN5 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
0.177
IN10 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility 0.161
CN4
Minimize Site Disturbance
0.152
IN11
Smart Lighting
0.143
IN8
Access to Green Buildings
0.139
CN2
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
0.138
IN7
Access to Green Communities
0.136
CN1
Site Ecology Enhancement
0.118
CN7
Light Pollution Prevention
0.117
CN6
Noise Pollution Prevention
0.112
IN9
Natural Medians
0.092
IN6
Natural Barrier
0.084
96
As shown, the AHP ideal (normalized) synthesis designates a global
weight and rank for each of the 37 individual credits in SCRS. Each global credit
weight represents the credit’s importance in comparison to the other 36 credits in
SCRS, from a transportation practitioner’s perspective. The AHP results are strictly
based on the survey pairwise comparison responses and reflect the participant’s
opinions regarding credit importance. Refer to Appendix D for the complete AHP
synthesis outputs of the global credit weights.
4.4
Point Designation
Once the credits were prioritized, the next step in developing SCRS was
to allocate points to each of the credits and determine the need for prerequisites.
Based on the global credit weights determined from the AHP combined synthesis
results, the credits were assigned points using two approaches, the Weighted
Approach (option 1), and the Approximate Approach (option 2). The global credit
weights represent the credit’s importance based on the transportation practitioner’s
pairwise comparison results. Therefore, in both approaches, the credit points reflect
the views and opinions of the survey participants.
4.4.1
Prerequisite Evaluation
Prior to allocating points to each of the credits, prerequisites were
evaluated. Prerequisites are credits that are mandatory for project teams to
successfully achieve in order to apply for certification. They represent credits that
hold a high importance to achieving sustainable development for the specified
infrastructure. Therefore, projects that do not meet all prerequisite requirements are
97
unable to apply for certification in that particular rating system. Since they are
mandatory, points are not allocated to the prerequisites.
In order to determine which credits within the rating system should
become prerequisites, if any, three methods were followed. First, the credits were
evaluated based on their overall importance using engineering judgment. The credits
were reviewed to determine if there are any individual credits within SCRS that are
essential to defining a sustainable corridor. After reviewing the list, it was
determined that there are no individual credits that directly define a sustainable
corridor, rather, a sustainable corridor is defined based on a combination of all 37
credits. Therefore, no prerequisites were determined strictly based on judgment.
The second method was a visual evaluation of the local credit weights
using the ideal (normalized) synthesis. The AHP synthesis outputs, provided in
Appendix D, display the global credit weights along with a bar graph comparing the
weights. The weights were visually assessed to determine if there is a drastic
difference in credit weights or “jump” in the bar graph. A “jump” represents a
significant difference in credit weights, suggesting that prerequisites should be defined
above the “jump”. After reviewing the outputs, no “jumps” or significant differences
in credit weights were found. Therefore, no prerequisites were determined based on a
visual assessment.
The final method of determining prerequisites involved an analysis
process based on the evaluation of the differences in the highest ranked global credit
weights (where rank #1 represents the highest). Prerequisites represent credits that
hold an extreme importance in achieving sustainability within a specific type of
infrastructure. Therefore, an analysis of the top 15%, highest ranked credits
98
(representing a high importance to sustainability), can be used to determine whether
there is a significant “break” or significant difference between credit weights. The top
15% range was selected based on the typical relationship between the number of
prerequisites versus credits in existing rating systems. The term “significantly” can
be quantified by determining if the difference between any of the top 15% credit
weights (starting from rank #1) is equal to or greater than triple the average of the top
15% differences, also referred to as the “threshold”.
The threshold value of “triple the average” was chosen based on an
iterative process where sample data was analyzed using potential threshold values of
double, triple, quadruple, and quintuple the average of the differences in weights. It
was determined that a threshold value of double the average was not “significant”
while quadruple and quintuple the average was almost impossible to achieve.
Therefore, “triple the average” was used to represent the “threshold” value used in the
prerequisite evaluation, in order to determine significant breaks.
A significant break in the differences indicates that a “prerequisite break”
between the credits should be placed. The quantification of a “prerequisite break" is
represented by Equation 4.1. If Equation 4.1 is satisfied, then a “prerequisite break”
exists between the two credits under evaluation. The credits ranked above the break
should be designated as prerequisites and the credits below as point-based credits.
(( X a − b + X b − c + X c − d + ...) / n ) * 3 < X a − b
Equation 4.1
Where:
n = number of credits in the top 15%;
X a −b = difference between credit weight A and credit weight B.
99
Table 4.7 displays an example of applying Equation 4.1 to a sample of credit weights
to determine prerequisites.
Table 4.7-Example of Prerequisite Evaluation
As displayed in Table 4.7, the sample top 15% credit weights ranked (1-5)
are 1.0, 0.980, 0.880, 0.850, and 0.380, and the differences between them are 0.020,
0.100, 0.030, and 0.470. The “average of differences” is 0.155 which means the
threshold (triple the “average of differences”) is equal to 0.465. When comparing the
threshold (0.465) to the actual differences (0.020, 0.100, 0.030, and 0.470), one out of
the four differences, 0.470, (between credits ranked 4 and 5) is greater, shown in
yellow. This means that a “prerequisite break” should be placed between the credits
ranked 4 and 5, designating credits 1-4 as prerequisites (shown in orange) and credit 5
as a regular (point-based) credit.
This process is to be completed for all credits that fall within the top 15%
rank of the credits within the rating system. Once a “prerequisite break” is
determined, then the higher ranked credit and all the credits above it should be
considered prerequisites. If there are multiple “prerequisite breaks” determined within
the top 15% credit weights, then the lower ranked “prerequisite break” separates the
100
prerequisites from the credits. If no “prerequisite breaks” are determined, then no
prerequisites should be designated.
For this process to be applicable there should be a minimum of 30 credits
in the rating system in order to be able to compare a minimum of five potential
prerequisites with four differences in credit weights (based on the top 15% ranked
credits). If there are less than 30 credits within a rating system then no prerequisites
should be designated.
The prerequisite process was applied to the SCRS credit weights/ranks
using the ideal (normalized) synthesis. Table 4.8 shows the results of the prerequisite
evaluation for the top 15% ranked credits, which in this case includes credits ranked
one through six.
Table 4.8-Prerequisite Process Applied to SCRS
Since the threshold value (0.363) is not greater than any of the individual credit
weight differences, there are no “prerequisites breaks” between the highest credit
weights. This suggests that based on the analysis process, SCRS should not include
prerequisites, and instead, points should be allocated to all 37 credits.
101
The three methods used to evaluate prerequisites provided similar results
suggesting that no prerequisites exist. Therefore, all credits in SCRS are point-based
and are optional in achieving certification.
4.4.2
Allocation of Credit Points
After prerequisites were evaluated, the individual credits were allocated
points. Since no credits in SCRS were designated as prerequisites, all 37 credits were
allocated points. Two approaches were used to allocate points to the credits: the
Weighted Approach (option 1) and the Approximate Approach (option 2). Both
approaches are based on the ideal (normalized) synthesis due to the preciseness of the
rankings as well as the applicability of the scale of zero to one. Two approaches were
developed in order to address both a systematic approach (option 1), and a userfriendly approach (option 2). By developing two approaches, project teams can select
the more appropriate method to reflect their goals. In addition, the two approaches
can be compared based on credit points, rating scales, and the overall levels of
certification achieved for various projects.
The Weighted Approach (option 1) is based on directly defining the
global credit weights as the maximum points allowed for each credit. This option is
systematic since the weights, determined from the ideal (normalized) synthesis, are
directly reflected in the rating system.
This approach begins with assigning each credit within SCRS possible
scores on a scale of zero to one. Since nine of the credits in SCRS are based on a
gradation of possible points, the scale of zero to one allows for a range of possible
scores to be achieved. If none of the credit requirements are met, then a score of zero
is granted. However, if the credit requirements are met to their fullest extent, then a
102
score of one is granted. Credits that are based on a range of requirement options were
assigned a score ranging from zero to one. Using these credit scores, a project team
can determine which requirements, if any, are achieved and then select the associated
score for that requirement option. After the scores are determined for each credit,
based on a scale of zero to one for a specific project, the global credit weight is then
multiplied to determine the final credit points. Table 4.9 displays the possible credit
scores assigned to each of the credits as well as their global credit weights. Based on
this process, the maximum number of points that can be achieved using the Weighted
Approach is 13.298, which is simply the maximum credit score (1) multiplied by the
sum of all the credit weights (13.298).
103
Table 4.9-Credit Scores Ranges and Weights for Weighted Approach
Possible Credit Credit
Title
Scores (CW)
Weight (GCW)
LU1
0, 1
0.850
Diversity of Uses
LU2
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.549
Reduced Automobile Dependence
LU3
0, 1
0.749
Smart Location
LU4
0, 1
0.416
Agricultural Conservation
LU5
0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1
0.521
Reduced Sprawl
LU6
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.674
Compact Development
LU7
0, 1
0.464
Transportation Demand Management
LU8
0, 1
0.368
Reduced Ecological Impact
LU9
0, 1
0.512
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
LU10
0, 1
1.000
Housing and Job Proximity
LU11
0, 1
0.543
Park and Ride Proximity
LU12
0, 1
0.637
Transit Oriented Development
LU13
0, 1
0.491
Reduced Development Area
IN1
0, 1
0.343
Public Transit Access
IN2
0, 1
0.372
Walkable Street
IN3
0, 1
0.248
Bike Network
IN4
0, 0.5, 1
0.188
Smart Signals
IN5
0, 1
0.658
Interconnected Street Network
IN6
0, 1
0.084
Natural Barrier
IN7
0, 0.5, 1
0.136
Access to Green Communities
IN8
0, 0.5, 1
0.139
Access to Green Buildings
IN9
0, 1
0.092
Natural Medians
IN10
0, 1
0.161
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
IN11
0, 0.5, 1
0.143
Smart Lighting
IN12
0, 1
0.210
Emergency Response Plan
CN1
0, 1
0.118
Site Ecology Enhancement
CN2
0, 1
0.138
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
CN3
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.277
Stormwater Management
CN4
0, 1
0.152
Minimize Site Disturbance CN5
CN6
CN7
CN8
CN9
CN10
ID1
ID2
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
0, 1
0, 1
Noise Pollution Prevention
0, 1
Light Pollution Prevention
0, 1
Environmental Purchasing
0, 1
Minimum Consumption of Resources
0, 1
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Innovation and Exemplary Performance 0‐1 *project‐specific
0, 1
LEED Accredited Professional
SUM =
104
0.177
0.112
0.117
0.201
0.240
0.408
0.629
0.181
13.298
The process of calculating the final credit points under the Weighted
Approach can be defined by Equation 4.2.
FCP = CS * GCW
Equation 4.2
Where:
CS = credit score (specified based on scale of 0-1);
GCW = global credit weight (from Table 4.6);
FCP = final credit points.
For example, the Smart Signals credit is broken into two requirement
options, allowing projects to achieve a gradation of points. Based on the scale of zero
to one, requirement option 1 has a score of 0.5 associated to it, since it achieves a
portion of the credit. Requirement option 2 has a score of 1 associated to it since it
achieves the maximum requirements for that credit. Therefore, if a project satisfies
the requirements listed under option 1, then its associated score (0.5) is multiplied by
the global credit weight for Smart Signals (0.188) to determine the final credit points
achieved. The final credit points that would be achieved in this example, under the
Weighted Approach, are 0.094 points.
The Approximate Approach (option 2) uses an approximation of the
weights in order to assign “point breaks” throughout the 37 credits in SCRS. Unlike
the Weighted Approach, this user-friendly approach, assigns a whole number point to
each credit based on its location within the “point breaks”. These breaks are
determined by analyzing the differences between the credit weights, and if found,
suggest that a gradation of points is necessary to represent the global credit weights.
105
This approach begins with an analysis of the global credit weights using
the ideal (normalized) synthesis. First, the difference between each of the sequential
credits weights is determined. These differences are averaged and then the
“threshold” is determined by doubling the average.
The “threshold” value of doubling the average of the differences was
determined based on a similar iterative process used to evaluate prerequisites (section
4.4.1). Using the actual AHP results, double and triple the average of the differences
between the weights were both assessed. It was determined that “triple the average”
resulted in a high value that did not capture typical breaks in the credit weights. In
comparison, “double the average” separated the credit weights in a logical manner
reflecting the typical breaks in credit weights. Therefore, double the average of the
differences was used to determine the value of the “threshold” used in the
Approximate Approach.
Next, the differences between the credit weights are compared to the
threshold to determine where, if any, “point breaks” exist within the ranking. A “point
break” exists when the difference between two credits is greater than the “threshold”
value. This break represents a gap in the credit weights suggesting that a gradation of
points is necessary throughout the rating system. A “point break” can be defined by
Equation 4.3.
(( X a − b + X b − c + X c − d + ...) / n ) * 2 < X a − b
Equation 4.3
Where:
N = total number of credits in rating system;
X a −b = difference between credit weight A and credit weight B.
106
If Equation 4.3 is satisfied, then a “point break” exists between two the
credits under evaluation. This equation is applied to all of the differences in credit
weights in order to determine the total number of potential breaks. If more than five
point breaks are determined, then the highest five difference values are used as “point
breaks”. The next step is to assign points based on the location of the “point breaks”.
The “point breaks” are numbered based on their position within the credit ranking,
starting from the lowest credit rank (with rank #1 representing the highest). The
lowest “point break” becomes “point break # 1”, and the highest “point break” is
given a number based on the total number of point breaks (TPB) within the rating
system (maximum of five). Points are then assigned to each credit based on its rank
location within the “point breaks”. Table 4.10 displays the point assignments based
on the “point breaks” for the Approximate Approach.
Table 4.10-Point Assignment based on Point Breaks for Approximate Approach
The Approximate Approach was applied to the 37 credits in SCRS and
five “point breaks” were determined based on the difference in credit weights being
larger than the “threshold” value (0.051). Table 4.11 displays the location of these
breaks, as well as their associated point break numbers.
107
Table 4.11-Point Breaks in SCRS for Approximate Approach
Based on the “point breaks” and the point assignments listed in Table 4.10, final credit
points were assigned to each credit. Table 4.12 displays the Approximate Approach
applied to SCRS.
108
Table 4.12-Allocation of Points for Approximate Approach
Rank
Credit Title
Weight
1
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
1.000
2
LU1
Diversity of Uses
0.850
3
LU3
Smart Location
0.749
4
LU6
Compact Development
0.674
5
IN5
Interconnected Street Network
0.658
6
LU12
Transit Oriented Development
0.637
7
ID1
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
0.629
8
LU2
Reduced Automobile Dependence
0.549
9
LU11
Park and Ride Proximity
0.543
10
LU5
Reduced Sprawl
0.521
11
LU9
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
0.512
12
LU13
Reduced Development Area
0.491
13
LU7
Tranportation Demand Management
0.464
14
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
0.416
15
CN10
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
0.408
16
IN2
Walkable Street
0.372
17
LU8
Reduced Ecological Impact
0.368
18
IN1
Public Transit Access
0.343
19
CN3
Stormwater Management
0.277
20
IN3
Bike Network
0.248
21
CN9
Minimum Consumption of Resources
0.240
22
IN12
Emergency Response Plan
0.210
23
CN8
Environmental Purchasing
0.201
24
IN4
Smart Signals
0.188
25
ID2
LEED Accredited Professional
0.181
26
CN5 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
0.177
27
IN10 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
0.161
28
CN4
Minimize Site Disturbance
0.152
29
IN11
Smart Lighting
0.143
30
IN8
Access to Green Buildings
0.139
31
CN2
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
0.138
32
IN7
Access to Green Communities
0.136
33
CN1
Site Ecology Enhancement
0.118
34
CN7
Light Pollution Prevention
0.117
35
CN6
Noise Pollution Prevention
0.112
36
IN9
Natural Medians
0.092
37
IN6
Natural Barrier
0.084
Difference
0.150
0.101
0.075
0.016
0.021
0.008
0.080
0.006
0.022
0.009
0.021
0.027
0.048
0.008
0.036
0.004
0.025
0.066
0.029
0.008
0.030
0.009
0.013
0.007
0.004
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.018
0.001
0.005
0.020
0.008
Average =
0.025
Threshold =
0.051
Total Points =
109
Points
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
68
Since nine credits in SCRS are based on a gradation of credit
requirements, the points allocated using this approach represent the maximum points
achievable for that credit. If none of the credit requirements are met, then zero points
are granted. However, if the credit requirements are met to their fullest extent, then
the points specified in Table 4.12 are granted. If a credit has a specified range of
options with a gradation of points associated to it, then a range of points is possible
between zero and the number of points specified in Table 4.12. The range of points
achievable for each credit is listed in Table 4.13. Once the points are determined for
each credit, they are then summed to determine the total points achieved in SCRS.
Based on the Approximate Approach, the maximum total point value that can be
achieved in SCRS is 68 points.
110
Table 4.13-Credit Points for Approximate Approach
Credit
Title
Possible Points LU1
0, 5
Diversity of Uses
LU2
0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2
Reduced Automobile Dependence
LU3
0, 4
Smart Location
LU4
0, 2
Agricultural Conservation
LU5
0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2
Reduced Sprawl
LU6
0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.25, 3
Compact Development
LU7
Transportation Demand Management
0, 2
LU8
0, 2
Reduced Ecological Impact
LU9
0, 2
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
0, 6
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
LU11
0, 2
Park and Ride Proximity
LU12
0, 3
Transit Oriented Development
LU13
0, 2
Reduced Development Area
IN1
0, 2
Public Transit Access
IN2
0, 2
Walkable Street
IN3
0, 1
Bike Network
IN4
0, 0.5, 1
Smart Signals
IN5
0, 3
Interconnected Street Network
IN6
0, 1
Natural Barrier
IN7
0, 0.5, 1
Access to Green Communities
IN8
0, 0.5, 1
Access to Green Buildings
IN9
0, 1
Natural Medians
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
IN10
0, 1
IN11
0, 0.5, 1
Smart Lighting
IN12
0, 1
Emergency Response Plan
CN1
0, 1
Site Ecology Enhancement
CN2
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
0, 1
CN3
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
Stormwater Management
CN4
0, 1
Minimize Site Disturbance CN5
0, 1
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
CN6
0, 1
Noise Pollution Prevention
CN7
0, 1
Light Pollution Prevention
CN8
0, 1
Environmental Purchasing
Minimum Consumption of Resources
CN9
0, 1
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
CN10
0, 2
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
0‐3 * project‐specific
ID1
ID2
0, 1
LEED Accredited Professional
Total points =
111
Max Points
5
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
68
4.5
Rating Scale Development
After points were allocated to each of the credits within SCRS, a rating
scale was developed for both point allocation approaches, the Weighted Approach
(option 1) and the Approximate Approach (option 2). A rating scale is a table that
displays the range of total points associated to each level of certification. Using the
rating scale, a project team can add up all of the final credit points to calculate their
total points and determine which level of certification they fall within. Based on the
LEED rating scales, there are four levels of certification, listed in order of lowest to
highest: certified, silver, gold, and platinum (United States Green Building Council,
2008). The more green building techniques incorporated in a project, the higher the
level of certification achieved. Therefore, a project team’s goal is to achieve credits
and earn as many points as possible in order to obtain the highest level of certification
for their project.
In order to reflect existing green building rating scales, the SCRS rating
scales for each approach were developed based on the four levels of certification
(certified, silver, gold, and platinum) used in LEED. After the levels were
determined, the point ranges associated to each were determined. Using existing
rating systems as guides, the LEED ND and LEED NC rating scales were first
analyzed. These two rating system scales were selected based on their use throughout
prior methodological steps as well as their relevance to credits within SCRS. Green
Globes was not used in the evaluation since points are allocated on a project-based
approach, causing the rating system to vary between projects.
The LEED ND and LEED NC rating scales were evaluated based on the
percentage of total points used to determine the minimum and maximum points
assigned to each level. The point ranges were broken into minimum and maximum
112
points for each level, divided by the total points within each rating system, and then
multiplied by 100 to convert to percentages. These values can be seen under the “Min
% of Total” and “Max % of Total” columns in Table 4.14. Based on the LEED ND
and LEED NC percent ranges, rating scales were developed for the two point
allocation approaches, the Weighted Approach (option 1), and the Approximate
Approach (option 2). The rating scales were developed by multiplying the minimum
and maximum percentages by the maximum total points possible in each approach.
For example, there are 68 total points possible for SCRS using the Approximate
Approach. Therefore, in order to determine the minimum points necessary for the
certified level based on the LEED ND rating scale, 36.70% was multiplied by 68.
This calculation was performed for each level, for both options, in relation to LEED
ND and LEED NC. Table 4.14 displays the development of the SCRS rating scales
based on the evaluation of existing rating scales.
Table 4.14-Development of Rating Scales
The minimum and maximum percentages for each certification level were
compared between the two rating systems, LEED ND and LEED NC, and found to
have a difference of approximately 1%. This suggests that the rating systems are
almost equal in terms of the point ranges as a percent of the maximum total points
113
within a rating system. Since there was a minimal difference between the two rating
systems, the rating scales developed for SCRS using LEED NC were selected for
further evaluation. This selection was made based on the similar total point values
between LEED NC (69) and SCRS Option 2 (68). In order to keep the point ranges
relative between the two SCRS options, the LEED NC-based rating scale for SCRS
Option 1 was also chosen for further evaluation.
In order to address the gradation of points that can be achieved for nine
credits in SCRS, the rating scales were manipulated from point ranges into point
inequalities. For example, the maximum number of points required for achieving the
certification level under SCRS Option 2 (based on LEED NC) is 32 points, and the
minimum for silver is 33 points. Therefore, if a project earns 32.5 points they would
not fall within either level. In order to correct this, the number of maximum points
possible for the previous level became the minimum points possible for the following
level. Based on this correction, the certified level was given a point range of
26 ≤ x < 32 and the silver level was given a point range of 32 ≤ x < 37 (where “x” =
the total number of points achieved for a specific project). Table 4.15 displays the
SCRS rating scales for the Weighted Approach (option 1), and the Approximate
Approach (option 2) where “x” represents the total points achieved.
Table 4.15-SCRS Rating Scales
Once the rating scales were defined, the rating system methodology
applied to develop SCRS was complete.
114
Chapter 5- CASE STUDY
5.1 Selection of Case Study Corridor
The corridor selected for the case study application was a segment along
U.S. Route 40 (Pulaski Highway) between Sunset Lake Rd. and Walther Road in
Bear, Delaware. It is a two-lane, two-directional road that is approximately 2 ¾ miles
long and runs East-West. Figure 5.1 displays the U.S. Route 40 segment selected for
the case study application.
Figure 5.1-Map of Case Study Location (Google Earth, 2008)
115
U.S. Route 40 was selected based on its current redevelopment status
initiated by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) through the Route
40 20-Year Plan (DelDOT, 2007). This program includes numerous improvements to
intersections, pedestrian facilities, bike networks, and transit facilities along Route 40
(DelDOT, 2007). In addition, Route 40 is a major route for both local and regional
traffic and is essential to mobility in northeast Delaware.
The Route 40 segment selected for the case study was chosen based on its
local nature and overall length (approximately 2 ¾ miles), which met the SCRS
corridor criteria. In addition, based on the Route 40 20-Year Plan, this segment has
undergone numerous projects over the past decade such as pedestrian improvements,
intersections improvements, drainage improvements, and road widening. These recent
improvements allow for construction credits to be applied to the segment since it can
be viewed as a redevelopment project.
5.2
Data Sources and Collection
Once the segment along Route 40 was selected as the location for the case
study application, data was collected. The first step was to identify the data needs as
well as the sources from which the data could be retrieved. Therefore, a table was
developed listing the data sources and the individual data required for each credit
application. Sources include site visit results, street/aerial maps, DelDOT
interview/maps, and other more specific listings.
Information that was not received by any of the specified sources was
considered an assumption and documented as such. For example, credit LU8
(Reduced Ecological Impact) was considered an assumption due to the lack of public
access to information regarding the locations of endangered species. Therefore, LU8
116
was documented as an assumption and applied to SCRS using assumed requirements.
Refer to Appendix E for the complete list of data sources used in the case study
application.
A data search was performed for each credit in order to determine whether
the segment of Route 40, selected for the case study, met the specified requirements.
For example, for the first credit, LU1 (Diversity of Uses), the requirements state that
the corridor must provide access to at least one residential development and at least
seven diverse uses (“diverse uses” refers to a variety of service buildings such as
laundromats, restaurants, banks, etc.). Therefore, based on a site visit and an internet
search, information was gathered showing that this Route 40 segment does provide
access to a residential development (Glasgow Pines), and at least seven diverse uses (a
pharmacy, a laundromat, a place of worship, a medical office, a dental office, a bank,
and multiple restaurants). Figure 5.2 displays examples of diverse uses located along
a portion of the case study segment.
117
Figure 5.2-Diverse Uses along Route 40 (Google Earth, 2008)
Based on these results, credit LU1 was successfully achieved. A similar process was
used to determine whether the requirements for all other credits were achieved. The
results of the data collection are shown in Appendix E.
5.3
SCRS Application
Based on the results of the data collection, SCRS was applied to the case
study using the credit requirements and points allocated to each of the credits. Since
two approaches were used to allocate points for SCRS, the Weighted Approach
(Option 1), and the Approximate Approach (Option 2), both were applied to the case
study.
Each credit was applied to the Route 40 segment and if the requirements
(or a requirement option) were met, points were granted. If the credit was not
successfully achieved, zero points were awarded. This process was completed for
both approaches. Credits that were considered an assumption, due to a lack of
118
information available, were allocated points based on the assumed requirements
achieved.
For example, credit LU1 was successfully achieved and documented as
such based on the data collection performed. Therefore, using the Weighted
Approach, LU1 has a score of 1.0 associated to it and a global credit weight of 0.850.
Therefore, by multiplying the credit score by the global credit weight, the final credit
point value determined for LU1 was 0.850 points. The final credit point value was
added to the total points achieved under option 1. Based on the Approximate
Approach, LU1 has five points associated to it. Therefore, five points were granted
and added to the total points achieved under option 2. Table 5.1 displays the case
study results for credit LU1 as an example of the “Case Study Data and Results” table
(Table E.1).
Table 5.1-Case Study Results for LU1
Once the total points were calculated for each approach, they were compared to their
respective rating scales. Refer to Appendix E for a complete list of the credit
application results, including the final credit points and total points calculated, using
both the Weighted Approach and the Approximate Approach.
5.4 Case Study Results
Once the credit requirements were applied and points were granted, the
individual final credit points were summed to determine the results of the SCRS case
119
study application using both point allocation approaches. The Weighted Approach
resulted in a total point value of 4.419 points. The Approximate Approach resulted in
a total point value of 23.450 points.
Next, the total point values were compared to their respective rating scales
to determine the levels of certification achieved under each approach. Based on the
Weighted Approach rating scale, the case study did not achieve the minimum required
points (5.011) for certification, and therefore, is not certified in SCRS (option 1).
Similarly, based on the Approximate Approach, the case study did not achieve the
minimum required points (26) for certification, and therefore, is not certified in SCRS
(option 2).
In comparing the results of the two approaches, the ratio of sustainability
in terms of the difference between the case study results and the minimum points
required for certification was roughly equivalent. Despite the two different methods
of using the weights as the maximum credit points versus approximating the weights,
the results differed by only 2%. To compare the results, the final point totals were
divided by the minimum points required for certification. The total point value
achieved under option 1 (4.419) is 88% of the minimum points required for
certification (5.011) and the total point value achieved under option 2 (23.450) is 90%
of the minimum points required for certification (26). This means that the case study
required 12% more points to be certified under option 1 and 10% more points to be
certified under option 2.
Since the case study did not satisfy the minimum number of points for
certification in SCRS using both approaches, this suggests the segment of Route 40
between Sunset Lake Road and Walther Road is not a sustainable redevelopment, as
120
defined by SCRS. In order to enhance the sustainability of the Route 40 segment,
improvements such as continuous pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and smart
signals/lights are recommended. In addition, future redevelopment projects should
satisfy as many construction credits as possible such as the use of native vegetation for
landscaping, the use of temporary noise and light barriers, and an increased use of
recycled/durable materials.
The results of the SCRS case study application are strictly based on the
data collection process, as well as overall engineering judgment in regards to the
assumptions made. Therefore, the assumptions should be taken into account when
viewing the case study results.
5.5 Evaluation of Results
In order to evaluate the case study results, a sensitivity analysis was
performed on the credits to determine how the achievement of the individual credits
would impact the overall results of the case study. Since the SCRS application
determined that the Route 40 segment was not certified, each credit that was not fully
achieved in the original case study was added one at a time to the total points achieved
to determine its sensitivity on the project’s certification. The sensitivity analysis was
performed using both approaches, the Weighted (option 1) and the Approximate
(option 2).
The sensitivity analysis began with a graphical comparison between the
total points achieved for each approach and the associated minimum number of points
required for certification in SCRS. For the Weighted Approach, the minimum points
required for certification is 5.011 points compared to the total points achieved in the
case study which is 4.419 points. For the Approximate Approach, the minimum
121
points required for certification is 26 points compared to the total points achieved in
the case study which is 23.450 points. The next step was to determine the credits that
did not receive the maximum final credit points when applied to the case study. The
credits that were either not achieved, or only achieved a portion of the requirements,
were then analyzed to determine their sensitivity in achieving SCRS certification. For
each credit not fully achieved in the case study, the maximum final credit points
possible were separately added to the total points achieved in the case study. By
adding the total points achieved to the credit’s maximum final credit points, the
credit’s sensitivity in relation to the case study can be analyzed (credit sensitivity
value).
For example, using the Weighted Approach, credit IN5 (Interconnected
Street Network) was not achieved and received zero points in the case study.
Therefore, the maximum final credit points possible for LU7 (0.658) was added to the
total point value (4.419) determined in the case study. The credit sensitivity value in
relation to the case study for LU7 is 5.077 points. This value is above the minimum
required for certification, and therefore, the corridor would be certified.
Another example (using the Approximate Approach) is credit LU2
(Reduced Automobile Dependence) which achieved a portion of the requirements and
earned 0.5 points out of a maximum final credit point value of 2 points (difference of
1.5 points). Therefore, the difference between the maximum final credit point value
(2) and the points earned in the case study (0.5) was added to the total point value
(23.450). The credit sensitivity value in relation to the case study for LU2 is 24.950
points which is less than the minimum required for certification, indicating that the
corridor would not be certified.
122
The credit sensitivity values were graphed and compared to the case study
total point values and the minimum points required for certification. Figure 5.3 and
Figure 5.4 display the results of the sensitivity analysis using the Weighted Approach
and the Approximate Approach, respectively. In both figures, the minimum points
required for certification are represented by triangular markers, the total points
achieved in the case study are represented by diamond-shaped markers, and the credit
sensitivity values are represented by square markers.
Figure 5.3-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results (Weighted Approach)
123
Figure 5.4-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results (Approximate Approach)
For both approaches, the sensitivity analysis on the case study results
produced similar conclusions. In both approaches, there are four influential credits
that if achieved, would have changed the final result of the case study to being
certified in SCRS. These credits are LU10 (Housing and Job Proximity), LU12
(Transit Oriented Development), IN5 (Interconnected Street Network), and ID1
(Innovation and Exemplary Performance). Similar to the results of the AHP synthesis
(section 4.3.3), the credits that are most sensitive are those that are ranked as high
priorities in achieving sustainable corridors (based on the survey participants’
judgments). These sensitive credits are generally based on the broader, smart growth,
neighborhood issues of corridor development.
To facilitate further evaluation of the case study results, the Approximate
Approach was used to perform a more detailed sensitivity analysis. Under this
approach, the points were allocated based on an approximation of the global credit
weights rather than strictly determined by the global credit weights, as used in the
124
Weighted Approach. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis can be performed to determine
how the point allocation process impacted the total points achieved in the case study.
The first step in completing the point allocation sensitivity analysis was to
reassess the location of the point breaks used to determine the whole number point
value assigned to each credit. Point breaks were defined when the difference between
the global credit weights was higher than the threshold value of double the average of
the differences. Based on the point break location, a whole number point value was
assigned to each credit to approximate the weights (section 4.4.2). Based on this
methodology, the point allocation process was analyzed by determining how sensitive
the credits are to a shift in the point break locations. Two methods were used to shift
the point breaks: the credits were shifted up by one credit (shift up), and the credits
were shifted down by one credit (shift down). After the point breaks were shifted,
then points were re-allocated to the credits affected by the shift. Once the shift
occurred, the maximum total points were calculated to determine the adjusted
minimum required for certification based on the shift.
For example, for the “shift up” method, the original point break #1 is
located between CN3 (rank 19) and IN1 (rank 18), with CN3 receiving 1 point and
IN1 receiving 2 points. For the purposes of the sensitivity analysis, the location of
point break #1 was shifted above IN1, causing the maximum final credit points for
IN1 to drop from 2 points to 1 point. For the “shift down” method, the opposite
occurred, where point break #1 was shifted down below CN3, causing the maximum
final credit points for CN3 to increase from 1 point to 2 points.
After all of the point breaks were shifted either up or down, the maximum
total points were determined. When the point breaks are shifted up, the maximum
125
total points possible is 63 points, compared to 73 points when the point breaks are
shifted down. Since the maximum number of total points changed, the minimum
required for certification was adjusted using the existing green building rating scale
percentages (section 4.5). Using the percentage of minimum points required for
certification (37.68%), the adjusted minimum number of points required based on the
“shift up” method is 24 points compared to 28 points using the “shift down” method.
This process of manipulating the location of the point breaks and reevaluating the minimum required for certification assesses the sensitivity of the point
allocation process, particularly the step of using the threshold value to determine the
point breaks. Such manipulations were then applied to the case study to determine
their impact on the certification status of the case study.
To apply the point allocation changes to the case study, the credits
affected by the shifts were reassessed under the case study results. The points reallocated to each of the credits were applied to the case study results in order to
determine the adjusted case study results. For the “shift up” method, the adjusted
case study result is 21.450 points and the “shift down” method is 25.950 points. Next,
the same process was followed as in the original sensitivity analysis to determine the
sensitivity of each individual credit. For each credit not fully achieved in the case
study, the adjusted maximum final credit points possible was separately added to the
adjusted total points achieved in the case study. By adding the adjusted total points to
the credit’s adjusted maximum final credit points, the credit’s sensitivity was analyzed
with respect to the shifts and manipulations made to the point allocation process.
The results of the point allocation sensitivity analysis were graphed based
on the adjusted case study result (diamond markers), adjusted minimum required for
126
certification (triangular markers) and the individual credits’ sensitivity (square
markers). Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 display the results of the sensitivity analysis on
the case study with upward and downward shifts in point breaks.
Figure 5.5-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results based on Upward Shift in Point Breaks
(Approximate Approach)
127
Figure 5.6-Sensitivity Analysis on Case Study Results based on Downward Shift in Point Breaks
(Approximate Approach)
The results of the sensitivity analysis show that a change in the location of
point breaks affects the ability for a project to achieve certification in SCRS. When
the point breaks are shifted up, the individual achievement of ten specific credits
(indicated by the squares located above the adjusted minimum required for
certification line in Figure 5.5) could have altered the final results of the case study to
being certified in SCRS. However, when the point breaks are shifted down, the
number of credits that are sensitive to the final case study result is only six credits
(Figure 5.6). Compared to the four credits that are sensitive in the original analysis,
the “shift down” method only has two more credits (LU6, and LU2) that can
significantly impact the final case study results. Therefore, shifting the point breaks
upward has a more significant affect on the case study results than shifting down.
The sensitivity analysis performed on the case study allowed for a more
rigorous evaluation of the case study certification status. The analysis showed that
under the original case study results, the separate achievement of four specific credits
can change the result from being not certified to certified, using both approaches.
128
When altering the point allocation process using the Approximate Approach, ten
credits are sensitive to the results when shifted up, and six credits are sensitive when
shifted down. This shows that within this approach there is variability, specifically in
relation to the high priority credits. The majority of the credits that are sensitive in all
three analyses are credits that had a high ranking in the AHP synthesis. These credits
(determined based on survey participants’ judgment) relate to the broader,
neighborhood issues of sustainable development such as housing and job proximity,
transit oriented development, and street connectivity.
Since the credit sensitivity value is related to the final AHP credit ranking
it can be assumed that sensitivity analyses performed on other case studies will
produce similar results showing that high priority credits are more influential.
However, the actual number of credits that can alter the results from not certified to
certified is strictly based on the case study performed in this research. Therefore, the
sensitivity results are specific to the Route 40 segment and should not be applied to
other project applications. In order to improve the sensitivity analysis, the process
should be applied and repeated to numerous projects prior to making further
generalizations.
5.6
Observations
The case study was applied in order to determine the applicability of
SCRS in the field. Throughout this process many challenges (both predicted and
unforeseen) were faced and adaptations were made in order to determine the
sustainability of the Route 40 segment between Sunset Lake Road and Walther Road.
A challenge that was faced during data collection was the lack of
information available. For a majority of the construction credits, as well as others,
129
information required for determining if the credit requirements were achieved was
unavailable due to a variety of reasons. Therefore, as a result, assumptions were made
based on engineering judgment and knowledge that the redevelopment projects within
this segment were not completed with the intentions of being sustainable. For
example, credit LU8 (Reduced Ecological Impact) was considered an assumption due
to the lack of public access to the location of endangered species. After failing to
obtain this information, it was assumed that the Route 40 segment is not located on an
endangered species site, based on the built-up nature of the corridor.
In terms of the construction credits, the Route 40 20-Year improvement
projects within this segment were considered as corridor redevelopment. Since a
project team typically applies SCRS to a project they would have information
available regarding the construction methods, materials, and processes used to
complete the redevelopment. Since SCRS was not completed by a project team,
construction information was not readily available. Therefore, assumptions were
made in terms of the whether credit requirements were achieved. For example, credit
CN4 (Minimize Site Disturbance), was considered an assumption since information
was not available regarding the zone of construction for the past improvements.
Therefore, it was assumed that requirement option 1, stating that 100% of the zone of
construction must be on a previously developed site, was achieved due to the built-up
nature of the site. Therefore, the maximum number of points possible was granted for
both the Weighted Approach and the Approximate Approach.
As a result of the data collection and point allocation process, a few minor
adaptations were made to the credit requirements. For example, the credit
requirement for LU8 (Reduced Ecological Impact) was originally based on the
130
information gathered from NatureServe and the Endangered Species Act. After
attempting to gather information for the case study, the credit was revised in order to
include local wildlife agencies as a source, since source information may vary
between states.
Since the case study was based on a segment of Route 40 that has already
been redeveloped, the application of SCRS varied from the typical context of a project
application. In a typical application of SCRS, the project team would be planning to
redevelop a corridor with the intentions of incorporating sustainable, green building
techniques. Since the redevelopment has already been completed for the case study,
the application does not include the project teams’ goal of developing a sustainable
corridor. For this reason, fewer points were granted, decreasing the opportunity of the
case study to achieve certification in SCRS. This implication should be taken into
account when viewing the case study results.
In general, the case study resulted in a successful application of SCRS.
The credits were applied, points were granted, and a total point value for SCRS using
both approaches was determined. Although the Route 40 segment chosen for the case
study was found to be below the standards for SCRS certification, the segment serves
as an example of a corridor that can be improved through sustainable “green”
redevelopment.
131
Chapter 6- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the purpose for developing SCRS and its
applicability to corridor development and redevelopment. The implications of this
rating system are stated and future work is suggested in order to further refine SCRS.
6.1
Implementation of Rating System Methodology
The seven step methodological process defined in this research can be
applied to develop similar sustainable rating systems. The seven steps defined were:
1. Define infrastructure criteria for the facility (corridor) under
evaluation
2. Develop sustainability indicator categories
3. Develop sustainability indicators
4. Transform indicators into credits by identifying measurements
associated to each
5. Prioritize credits by assigning weights
6. Allocate points and evaluate prerequisites
7. Develop rating scale
Each of the steps can be applied universally to a variety of infrastructure
types, not only corridor development and redevelopment. This process starts with the
development of the individual indicators and finishes with the creation of a final rating
scale. Once the sustainable rating system is complete, a case study application,
132
similar to the one completed in this research, is recommended to determine its
relevancy and applicability in the field.
6.2
Implementation of SCRS
SCRS is an example of a tool that can be utilized by private/public
transportation practitioners, engineers, designers, planners, and owners, throughout
the country. Local MPO’s and state DOT’s can apply SCRS to corridor development
or redevelopment projects, specifically when working with project team members
such as engineers, designers, owners, and planners. Together the transportation
practitioners and project teams can complete SCRS in order to determine the
sustainability of the corridor project. This assessment tool is capable of quantifying
sustainable practices within the transportation sector, specifically related to local
corridor development/redevelopment projects. The rating system is intended to be
objective, consistent, and repeatable.
SCRS consists of 37 point-based credits. The individual credit requirements
are optional, but in order to achieve certification a minimum of 5.011 points must be
achieved under the Weighted Approach (option 1), and 26 points under the
Approximate Approach (option 2). Under the Weighted Approach, the minimum
point total for silver is 6.167 points, for gold is 7.324 points, and for platinum is 9.829
points. Under the Approximated Approach, the minimum point total for silver is 32
points, for gold is 37 points, and for platinum is 50 points.
The two approaches represent different methods for allocating points in SCRS.
When implementing SCRS to a project, the approach selected should reflect the user’s
goals. The Weighted Approach (option 1) provides a more systematic method in
which the individual global credit weights directly represent the maximum point
133
values that can be achieved for each credit. Therefore, the points reflect the individual
weights assigned from the AHP application. Although option 1 is more reflective of
the original weighting process, the point system is a bit more challenging from a
user’s perspective, when compared to option 2. The Weighted Approach requires the
user to determine their point scores for each credit and multiply those scores by each
of the associated global credit weights, to solve for the final credit points. The final
credit points are then added to determine the total credit points achieved. Due to the
weights being decimals, these calculations typically result in decimal values for each
of the credit points, as well as for the point ranges in the overall rating scale.
Therefore, the Weighted Approach should be selected if the project team places more
importance on using a systematic/methodological approach, rather than a user-friendly
approach.
The Approximate Approach (option 2) represents a more accessible point
system, where the credits are given a whole number point value based on an
approximation of the global credit weights. When implementing option 2, the user
simply has to determine the number of points achieved for each credit and then sums
them together to solve for the total points achieved. Since each credit has been
assigned a whole number point value, there are fewer decimals involved in the total
point value. Decimals result only when a project team achieves a portion of a credit
that has a gradation of points associated to it. Option 2 requires fewer calculations
from the user providing a more accessible approach. Therefore, if the project team
values simplicity over a more systematic approach, the Approximate Approach should
be selected.
134
Once SCRS was developed using the defined rating system methodology, final
SCRS documents were developed for each of the two options. Minor alterations were
made between the “Credit Measurements for SCRS” attachment seen in Appendix C
and the final SCRS documents shown in Appendix F. These minor changes were
made as a result of the case study findings, in order to further refine the rating system.
For an example of the minor changes made during this process, refer to section 5.2.
Similar to LEED and Green Globes, the SCRS documents should be applied
with the goal of promoting green building in order to reduce environmental impacts of
development. Documentation is provided in Appendix F. The complete SCRS
Document (Weighted Approach) is shown in Figure F.1 and the complete SCRS
Document (Approximate Approach) is shown in Figure F.2.
6.3
Implications of SCRS
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, the rating system 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. Submittals are documents used to
prove that project teams have successfully achieved each of the credits. The
development of the required documents for each credit is out of the scope of this
research.
In addition, the point allocation step in the development of SCRS is strictly
based on the results of the participatory phase survey and the application of AHP. The
135
final credit weights, which are used to allocate points, represent the importance of the
credits based on transportation practitioners’ perspectives and reflect the opinions and
ideals of the survey participants.
Therefore, to verify that the points are sufficiently assigned in this research and
that the credits cover all aspects of corridor development sustainability, a pilot phase
is recommended. Similar to the LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program,
a trial period can be utilized in order to test the performance of the SCRS on a variety
of projects over a long-term period. Based on the results of the pilot phase, changes
can be made accordingly to refine the rating system prior to application. The
implementation of a SCRS pilot program is recommended since it is not within the
scope of this research.
6.4
Future Research
In order to further improve and refine SCRS the following future tasks are
suggested:
• Specification of submittals (written documents justifying the
achievement of credit requirements) - submittal documents defined for
each credit allows for justification that the project team has
successfully completed the stated requirements.
• Further evaluation of credit requirements– re-evaluation of the details
in the credit requirements, specifically numerical quantities from
existing rating systems, allows for the refinement of how to measure
sustainable development in the field.
136
• Normalization of points- some consideration should be given to
normalizing the point values for either approach to allow for a more
rational scale within the rating system.
• Determination of the review committee (group of practitioners with
expertise in SCRS selected to review the rating systems and grant
certification) - selection of the review committee allows for a standard
third party that can review each SCRS project based on the completed
rating system and associated submittals in order to determine the
project’s certification status.
• Implementation of a pilot phase- a pilot phase can be used to test the
validity and applicability of SCRS in the field. Similar to the LEED
pilot program, SCRS can be applied to a variety of local corridor
projects and based on the results, the credits and requirements should
be refined if necessary.
• Sensitivity analysis on multiple applications- a sensitivity analysis,
similar to the one performed in the evaluation of the case study results,
can be applied to the results of multiple SCRS applications
implemented during the pilot phase. A sensitivity analysis on the
credits and their application to multiple projects can be used to
determine the influence and impact of each credit toward obtaining a
certification in SCRS.
• Detailed comparison of the Weighted Approach and the Approximate
Approach- the two point allocation processes can be compared in
137
depth in order to determine their effectiveness and applicability to
SCRS projects.
SCRS is an example of a green rating system that targets transportation
infrastructure, specifically local corridor development and redevelopment. The
following future tasks can be applied with the intentions of expanding this tool:
• Address regional corridor development- in contrast to SCRS, which
focuses on local corridors, a sustainable rating system can be
developed focusing on regional corridor development/redevelopment.
This would include credits and requirements related to highways and
corridors greater than five miles in length.
• Address usage/policy aspects of corridor development- in contrast to
SCRS, which focuses on the land use, infrastructure, and construction
impacts of corridor development/redevelopment, a sustainable rating
system can be developed focusing on the usage and policy aspects of
sustainability. The credits and requirements can reflect impacts such
as emissions, safety, and travel costs.
138
REFERENCES
Belka, K. (2005). Multicriteria Analysis and GIS Application in the Selection of
Sustainable Motorway Corridor. Master’s thesis, Linkopings University.
Best Foot Forward. (2005). What is an Ecological Footprint? Retrieved April 19,
2008, from http://www.steppingforward.org.uk/tech/footprint.htm.
Black, J. A., Paez, A., and Suthanaya, P.A. (2002). Sustainable Urban Transportation
Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches. Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, 128 (4), 184-209.
Black, W. R. (1996). Sustainable Transportation: a US Perspective. Journal of
Transport Geography, 4 (3), 151-159.
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method,
Applications. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Brugmann, J. (1997). Is There a Method in Our Measurement? The Use of Indicators
in Local Sustainable Development Planning. Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 2 (1), 59-72.
Building Green, LLC. (2005). Green Globes Emerges to Challenge LEED. Electronic
Environmental Building News, 14 (3). Retrieved April 20, 2008, from
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=140304b.xml.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2008). Table 1-11: Number of US Aircraft,
Vehicles, Vessles, and Other Conveyances. United States Department of
Transportation: Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Retrieved
September 17, 2008, from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.h
tml.
California Energy Commission, Oregon Department of Energy, and Washington State
Energy Office. (1996). The Energy Yardstick: Using PLACE 3 S to Create More
Sustainable Communities. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from
http://www.energy.ca.gov//places/PLACESGB.PDF.
Carmody, J., and Trusty, W. (2005). Lifecycle Assessment Tools. Implications , 5 (3),
1-5.
139
Centre for Sustainable Transportation. (2005). Defining Sustainable Transportation.
Retrieved September 21, 2008, from
http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Defining_Sustainable_2005.pdf.
CIRIA. (2008). Sustainability. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from
http://www.ciria.org/complianceplus/images/sustainability2.gif.
Costanza, R. (ed.). (1991). Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of
Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dargay, J., Gately, D., and Sommer, M. (2007). Vehicle Ownership and Income
Growth Worldwide: 1960-2030. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from
http://www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/gately/DGS_Vehicle%20Ownership_2007.pdf.
DelDOT. (2007). The Route 40 Corridor Improvements. Route 40 Corridor 20-Year
Transportation Plan. Retrieved on August 13, 2008, from
http://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/rt40/pages/20yrlrp/20plan.htm.
Doughty, M., and Hammond, G. (2004). Sustainability and the Built Environment at
and Beyond the City Scale. Building and Environment, 39 (10), 1223-1233.
Energy and Environment Canada Ltd. (2004). Green Globes: Design for New
Buildings and Retrofits. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from
http://www.greenglobes.com.
Expert Choice, Inc. (2008). Expert Choice 11.5.
FHWA. (2007). U.S. Department of Transportation Names Six Interstate Routes as
"Corridors of the Future" to Help Fight Traffic Congestion. Retrieved October 1,
2008, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/dot0795.htm.
FHWA. (2008). Measuring Travel Time in Freight-Significant Corridors. Retrieved
October 1, 2008, from http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/time.htm.
Fuller, S. (2007). Lifecycle Cost Analysis. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php.
Geerlings, H. (1999). Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable Mobility. Germany:
Springer.
Google Earth. (2008). Newark, Delaware. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from
http://earth.google.com.
140
Green Highways Partnership. (2007). What Makes a Highway Green? Retrieved July
14, 2008, from http://www.greenhighways.org/Makes_Highway_Green.cfm.
Hull, Z., Warminsko-Mazurski, U., Humanistyczny, W., Filozofii, I., and Ekofilozofii,
P. (2007). Sustainable Development: Premises, Understanding and Prospects.
Sustainable Development, 16, 73-80.
Jeon, C. M., and Amekudzi, A. (2006). Evaluating the Sustainability of Transportation
Plans or Scenarios using a Composite Sustainability Index in the Context of MultiAttribute Decision Making. 2nd Annual Inter-university Symposium on Infrastructure
Management (AISIM), University of Delaware, Newark. CD-ROM.
Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A., and Guensler, R. (2007). Evaluating Transportation
System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. Proceedings of the 2007
Transportation Research Board Annual Conference. Washington, D.C. CD-ROM.
Jeon, C. M., and Amekudzi, A. (2005). Addressing Sustainability in Transportation
Systems: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11
(1), 31-50.
Kassoff, H. (2007). Statement on Sustainable Highways. House Committee on Science
and Technology Subcommittee on Technology of Innovation. Washington, D.C.:
United States House of Representatives.
Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences
and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Leskinen, P. (2000). Measurement Scales and Scale Independence in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 163-174.
Litman, T., and Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in Sustainable Transportation. Journal of
Global Environmental Issues, 6 (4), 331-346.
Litman, T. (2008). Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and
Sustainable Transport Planning. British Columbia: Victoria Transport Policy
Institute.
Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., and Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE
and AHP: The Design of Operational Synergies in Multicriteria Analysis. European
Journal of Operational Research, 153, 307-317.
141
Mega, V., and Pederson, J. (1998). Urban Sustainability Indicators. Retrieved March
11, 2008, from http://eurofound.europa.edu/pubdocs/1998/07/en/1/ef9807en.pdf.
Mitchell, G. (1996). Problems and Fundamentals of Sustainable Development
Indicators. Sustainable Development, 4, 1-11.
Muench, S. (2008). Green Roads. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from
http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=UW:Green_Roads/Credits.
Nagurney, A. (2000). Sustainable Transportation Networks. Northampton: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
O'Grady, V. (2007). A Preliminary Assessment of Green Building Practices in the
United States from a Sustainability Standpoint. PhD dissertation, Center for Energy
and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997). Towards
Sustainable Transportation. The Vancover Conference, Paris.
Ott, W. (1978). Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor
Science.
Saaty, T. (1982). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for
Decision in a Complex World. Belmont: Lifetime Learning Publications.
Santa Barbara Family Foundation. (2003). Material Flow Analysis. Retrieved March
10, 2008, from
http://www.sustainablescale.org/conceptualframework/understandingscale/Measurings
cale/Materialflowanalysis.aspx.
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1999). The MIPS Concept: Bridging Ecological, Economic, and
Social Dimensions with Sustainability Indicators. Tokyo: Zero Emissions Forum.
Shiftan, Y., Kaplan, S., and Hakkert, S. (2003). Scenario Building as a Tool for
Planning a Sustainable Transportation System. Transportation Research Part D, 8,
323-342.
Srinivas, H. (n/d). Defining Life Cycle Assessment. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/lca/lca-define.html.
Srinivas, H. (n/d). What is an Ecological Footprint? Retrieved March 11, 2008, from
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/what-is-ef.html.
142
U.S. Green Building Council. (2007). LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating
System. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumnetID=2310.
United States Green Building Council. (2008). LEED Rating Systems. Retrieved April
15, 2008, from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222.
Venetoulis, J., and Talberth, J. (2005). Ecological Footprint of Nations 2005 Update.
Oakland: Redefining Progress.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2004). Sustainable Transportation and Travel
Demand Managment:Planning that Balances Economic, Social, and Ecological
Objectives. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.
Williams, K. (2005). Spatial Planning, Urban Form and Sustainable Transport.
Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zietsman, J., Knowles, W. E., Ramani T. L., Lee J. S., and Bochner, B. S. (2008).
Sustainability Enhancement Tool for State DOT's Using Performance Measurement.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board (081766), 1-16.
Zietsman, J., Rilett, L. R., and Kim, S. J. (2006). Transportation Corridor DecisionMaking with Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. International Journal of Management
and Decision Making, 7 (2/3), 254-266.
143
APPENDICES
144
Appendix A. POTENTIAL CORRIDOR CREDITS
The following list includes the “potential corridor credits” from existing
green building programs (LEED for New Construction, LEED for Neighborhood
Development, and Green Globes Design for New Buildings and Retrofits) that can
be manipulated in order to relate to corridor development. Each credit/objective is
listed with an overview of its original intent and a summary of the specified
requirements stated in the rating systems.
The following LEED category acronyms are used throughout the list:
1. SS(P)- Sustainable Sites (Prerequisite)
2. EA- Energy and Atmosphere
3. MR- Materials and Resources
4. ID- Innovation and Design Process
5. SLL(P)- Smart Location and Linkage (Prerequisite)
6. NPD- Neighborhood Pattern and Design
7. GCT- Green Construction and Technology
The Green Globes categories are labeled based on the following letters:
A. -Project Management Policies and Practices
B. -Site
C. -Energy
E. -Resources
F. -Emissions, Effluents, and other Impacts
145
LEED for New Construction:
•
SSP1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention-reduce the amount
of pollution and erosion from construction activities
•
SS1: Site Selection- avoid sites within 100’ of wetlands, 5’ above the
100-year floodplain, parkland, farmland, endangered species habitats,
and 50’ within a water body
•
SS2: Development Density and Community Connectivity- develop site
within a half mile radius that includes 10 basic services or within a
density of 60,000 sq. ft./acre net
•
SS3: Brownfield Redevelopment-select sites which are currently
brownfields and require clean up prior to usage
•
SS4.3: Alternative Transportation (Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient
Vehicles)- encourage fuel efficient vehicle usage
•
SS5.1: Site Development (Protect or Restore Habitat)- restore a
minimum of 50% of the original native or adapted vegetation
•
SS6.1: Stormwater Design (Quantity Control)- reduce the stormwater
runoff flow by 25% through facilities or wetland ponds
•
SS6.2: Stormwater Design (Quality Control)- treat 90% of the annual
rainfall through Best Management Practices
•
SS7.1: Heat Island Effect (Non-Roof)-reduce solar reflectance
through open grid pavement, paving material with Solar Reflectance
Index of at least 29, and shade
•
SS8: Light Pollution Reduction-exterior lighting should protect and
provide security but should not exceed over 80% power
146
•
EA6: Green Power- use of grid source, renewable energy
technologies on a net zero pollution basis
•
MR2.1: Construction Waste Management (50%)- divert 50% of the
waste from disposal by recycling
•
MR2.2: Construction Waste Management (75%)- divert 75% of the
waste from disposal by recycling
•
MR3.1: Materials Reuse (5%)- reuse at least 5% of the materials in
order to reduce demand
•
MR3.2: Materials Reuse (10%)- reuse at least 10% of the materials in
order to reduce demand
•
MR4.1: Recycled Content (10%)- recycle at least 10% of the
construction materials
• MR4.2 : Recycled Content (20%) - recycle at least 20% of the
construction materials
• MR5.1: Regional Materials (10%)- use regional materials for at least
10% of all construction materials
•
MR5.2: Regional Materials (20%)- use regional materials for at least
20% of all construction materials
•
ID1: Innovation in Design- a credit for going above and beyond the
LEED criteria
•
ID2: LEED Accredited Professional- include a LEED AP within the
design team
147
LEED for Neighborhood Development:
•
SLLP1: Smart Location- reduce vehicle trips by developing site near
existing structures and public transportation
•
SLLP3: Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities- reduce
impacts on ecology and endangered species
•
SLLP4: Wetland and Waterbody Conservation- conserve water
quality through avoiding wetland/water areas
•
SLLP5: Agricultural Land Conservation- conserve farmland through
avoiding agricultural land
•
SLLP6: Floodplain Avoidance- avoid developing site within the
floodplain to enhance water quality
•
SLL1: High Priority Brownfields Redevelopment- select a brownfield
site for development after clean up
•
SLL2: Preferred Locations- develop within the boundaries of an infill
site to avoid sprawl
•
SLLP3: Reduced Automobile Dependence- develop near public
transportation modes in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
•
SLLP4: Bicycle Network- connectivity and bike network must be
provided to encourage bicycle riding
•
SLLP5: Housing and Jobs Proximity- develop near houses and
employment to reduce the VMT to access other sites
•
SLLP6: School Proximity- develop nearby schools to reduce VMT
•
SLLP8: Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands- restore habitats and
wetlands that have been destroyed due to prior human activity
148
•
NPD7: Walkable Streets- promotion of pedestrian activity through
sidewalks and safe speed limits
•
NPD8: Street Network- interconnected design with a grid-like
network to promote accessibility
•
NPD11: Access to Surrounding Vicinity- provide safe access to open
spaces through all modes
•
NPD12: Access to Public Spaces- provide safe access to public
spaces through all modes
•
GCT and ID credits: similar to the New Construction regulations
Green Globes Design for New Buildings and Retrofits
• A.2: Environmental Purchasing- apply environmental purchasing
criteria by integrating green aspects of the National Master
Specification and/or Energuide.
• A.3: Commissioning- engage an independent Commissioning
Authority in order to develop a plan that ensures intended operation of
the infrastructure
• A.4: Emergency Response Plan- minimize impact of environmental
incidents by including an emergency response plan
• B.1: Development Area- protect land uses and reduce impact on the
site’s biodiversity by minimizing disturbance to the land
• B.2: Ecological Impacts- Prevent erosion, reduce heat island effects
and minimize light pollution to minimize impact on the site
• B.3: Watershed Features- Reduce quantity of stormwater runoff by
providing a stormwater managment plan
149
• B.4: Site Ecology Enhancement-increase the natural diversity of the
site through landscaping
• C.5: Energy Efficient Transportation- reduce fossil fuel consumption
for commuting by providing public transit, alternate fuel facilities, and
cycling facilities
• E.1: Low Impact System and Materials- select materials for the project
with the lowest lifecycle environmental burden
• E.2: Minimal Consumption of Resources- conserve resources and
minimize environmental impact of extracting non-renewable materials
through using locally manufactured materials
• E.3: Reuse of Existing Buildings- conserve resources by renovating
existing buildings and reusing major structures
• E.4: Building Durability, Adaptability, and Disassembly- extend the
life of the building by using durable, low-maintenance materials
• E.6: Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste- divert
demolition waste from the landfill by implementing a waste
management plan
• F.1: Air Emissions- minimize air emissions by complying with
American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) codes
• F.3: Avoiding Sewer and Waterway Contamination- avoid
contamination of waterways by preventing stormwater or wastewater
discharge
• F.4: Pollution Minimization- minimize risk to the local environment
by avoiding materials that can be potentially pollutant
150
Appendix B. SCRS CREDIT TABLES
The following four tables (Table B.1-B.4) are based on the four categories
of credits within SCRS (land use, infrastructure, construction, and innovation/design).
Each table lists the individual credits and their corresponding description, source,
measurement summary, purpose, and related sustainable implementation frameworks.
151
Table B.1-SCRS Land Use Credits
Credit
Title
LAND USE
Description
LU1
Diversity of Uses
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect to a diversity of uses
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
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
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland
LU5
LU6
LU7
LU8
LU9
Source Measurement Summary
Purpose
Sustainable Framework
LEED ND
provide access to residential development and at least 7 diverse uses
promote connectivity and mixed land use
PLACES3
LEED ND
1. develop along public transit route where 20+ rides/weekday 2. established MPO with 80% VMT of average metropolitan region reduce vehicle miles traveled
PLACES3
1. infill site 2. existing or planned transit service with at least 50% of businesses/residential have 1/2 mile reduce vehicle miles LEED ND access 3. MPO and home based trips are less than traveled and promote infill avg annual rate 4.MPO and VMT on roads within 10 development mile will be lower than average annual rate
1. no more than 25% prime soils 2. development preserve agricultural land LEED ND
rights must be provided for land designated as and resources
farmland
reduce development corridor must be located on infill site, previously MRO‐ Jeon
footprint and reduce developed or adjacent site
urban sprawl
promote high density to corridor provides access to residential density of 50 reduce development LEED ND
units/acre or residential/nonresidential density of footprint and protect more than 7 units/acre and 0.75 FAR
open space
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in existing communities in order to reduce urban sprawl
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to Compact Development
provide access to areas that already have high density and promote community connectedness
encourage development/redevelopment of a Transportation Demand corridor that it is located in a jurisdiction that has LEED ND
Management
already an established TDM plan through MPO or local agency
protect endangered species and natural habitats LEED Reduced Ecological through avoiding development within ecological ND/Green Impact
communities
Globes
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to Proximity to Major LEED ND
provide access to open public spaces and encourage Public Spaces
outdoor physical activity Reduced Sprawl
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
LU11
Park and Ride Proximity
LU 12
Transit Oriented Development
LU 13
Reduced Development Area
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect residential and office/industrial spaces
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to a park and ride facility and promote public transit accessilibility/ ridesharing
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located in area that is currently transit oriented and is designated as such
reduce facility footprint through minimizing the number of lanes in both directions
Ecological Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Ecological Footprint
TDM must be established for the location in which the corridor is located and must reduce trip generation by 20% on roads
reduce vehicle miles traveled
PLACES3
avoid endangered species habitats under the Endangered Species Act and Natureserve
reduce impact on ecological communities
Ecological Footprint
corridor must provide access to open space that is public property and is at least 1/6 acre in area promote compact development and mixed land uses and reduce vehicle miles traveled
Ecological Footprint/ PLACES3
LEED ND
1.corridor must provide access to one residential development and one office/ industrial space 2. provide access to work for 25% of residents within region reduce vehicle miles traveled to and from workplaces
PLACES3
MRO
corridor must provide accessibility to at least one park in ride facility
reduce vehicle miles traveled through promotion of alternative modes and carpooling
PLACES3
MRO
corridor must be developed in a TOD reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote transit ridership
PLACES3
MRO‐ Venetoulis
minimize the number of lanes while maintaining adequate LOS (volume/capacity ratio) and accomodating traffic capacity
promote open space and reduce development footprint
Ecological Footprint
152
Table B.2-SCRS Infrastructure Credits
Credit
Title
INFRASTRUCTURE
Description
Source Measurement Summary
Purpose
Sustainable Framework
reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote usage of public transit
PLACES3
IN1
Public Transit Access
encourage transit ridership through development of public transit stop along the corridor every 1/2 mile
LEED ND
minimum of 1 public transit stop per 1/2 mile of corridor; each stop must have a partially enclosed shelter to buffer from wind and rain; each stop must have at least one bench and adequate lighting
IN2
Walkable Street
encourage pedestrian mobility through implementation of sidewalks and crosswalks along corridor; residential speed 25mph max
LEED ND
100% of the corridor must have continuous sidewalks on both sides that are at least 4 feet wide; crosswalks must be present at all intersections
reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve public health (reduce obesity rates) by promoting walking
PLACES3
IN3
Bike Network
encourage bicycle mobility through implementation of bike paths or lanes in order to connect to existing regional bike infrastructure
LEED ND
100% of corridor must have continuous bicycle lanes on both sides that are at least 5 feet wide
reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve public health (reduce obesity rates) by promoting cycling
PLACES3
IN4
Smart Signals
encourage solar power usage through implementation of traffic signals, variable message signs and other regulatory signs that are powered by solar energy
MRO
traffic signals, variable message signs, and other signage that requires power must be solar powered
reduce electric power required for signage, signaling
PLACES3
IN5
Interconnected Street Network
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is connected to the larger grid‐like street design without cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends in order to connect the road to the existing network
MRO
IN6
Natural Barrier
provide a natural barrier through proper landscaping in order to reduce noise pollution and improve aesthetics
MRO
IN7
Access to Green Communities
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide connection to certified LEED Neighborhood Development program communities
LEED ND
corridor provides connection to at least one LEED ND certified pilot project within 3 mile buffer of corridor
promote green communities
Ecological Footprint
IN8
Access to Green Buildings
encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to certified LEED New Construction, Retail, Homes, School, Existing Building, or Green Globes program buildings
LEED ND
corridor provides connection to at least one LEED certified building or Green Globes project within 3 mile buffer of corridor
promote green buildings
Ecological Footprint
IN9
Natural Medians
promote safety and improve aesthetics through implementation of natural medians as directional separations
MRO
natural landscaped median separating the two directions of traffic along corridor
improve safety of road through separating opposing traffic, improve aesthetics of roadway, and increase natural landscaping
PLACES3/Ecological Footprint
IN10
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
promote the use of alternative fuels through providing accessibility to hydrogen refueling tanks and other alternative fuel infrastructure MRO
provide access to hydrogen infrastructure and other alternative fuel facilities
reduce dependence on oil, encourage hydrogen as alternative fuel, and reduce vehicular emissions
PLACES3/Material Flow Analysis/Lifecycle Assessment
IN11
Smart Lighting
encourage solar power usage through implementation of lights that are powered by solar energy
MRO
traffic street lights must be solar powered
reduce electric power required for lighting
Lifecycle Assessment/PLACES3
IN12
Emergency Response Plan
increase safety of road for users and surrounding land use
PLACES3
street design must be based on grid‐like design and have a minimum of 20 centerline mile/square mile reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase within 2 distinct areas of the corridor buffer, no cul‐de‐
accessibility
sacs or dead ends
minimum of 5' of landscaping between residential reduce noise pollution and increase natural development and corridor and minimum height of 6' landscaping
tall encourage development of an emergency response plan DOT must develop emergency response plan including using the corridor in order to protect life and property Green Globes‐Jeon irreversibility, continuity, connectivity, and multimodal from natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other options
disasters
153
PLACES3
PLACES3
Table B.3-SCRS Construction Credits
CONSTRUCTION
Description
Credit
Title
CN1
Site Ecology Enhancement
CN2
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
CN3
Stormwater Management
CN4
Minimize Site Disturbance reduce the amount of environmental impact generated through construction by protecting trees and preventing erosion, runoff and other human impacts to the land
LEED ND
CN5
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
reduce pollution by controlling soil erosion, airbourne dust generation and waterway sedimentation during construction process
LEED ND
create ESC plan to prevent soil loss, wind erosion and stormwater runoff
reduce sedimentation, soil erosion, and dust pollution Ecological Footprint
CN6
Noise Pollution Prevention
reduce noise pollution during construction by implementing a barrier between construction site and adjacent land uses
MRO
implement temporary barrier during construction in areas when residential neighborhoods are located and must stand 10' tall
reduce noise pollution
PLACES3
CN7
CN8
CN9
CN10
promote growth of natural plants along corridor through landscaping the corridor with natural species
Source Green Globes
Measurement Summary
Purpose
landscape the corridor using natural, native increase natural landscaping of trees, shrubs and ground cover
native species
Sustainable Framework
Ecological Footprint
encourage the use of recycled materials for signage, Material Intensity per reduce the amount of virgin Service Unit/ Material Flow pavement, guiderail, and other corridor features in Green Globes/ recycled materials such as asphalt and materials required for Analysis/ Lifecycle order to decrease the amount of virgin materials LEED ND
cement should be 90% recycled aggregate
infrastructure
Assessment
generated
address runoff concerns through natural stormwater develop comprehensive stormwater plan reduce peak hour flow rates and management facilities such as swales, retention ponds, Green Globes/ that infiltrates and treats the required unnatural hydrological flows Ecological Footprint
recharge facilities etc. in order to reduce peak hour LEED ND
amount of rainfall based on type of region
generated by stormwater
flow rates generated by stormwater
1.locate on 100% previously developed site reduce construction impact to 2. limit disturbance to 15' beyond roadway site and surrounding curb 3. survey trees in good condition environment
Ecological Footprint
minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky‐glow at corridor lighting must not exceed 80% of the night and reduce development on nocturnal LEED ND
lighting power densities as defined in reduce light pollution
PLACES3
environments by reducing the amount of light emitted ASHRAE 90.1 for safety
during construction
Material Intensity per reduce impact on the environment by selecting at least 50% of the materials must be reduce impact on environment Service Unit/ Material Flow materials that have the lowest life cycle environmental Green Globes applying environmental purchasing criteria Environmental Purchasing
through materials used
burden in terms of resource use, production of waste Analysis/ Lifecycle and integrating green aspects of NMS
and energy use
Assessment
Material Intensity per conserve resources and minimize energy and conserve resources through at least 5% of reduce extraction/processing of Service Unit/ Material Flow Minimum Consumption of environmental impacts required for extraction, and Green Globes recycled, or reused, or renewable, or locally non‐renewable materials
Resources
Analysis/ Lifecycle processing of non‐renewable materials
manufactured
Assessment
majority of materials used are durable, low‐
extend the life of the corridor and its components by Green Globes/ maintenance materials that can withstand Corridor Durability and increasing the durability of the road and minimizing the extend corridor's lifecycle
Lifecycle Assessment
Srinivas
sunlight, temperature changes etc. and Adaptability
need to replace materials
adaptability plan
Light Pollution Prevention
154
Table B.4-SCRS Innovation and Design Process Credits
155
Appendix C. SURVEY PACKAGE
The survey package distributed to transportation practitioners for the
participatory phase included the “AHP Survey” and the “Credit Measurements for
SCRS” attachment. Survey participants completed the pairwise comparisons on the
“AHP Survey” document using the attachment as a reference for detailed descriptions
of the individual credits. The AHP Survey (Table C.1- Table C.6) is provided as well
as the attachment, shown in Figure C.1.
156
AHP SURVEY
The survey includes five sections of pairwise comparisons. The first four sections are based on categories (land use,
infrastructure, construction, and innovation/design) in which credits are compared. Credits are indicators of sustainability
and serve as the criteria for green rating systems. The fifth comparison is between each of the general categories. This is an
example of a pairwise comparison:
With respect to the Land Use credit category, which credit holds more importance and to what degree: A (Transit Oriented
Development) or B (Reduced Development Area)? Table 1 displays the sample comparison.
Table C.1-Paiwise Comparison Example
In Table 1, number “3” is circled under the column of “moderate” where “A is more important than B, which means with
respect to the category of Land Use, credit A (Transit Oriented Development) holds “moderate” importance over credit B
(Reduced Development Area).
Please complete similar pairwise comparisons for each of the five survey sections. Please refer to the description of each
credit under the credit A column. For even further detailed requirements of each credit please refer to the “Credit
Measurements for SCRS” attachment. The order of the credits listed under the Credit B column are reflective of the order
of the credits in the Credit A column and the attachment. In each row of any table, please only circle ONE score.
157
Section 1- Land Use Credits
Please complete the following table of credit pairwise comparisons with respect to the category of Land Use. Circle the
appropriate score – only circle one rating per row.
Table C.2-Land Use Credit Pairwise Comparisons
Credit B
Reduced Automobile Dependence
Smart Location
Agricultural Conservation
Reduced Sprawl
Compact Development
Diversity Of Uses‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a Transportation Demand Management
LAND USE
corridor and its adjacent land uses in Reduced Ecological Impact
order to connect a diversity of uses Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Smart Location
Agricultural Conservation
Reduced Automobile Dependence‐ Reduced Sprawl
encourage Compact Development
development/redevelopment of a Transportation Demand Management
LAND USE corridor that is located in areas that Reduced Ecological Impact
already have superior transportation Proximity to Major Public Spaces
accessibility through modes other Housing and Job Proximity
than vehicular
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Agricultural Conservation
Reduced Sprawl
Smart Location‐encourage development/redevelopment of a Compact Development
corridor and its adjacent land uses so Transportation Demand Management
that it is located within exisiting Reduced Ecological Impact
LAND USE
communities that have an already Proximity to Major Public Spaces
established public transit system, Housing and Job Proximity
served by an MPO, or provides access Park and Ride Proximity
to an infill site
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Category
Credit A
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
158
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Category
Credit A
LAND USE
Agricultural Conservation‐preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland
LAND USE
Reduced Sprawl‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in existing communities in order to reduce urban sprawl
LAND USE
Compact Development‐encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it provides access to areas with already high density in order to promote community livability
LAND USE
Transportation Demand Management‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in an area that has an established TDM plan through a MPO or local agency
Credit B
Reduced Sprawl
Compact Development
Transportation Demand Management
Reduced Ecological Impact
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Compact Development
Transportation Demand Management
Reduced Ecological Impact
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Transportation Demand Management
Reduced Ecological Impact
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Reduced Ecological Impact
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
LAND USE
LAND USE
LAND USE
LAND USE
LAND USE
LAND USE
Reduced Ecological Impact‐ protect endangered species and natural habitat through avoiding development within ecological communities
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Proximity to Major Public Spaces‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to open public spaces and encourage physical activity Reduced Development Area
Housing and Job Proximity‐ encourage Park and Ride Proximity
development/redvelopment of a corridor and its adjacent Transit Oriented Development
land uses in order to connect residential to office/industrial Reduced Development Area
spaces
Transit Oriented Development
Park and Ride Facility‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and adjacent land uses in order to provide access to a park and ride facility and promote public transit access
Reduced Development Area
Transit Oriented Development‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent Reduced Development Area
land uses so that it is located in an area that is transit oriented and designated as "TOD"
Reduced Development Area‐ reduce facility footprint through minimizing the number of lanes required in each direction
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
9
7
7
5
5
3
3
1
1
3
3
5
5
7
7
9
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
159
Section 2- Infrastructure Credits
Please complete the following table of credit pairwise comparisons with respect to the category of Infrastructure. Circle the
appropriate score – only circle one rating per row.
Table C.3-Infrastructure Credit Pairwise Comparisons
Category
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Credit A
Credit B
Walkable Street
Bike Network
Smart Signals
Interconnected Street Network
Public Transit access‐ encourage transit Natural Barrier
ridership through development of public Access to Green Communities
transit stops along corridor every 1/2 Access to Green Buildings
mile
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Bike Network
Smart Signals
Interconnected Street Network
Natural Barrier
Walkable Street‐ encourage pedestrian Access to Green Communities
mobility through implementation of Access to Green Buildings
sidewalks and crosswalks along corridor
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Smart Signals
Interconnected Street Network
Natural Barrier
Bike Network‐ encourage bicycle Access to Green Communities
mobility through implementation of bike Access to Green Buildings
paths or lanes in order to connect to Natural Medians
existing regional bike infrastructure
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Interconnected Street Network
Natural Barrier
Smart Signals‐ encourage solar porwer Access to Green Communities
usage through implementation of traffic Access to Green Buildings
signals, variable message signs, and Natural Medians
other regulatory signs that are powered Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
by solar energy
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
160
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Category
Credit A
INFRASTRUCTURE
Interconnected Street Network‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is connected to the larger grid‐like street design without cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends in order to connect the road to the existing network
INFRASTRUCTURE
Natural Barrier‐ provide a natural barrier through proper landscaping in order to reduce noise, light pollution, and improve aesthetics of the corridor
INFRASTRUCTURE
Access to Green Communities‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to or within certified LEED Neighborhood Development program communities
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Credit B
Natural Barrier
Access to Green Communities
Access to Green Buildings
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Access to Green Communities
Access to Green Buildings
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Access to Green Buildings
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Natural Medians
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Access to Green Buildings‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to certified LEED projects such as New Construction, Retail, Homes, School, Existing Buildings, or Emergency Response Plan
Green Globes certified buildings
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility
Natural Medians‐ promote safety and improve aesthetics through Smart Lighting
implementation of natural medians as directional separations
Emergency Response Plan
Smart Lighting
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility‐promote the use of alternative fuels by providing accessibility to hydrogen refueling Emergency Response Plan
tanks and other alternative fuel infrastructure INFRASTRUCTURE
Smart Lighting‐ encourage solar power usage through implementation of lights that are powered by solar energy
INFRASTRUCTURE
Emergency Response Plan‐ encourage development of an emergency response plan for the corridor developed by local agencies in order to protect life and property from natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other disasters
Emergency Response Plan
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
9
9
9
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
161
Section 3- Construction Credits
Please complete the following table of credit pairwise comparisons with respect to the category of Construction. Circle the
appropriate score – only circle one rating per row.
Table C.4-Construction Credit Pairwise Comparisons
Category
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
Credit A
Credit B
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
Stormwater Management
Minimize Site Disturbance During Construction
Site Ecology Enhancement‐ promote growth of natural Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
plants along corridor through landscaping the corridor with Noise Pollution Prevention
natural species
Light Pollution Prevention
Environmental Purchasing
Minimum Consumption of Resources
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Stormwater Management
Minimize Site Disturbance During Construction
Recycled Content for Infrastructure‐ encourage the use Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
of recycled materials for signage, pavement, guiderails, Noise Pollution Prevention
and other corridor features in order to decrease the Light Pollution Prevention
amount of virgin materials generated
Environmental Purchasing
Minimum Consumption of Resources
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Minimize Site Disturbance During Construction
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Stormwater Management‐ address runoff concerns Noise Pollution Prevention
through natural stormwater management facilities such as Light Pollution Prevention
swales, retention ponds, recharge facilities, etc. in order to Environmental Purchasing
reduce peak flow rates generated by stormwater
Minimum Consumption of Resources
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction‐ reduce Noise Pollution Prevention
the amount of environmental impact generated through Light Pollution Prevention
construction by protecting trees and preventing erosion, Environmental Purchasing
reducing runoff, and preventing other human impacts on Minimum Consumption of Resources
the land
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
162
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
Moderate
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
OR
Equal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Moderate
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
5
7
9
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
7
5
3
1
3
5
7
9
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
5
9
7
CONSTRUCTION
Minimum Consumption of Resources
Environmental Purchasing‐ reduce impact on the environment by selecting materials that have the lowest life cycle environmental burden in terms of resource Corridor Durability and Adaptability
use, production of waste and energy use
9
CONSTRUCTION
Minimum Consumption of Resources‐conserve resources and minimize energy and environmental Corridor Durability and Adaptability
impacts required for extraction, and processing of non‐
renewable materials
9
CONSTRUCTION
Corridor Durability and Adaptability‐ extend the life of a corridor and its components by increasing the durability of the road and minimizing the need to replace materials
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
Credit A
A is more important than B
Very Strong
Strong
Moderate
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
Credit B
Noise Pollution Prevention
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention‐ reduce Light Pollution Prevention
pollution by controlling soil erosion, airbourne dust Environmental Purchasing
generation and waterway sedimentation during Minimum Consumption of Resources
construction process
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Light Pollution Prevention
Noise Pollution Prevention‐reduce noise pollution Environmental Purchasing
during construction by implementing a barrier between Minimum Consumption of Resources
construction site and adjacent land uses
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Environmental Purchasing
Light Pollution Prevention‐minimize light trespass from Minimum Consumption of Resources
site, reduce sky‐glow at night, and reduce development of nocturnal environments by reducing the amount of Corridor Durability and Adaptability
light emitted during and after construction
Category
163
B is more important than A
Strong
Very Strong
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
Extreme
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Section 4- Innovation and Design Credits
Please complete the following table of credit pairwise comparisons with respect to the category of Innovation and Design.
Circle the appropriate score – only circle one rating per row.
Table C.5-Innovation and Design Credit Pairwise Comparisons
164
Section 5- Category Comparison
Please complete the following table of categorical pairwise comparisons with respect to the credits established under each.
Circle the appropriate score – only circle one rating per row.
Table C.6-Category Pairwise Comparisons
165
CREDIT MEASUREMENTS FOR SCRS
Corridor Requirements: • The term “corridor” refers to the road and adjacent land uses that factor into the assessment • Corridors must be local in nature • Corridors must be 2‐5 miles in length • Corridor can be proposed or existing (to be redeveloped), therefore the construction category refers to either the development or redevelopment process, respectively Land Use 1. Diversity of Uses‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide connection to a diversity of uses a. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least one residential development b. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least 7 diverse uses: Diverse uses include: bank, child care facility, community center, hair care, hardware store, health club, dry cleaners, library, laundromat, medical/ dental office, pharmacy, police station, place of worship, fire station, post office, restaurant, school, senior care facility, supermarket, and theater 2. Reduced Automobile Dependence‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in areas that already have superior transportation accessibility through modes other than vehicular a. Option 1: Corridor must have 20+ accessible transit rides/weekday. Number of rides available during weekdays are based on the number of buses/streetcars within ¼ mile walk distance of 50% of businesses along corridor and number of bus rapid transit buses, light rail, heavy passenger rail, and ferries that stop within ½ mile of 50% of businesses along corridor. (*points will be linearly interpreted based on the maximum points assigned to this credit) 166
b. Option 2: Corridor must be located within region(s) served by metropolitan planning organization (s) (MPO) and within traffic analysis zone(s) (TAZ) where the individual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or single occupancy vehicle (SOV) is no more than 80% of average metropolitan region as a whole. The highest % of average regional per capita VMT will be used to determine points earned. Percentages must be derived from household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. (*points will be linearly interpreted based on the maximum points assigned to this credit) 3. Smart Location‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located within existing communities that have an already established public transit system, is served by a MPO, or provides access to an infill site a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to an infill site b. Option 2: Corridor must be located near existing or planned transit service so that at least 50% of dwelling units and business entrances are within ¼ mile of a bus stop or within a ½ mile of bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy passenger rail, or ferry terminals. c. Option 3: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and within TAZ(s) where annual home based and non‐home based VMT is lower than average annual rate of the metropolitan region as whole. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. d. Option 4: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and demonstrate through peer review analysis that average annual daily VMT on corridor will be lower than average annual rate for existing corridors within 10 mile radius of proposed corridor. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. 167
4. Agricultural conservation‐ preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland a. Option 1: 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service/local agency soil survey b. Option 2: Corridor must be located on site that is within a designated receiving area development rights under a publicly administered farmland protection program that provides for transfer of development rights from lands designated for conservation to lands designated for development c. Option 3: REGIONS WITH ABUNDANCE OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND If corridor is located within metro/micro statistical area for with 75% or more of total vacant land, including infill sites, is covered by prime soils, unique soils, or soils of significant state then the credit is not applicable. (If not prerequisite then can be removed) 5. Reduced Sprawl – encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in existing communities in order to reduce urban sprawl a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Corridor must provide access to one of the following locations: An infill site that is also a previously developed site (max points) An infill site that is not a previously developed site (max points * 0.8) An “adjacent site” that is also a previously developed site (max points * 0.6) A previously developed site that is not an adjacent or infill site (max points * 0.4) f. An adjacent site that is not a previously developed site (max points * 0.2) Adjacent site is defined as a site having at least 25% of its perimeter bordering land that has been previously developed. Previously developed site is defined as a site that includes 75% previously developed land. 6. Compact Development‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to areas with already high density and promote community livability a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development that achieves an average density of 50 or more dwelling units/acre b. Option 2: Corridor must provide access to at least one residential/ non‐
residential development that achieves the following density requirements: (*points will be linearly interpreted based on the maximum points assigned to this credit) 168
7. Transportation Demand Management‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in an area that has an established TDM plan through a MPO or local agency a. Corridor must be located within jurisdiction of a MPO and has an established comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for the TAZ(s) in which the corridor is located. TDM must aim at reducing weekday peak period trips by vehicles by at least 20% compared to forecasted trip generation without TDM strategies and be funded for a minimum of 2 years. 8. Reduced Ecological Impact‐ protect endangered species and natural habitat through avoiding development within ecological communities a. Endangered species site must not be located within the corridor (site where species listed below are found on site or have a high likelihood of passing through site due to presence of suitable habitat) 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act 2. Species classified by NatureServe as GI (critically imperiled), or G2 (imperiled). 9. Proximity to Major Public Spaces‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to open public spaces and encourage outdoor physical activity a. Corridor must provide access to at least one public open space that is a minimum of 1/6th of an acre in land area 10. Housing and Job Proximity‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect residential to office/industrial spaces a. Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development and one center for employment (offices, industrial land uses) b. Corridor must provide access for at least 25% residents living within ½ mile of the corridor to their place of employment (which must be accessible from 169
the corridor). Local MPO must provide a travel survey to residents to determine job destinations. Travel survey must be conducted within 10 years of submission and completed by a qualified transportation professional. 11. Park and Ride Proximity‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to a park and ride facility and promote public transit accessibility a. Corridor must provide access to at least one existing or proposed park and ride facility. Park and ride facility can be either for public transit (light rail, bus, heavy passenger rail) for carpool, or for rideshare programs 12. Transit Oriented Development‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located in an area that is transit oriented and is designated as “TOD” a. Corridor must be located in a neighborhood designated as transit oriented (TOD) 13. Reduced Development Area‐ reduce facility footprint through minimizing the number of lanes required in each direction a. Corridor footprint must be evaluated by local DOT to ensure that the minimum number of lanes are established while still adequately accommodating the traffic capacity in both directions i. Road capacity must be determined through the application of the 4 step travel demand model based on predicted traffic volumes and surrounding population counts. The travel demand calculations must be performed by a qualified transportation professional and must be conducted within 2 years of submission. ii. Volume/ capacity ratio must be below 0.75 at peak periods (7‐
9am and 4‐6pm) in order to ensure a level of service “C” or better 170
Infrastructure 1. Public Transit Access‐ encourage transit ridership through development of public transit stops along the corridor every ½ mile a. Corridor must provide at least one transit stop every ½ mile i. At least one bench at each transit stop must be provided ii. A covered and partially enclosed shelter must be provided in order to allow for adequate buffer to wind and rain. iii. The transit facility must be illuminated to an average of 5 maintained foot‐candles. 2. Walkable Street‐ encourage pedestrian mobility through implementation of sidewalks and crosswalks along corridor. a.
Corridor must achieve the following: i. Continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking must be provided along both sides of the corridor. Sidewalks must be at least 4’ wide. Equivalent provisions include woonerfs (a common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists and footpaths) ii. At least 2’ of natural boundary should be in place between roadway curb and sidewalk such as trees, bushes, or plants iii. Residential streets accessible from the corridor must be designed for a maximum speed of 25 mph 3. Bike Network‐ encourage bicycle mobility through implementation of bike paths or lanes in order to connect to existing regional bike infrastructure a. Corridor must achieve the following: i. At least one continuous bike lane or parallel bike path must be provided in both directions of the corridor ii. Bike lane must be at least 5 feet wide. iii. Bike lane must have proper signage and striping designating lane as a cycling facility iv. Bike lane must connect to at least one existing bike lane on intersecting road in both directions 4. Smart Signals‐ encourage solar power usage through implementation of traffic signals, variable message signs, and other regulatory signs that are solar powered. a. Option 1: For 75% of all signage and signals, solar power must be used. (max points x 1/2) b. Option 2: All signage and signaling must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used. (max points) 171
5. Interconnected Street Network‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is connected to the larger grid‐like street design without cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends in order to connect the road to the existing network. a. For at least 2 distinct areas of the corridor, representing 10% of the length of the corridor, the following centerline density must be achieved within 5 miles on either side of the corridor: i. 20 centerline mile/square mile (equivalent to 10 blocks) b. Corridor must not include any cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends 6. Natural Barrier‐ provide a natural barrier through proper landscaping in order to reduce noise, light pollution and improve aesthetics of the corridor a. Corridor must have landscaping (minimum of 5’ width not including sidewalk, curb, and gutter) between corridor and any residential buildings. Landscaping must be a minimum height of 6’ tall including trees, bushes, and other natural features. 7. Access to Green Communities‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to or within certified LEED Neighborhood Development program communities a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to least one neighborhood that is a LEED ND program and has received a minimum of 40 points based on the pilot rating system (max points * 1/2) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to at least two LEED ND programs and have received a minimum of 40 points each based on the pilot rating system (max points) 8. Access to Green Buildings‐ encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to certified LEED projects such as New Construction, Retail, Homes, Schools, Existing Building or Green Globes certified buildings a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to one building that is either a certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools, or Green Globes certified project (max points * 1/3) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to two buildings that are certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools or Green Globes certified buildings (max points * 2/3) c. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to at least 3 buildings that are certified LEED NC, Retail, Core and Shell, Homes, Existing Building, Schools or Green Globes certified buildings (max points) 172
9. Natural Medians‐ promote safety and improve aesthetics through implementation of natural medians as directional separations a. Corridor must have a median separating traffic directions that consists of natural landscaping 10. Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility‐ promote the use of alternative fuels through providing accessibility to hydrogen refueling tanks and other alternative fuel infrastructure a. Corridor must provide direct access to a facility that provides hydrogen refueling tanks or other infrastructure that promotes alternative fuel sources for vehicles 11. Smart Lighting‐ encourage solar power usage through implementation of lights that are powered by solar energy a. Option 1: For 75% of all lights along corridor, solar power must be used (max points * ½) b. Option 2: All lighting must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used (max points) 12. Emergency Response Plan‐ encourage development of an emergency response plan for the corridor, developed by local agencies using in order to protect life and property from natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other disasters. a. Local MPO must coordinate with the regional Department of Transportation in order to develop an emergency response plan depicting the traffic alternatives that can be put in place when disturbances such as natural disasters occur. The following issues should be included: reversibility of road, connectivity, continuity and multimodal options. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Construction 1. Site Ecology Enhancement‐ promote growth of natural plants along corridor through landscaping the corridor with natural species a. Specify a naturalized landscape using native trees, shrubs, and groundcover with minimal lawn surrounding the corridor b. Create a biophysical inventory of on‐site plants to be retained or salvaged and re‐planted along corridor 173
2. Recycled Content for Infrastructure‐ encourage the use of recycled materials for signage, pavement, guiderails, and other corridor features in order to decrease the amount of virgin materials generated a. Any aggregate base and aggregate subbase must be at least 90% by volume recycled aggregate materials such as Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete b. Any asphalt concrete pavement must be either : i. Minimum of 15% by volume recycled asphalt pavement ii. Minimum of 75% by volume rubberized asphalt concrete from crumb rubber from scrap tires c. Portland cement concrete must contain: i. Recycled mineral admixtures such as coal fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, silica fume to reduce by at least 25% the concrete mix’s typical Portland cement content ii. Minimum of 10% by volume reclaimed concrete material aggregate 3. Stormwater Management‐ address runoff concerns through natural stormwater management facilities such as swales, retention ponds, recharge facilities, etc. in order to reduce peak flow rates generated by stormwater a. Option 1: PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED SITES Develop a comprehensive stormwater management system for the corridor project that infiltrates, reuses, or evapotranspirates the below specified amount of rainfall per event from the corridor’s development footprint (variation of points possible based on maximum) b. Option 2: FOR ALL OTHER SITES Implement a comprehensive plan for the project that infiltrates reuses or evapotranspirates the below specified rainfall per event from the projects development footprint (variation of points possible based on maximum) 174
4. Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction ‐ reduce the amount of environmental impact generated through construction by protecting trees, preventing erosion, reducing runoff, and preventing other human impacts on the land a. Option 1: Locate the development footprint on areas that are 100% previously developed and for which the zone of construction impact is 100% previously developed b. Option 2: For portions that are previously undeveloped identify limits of disturbance through the creation of construction impact zones and limit all site disturbance to 15’ beyond roadway curb c. Option 3: SITES WITH TREES i. Survey the site to identify: trees in good condition, Heritage or Champion trees of special importance, caliper of all trees at 4’6” above ground, any invasive species of tree present on the site ii. Preserve the following trees on‐site that are also identified as good or excellent condition: Heritage or Champion trees, minimum of 75% of all non‐invasive trees over 18” in caliper, minimum of 25% of all non‐invasive trees that are over 12” in caliper if deciduous, and 6” in caliper if conifer 5. Construction Activity Pollution Prevention‐ reduce pollution by controlling soil erosion, airborne dust generation and waterway sedimentation during construction process a. Create an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan for all construction activities associated with the project. The ESC plan must list Best Management Practices (must be selected from the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit) and accomplish the following objectives: i. Prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and wind erosion ii. Prevent sedimentation of any impacted stormwater conveyance systems or receiving streams iii. Prevent polluting the air with excess dust and particulate matter 175
6. Noise Pollution Prevention‐ reduce noise pollution during construction by implementing a barrier between construction site and adjacent land uses a. Temporary barrier must be used during construction of the corridor in areas where residential neighborhoods are located i. Barriers must stand 10’ tall at minimum and be made of recyclable materials 7. Light Pollution Prevention‐minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky‐glow at night, and reduce development of nocturnal environments by reducing the amount of light emitted during and after construction a. Corridor lighting must not exceed 80% of the lighting power densities as defined in the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1‐2004 and only light areas as required for safety and comfort 8. Environmental Purchasing‐ reduce impact on the environment by selecting materials that have the lowest lifecycle environmental burden in terms of resource use, production of waste and energy use. a. For at least 50% of materials, products and equipment reduce impact on the environment by applying environmental purchasing criteria or integrate the green aspects of the National Master Specification (NMS) and specify energy‐
saving, high‐efficiency equipment based on NMS or similar programs 9. Minimum Consumption of Resources‐ conserve resources and minimize energy and environmental impacts required for extraction, and processing of non‐renewable materials a. Conserve resources by complying to at least one of the following requirements: i. For at least 5% of materials used, require reused materials ii. For at least 5% of materials used, require recycled materials iii. For at least 5% of materials used, require renewable materials selected based on lifecycle assessment iv. For at least 5% of materials used, require locally manufactured resources 10. Corridor Durability and Adaptability‐ extend the life of a corridor and its components by increasing the durability of the road and minimizing the need to replace materials a. For a majority of materials used toward the corridor use durable and low‐
maintenance building materials/assemblies that can withstand the following: 176
sunlight, temperature and humidity changes, condensation, and wear and tear associated with the amount and type of traffic expected b. A future development plan for the corridor must be developed by the local MPO/DOT based on adaptability and future use. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Innovation and Design Process 1. Innovation and Exemplary Performance‐ award points for projects that go above and beyond the standard requirements that are not addressed in this rating system a. In writing, identify the intent of the proposed innovation credit, the proposed requirement for compliance, the proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance, and the design approach and strategies that might be used to meet the requirements (variation of points possible) 2. LEED Accredited Professional‐ award points for project that was planned and involved the design integration of a LEED AP who served as a principal member of the team a. Option 1: At least one principal member of the project design team shall be a LEED accredited professional b. Option 2: This point may be used instead as an additional point available under ID credit for performance not related to professional team member experience Figure C.1-Credit Measurements for SCRS Attachment
177
Appendix D. AHP DATA RESULTS
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to prioritize the credits by
assigning weights. Expert Choice (2008), an AHP-based decision making software
program was used to enter the survey pairwise comparison responses in order to
determine the global credit weights and rankings.
Figure D.1- Figure D.4 displays the individual local credit weights under
each category (land use, infrastructure, construction, or innovation and design) prior to
being synthesized with respect to the overall goal. The overseeing local category
weights have yet to be applied to the local credit weight and are simply the combined
results of the pairwise comparisons.
Figure D.1-Land Use Local Credit Weights (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
178
Figure D.2-Infrastructure Local Credit Weights (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
Figure D.3-Construction Local Credit Weights (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
Figure D.4-Innovation and Design Local Credit Weights (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
The global credit weights and ranks were determined by synthesizing the
results with respect to the overall goal using the ideal synthesis. Figure D.5 displays
the global output results of the local credit weights and ranks using the ideal (nonnormalized) synthesis. Figure D.6 displays the final output results of the global credit
weights and ranks using the ideal (normalized) synthesis.
179
Figure D.5-Global Credit Weights based on Ideal (Non-Normalized) Synthesis (Expert Choice,
Inc., 2008)
180
Figure D.6-Global Credit Weights using Ideal (Normalized) Synthesis (Expert Choice, Inc., 2008)
181
Appendix E. CASE STUDY DATA
Table E.1 includes the sources and data used to complete the SCRS case
study application based on the Route 40 segment between Sunset Lake Rd. and
Walther Rd. Each credit is listed, showing the data results, whether the credit was
achieved, the number of points granted, and the sources used to gather the data. The
final point totals (Option 1-Weighted Approach = 4.419, Option 2-Approximate
Approach = 23.450) are listed under the “points awarded” column at the bottom of the
table. Based on the rating scales developed, the number of points required for
certification is 5.011 points for the Weighted Approach and 26 points for the
Approximate Approach. Therefore, the case study did not meet the requirements for a
certified project in SCRS.
182
Table E.1-Case Study Data and Results
Points Awarded
Credit
LU1
LU2
Title
Summary of Requirements
Results
Diversity of Uses
Glasgow Pines/ Rite Aid, Super Dry, provide access to residential development and at Place of Worship, Medical Office, least 7 diverse uses
Dental Office, Quizno's, KFC, Bank
Reduced Automobile Dependence
1. develop along public transit route where 20+ rides/weekday based on 50% of businesses within Option 1 : 23+ rides available with 1/4 mile 2. established MPO with 80% VMT of 50% of businesses within 1/4 mile average metropolitan region LU3
Smart Location
LU4
Agricultural Conservation
LU5
Reduced Sprawl
1. infill site 2. existing or planned transit service with at least 50% of businesses/residential have 1/4 Option 2: 50% of mile access 3. MPO and home based trips are less houses/businesses within 1/4 mile than avg. annual rate 4.MPO and VMT on roads of existing transit services
within 10 mile will be lower than average annual rate
Although >25% of corridor is on 1. no more than 25% prime soils 2. development prime farmland soils, they are rights must be provided for land designated as currently built‐up therefore no farmland
longer "prime"
Option 3: perimeter = 5.6 miles > corridor must be located on infill site, previously 25% adjacent site that is also developed or adjacent site
previously developed land
LU6
corridor developed on site that either has Compact Development
residential density of 50 units/acre or over 7 units/acre residential and 0.75 non residential FAR
LU7
Transportation Demand Management
Option 1: not met, Option 2: residential density between 7‐20 and assumed non residential FAR met
TDM must be established for the location in which TDM plan but assumed not funded the corridor is located and must reduce trip for 2 years and less than 20% generation by 20% on roads
reduction
183
Credit Option 1 Option 2 Achieved? (Weighted) (Approximate)
Yes
0.850
Sources
5
Site Visit/GoogleEarth
Yes
0.137
0.500
DART Route 40 Express Bus Schedule/DelDOT http://www.dartfirststate.co
m/information/routes/pdfs/s
ummer/rt41.pdf
Yes
0.749
4
DART Bus Routes/ DelDOT
Yes
0.416
2
http://www.udel.edu/FREC/s
patlab/oldpix/nrcssoilde/Ne
wCastle/Contents.htm
Yes
0.313
1.200
DelDOT
Yes
0.169
0.750
GoogleEarth
No
0
0
Wilmapco/DelDOT
Points Awarded
Credit
Title
Summary of Requirements
Results
Credit Option 1 Option 2 Achieved? (Weighted) (Approximate)
Sources
DNREC http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nh
p/contact.shtml‐ unavailable to public
Google Earth and http://delaware.hometownlocato
r.com/Features/cultural,class,Par
k,scfips,10003.cfm
LU8
Reduced Ecological Impact
avoid endangered species habitats under the Location of endangered species‐ Endangered Species Act/ Natureserve/ local endangered not public information so assumed species list
that not in endangered species site
LU9
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
corridor must provide access to open space that is public property and is at least 1/6 acre in area Direct access to Brookmont Farms Park, Glendale Park , Glasgow Pines Park (> 1/6 acre )
Yes
0.512
2
LU10
Housing and Job Proximity
1.corridor must provide access to one residential development and one office/ industrial space , 2. provide access to work for 25% of residents within region Glasgow Pines (residential), Doctor's Office (office) but assumed does not provide access to work for 25% of residents
No
0
0
GoogleEarth/ Assumption/ DelDOT
corridor must provide accessibility to at least one park in Closest is Tybouts Corner but not ride facility
provided access in that segment
No
0
0
www.dartfirststate.com/informat
ion/getting_there/parkride/
No
0
0
DelDOT/Site Visit
No
0
0
DelDOT
Five sheltered stops but not located every half mile throughout segment (max distance 1 mile bewteen)
No
0
0
Site Visit
100% of the corridor must have continuous sidewalks on both sides that are at least 4 feet wide; crosswalks must Majority of roadway does not have be present at all intersections, residential speeds max sidewalks 25mph
No
0
0
Site Visit/ GoogleEarth
LU11 Park and Ride Proximity
LU12
LU13
IN1
IN2
Transit Oriented Development
corridor must be developed in a TOD Not a TOD
minimize the number of lanes while maintaining Reduced Development Assumed v/c ratio was higher than adequate LOS (volume/capacity ratio) and accomodating Area
C at peak periods
traffic capacity
Public Transit Access
Walkable Street
minimum of 1 public transit stop per 1/2 mile of corridor; each stop must have a partially enclosed shelter to buffer from wind and rain; each stop must have at least one bench and adequate lighting
184
Yes
0.368
2
Points Awarded
Credit
Title
Summary of Requirements
Results
100% of corridor must have continuous bicycle lanes on Roadway does not have continuous both sides that are at least 5 feet wide
bike lanes and does not connect to IN3
Bike Network
IN4
Smart Signals
traffic signals, variable message signs, and other signage that requires power must be solar powered
IN5
Interconnected Street Network
street design must be based on grid‐like design and have a minimum of 20 centerline mile/square mile within 2 distinct areas of the corridor buffer, no cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends
IN6
Natural Barrier
IN7
Access to Green Communities
corridor provides connection to at least one LEED ND certified pilot project within 3 mile buffer of corridor
IN8
Access to Green Buildings
IN9
Credit Option 1 Option 2 Achieved? (Weighted) (Approximate)
Sources
No
0
0
Site visit The majority of signals are not smart
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
Grid‐like street design east of Salem Church Road ‐ < 20 centerline mile/square mile
No
0
0
GoogleEarth
Yes
0.084
1
Site Visit/GoogleEarth
None
No
0
0
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.
aspx?DocumentID=2960
corridor provides connection to at least one LEED certified building or Green Globes project within 3 mile buffer of corridor
No Green Globes, many LEED registered but only one certified nearby but not in corridor
No
0
0
http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/Proj
ect/CertifiedProjectList.aspx or info.usgbc.org
Natural Medians
natural landscaped median separating the two directions of traffic along corridor
Majority of the roadway has natural median
Yes
0.092
1
Site Visit/ GoogleEarth
IN10
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
provide access to hydrogen infrastructure and other alternative fueling facilities
BP "Bear Necessities" has E85 fuel
Yes
0.161
1
Google
IN11
Smart Lighting
traffic street lights must be solar powered
The majority of lights are not solar powered
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
IN12
Emergency Response Plan
No 0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
CN1
CN2
CN3
Typical natural barrier between minimum of 5' of landscaping between residential road and residential buildings is development and corridor and minimum height of 6' tall ~50'
DOT developed emergency response plan including Assumed no emergency response irreversibility, continuity, connectivity, and multimodal plan
options
Site Ecology landscape the corridor using natural, native trees, Assumed native plants not used
Enhancement
shrubs and ground cover
Recycled Content for recycled materials such as asphalt and cement should be Assumed recycled materials not Infrastructure
90% recycled aggregate
used
develop comprehensive stormwater plan that infiltrates Assumed swm does not meet Stormwater and treats the required amount of rainfall based on infiltration rates
Management
type of region
185
Points Awarded
Credit
Title
Summary of Requirements
CN4
Minimize Site Disturbance CN5
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
CN6
Noise Pollution Prevention
CN7
Light Pollution Prevention
corridor lighting must not exceed 80% of the lighting power densities as defined in ASHRAE 90.1 for safety
CN8
Environmental Purchasing
at least 50% of the materials must be applying environmental purchasing criteria and integrating green aspects of NMS
Results
1.locate on 100% previously developed site 2. limit Option 1 met: assumed zone of disturbance to 15' beyond roadway curb 3. survey trees construction previously developed
in good condition Credit Option 1 Option 2 Achieved? (Weighted) (Approximated)
Sources
Yes
0.152
1
DelDOT/ Assumption
Yes
0.177
1
DelDOT/ Assumption
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
Assumed no light barrier constructed
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
Assumed 50% environmental purchasing was not met No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
create ESC plan to prevent soil loss, wind erosion and Assumed ESC plan was developed
stormwater runoff
implement temporary barrier during construction in Assumed no noise barrier areas when residential neighborhoods are located and constructed
must stand 10' tall
CN9
Minimum Consumption conserve resources through at least 5% of recycled, or Assumed one of the requirements reused, or renewable, or locally manufactured
was met
of Resources
Yes
0.240
1
DelDOT/ Assumption
CN10
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
majority of materials used are durable, low‐maintenance Assumed future development plan materials that can withstand sunlight, temperature created but durability materials not changes etc. and adaptability plan
used for those improvements
No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
ID1
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
Specific to individual project
Assumed none
No
0
0
Assumption
ID2
LEED Accredited Professional
LEED AP must be a principal member of the team
Assumed no LEED AP No
0
0
DelDOT/ Assumption
4.419
23.450
(Not Certified in both Approaches)
TOTAL POINTS =
186
Appendix F. SCRS DOCUMENTS
Once the seven step methodology was applied to develop SCRS, a final
rating system document was created for the two point allocation approaches: option 1,
the Weighted Approach, and option 2, the Approximate Approach. Both documents
begin with an overview of SCRS as well as how it can be applied, the application
process, and the implications. The rating systems are divided into four sections based
on the four credit categories in SCRS (land use, infrastructure, construction, and
innovation/design). Under each category, the individual credits are listed with their
associated intents, points/scores, and requirements. The final rating scales for SCRS
are provided on the first page stating that a minimum of 5.011 points are required for
certification under option 1, and a minimum of 26 points are required for certification
under option 2. The final documents can be seen in Figure F.1 and Figure F.2.
187
SCRS “Sustainable Corridor Rating System” Weighted Approach Overview Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS) is a rating system that has applied green building principles to transportation, specifically corridor development/redevelopment. It is similar to a “LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Corridors” where credits have been developed in order for projects, both new and existing, to incorporate more sustainable practices in corridor design. SCRS includes four categories of credits: land use, infrastructure, construction, and innovation and design. The credits were developed using existing green building programs such as LEED and Green Globes, as well as existing sustainable implementation frameworks. The points assigned to each credit are strictly based on the results of a participatory phase and engineering judgment in using a decision making model, Analytic Hierarchy Process. How is SCRS (Weighted Approach) Applied? SCRS consists of 37 credits. Each credit has been given a score on a scale of 0‐1, based on the project’s achievement of the credit requirements. If none of the credit requirements are achieved, a score of zero is granted, however, if the credit requirements are achieved to their fullest extent, a score of one is granted. If a variation of scores from 0‐1 is specified for the credit, then the project is granted a score associated to the level of achievement of the credit requirements. These possible credit scores are specified in the following “Credit Scores and Weights Table” as well as, next to each credit explanation. This credit score is then multiplied by the global credit weight associated to each credit, listed in the “Credit Scores and Weights Table” in order to determine the final credit points. The following equation defines this process of calculating final credit points. FCP = CS * GCW Where: CS = credit score (specified based on scale of 0‐1); GCW = global credit weight (from Table 4.6); FCP = final credit points. Once the final credit points are calculated, they are added to determine the total points achieved in SCRS. The individual credits are optional, however, the minimum total points required for the certified level is 5.011 points, for the silver level is 6.167 points, for the gold level is 7.324 points, and for the platinum level is 9.829 points. The rating scale specifying these certification levels can be seen in the “Rating Scale for the Weighted Approach” table. Members of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and state Departments of Transportation can work together with project teams (typically consisting of owners, engineers, architects, planners, and designers) in order to utilize SCRS. SCRS should be applied to a corridor in order to determine whether the development/redevelopment project is “green” and meets the criteria of a SCRS certified project. 188
CREDIT SCORES AND WEIGHTS TABLE
Credit
LU1
LU2
LU3
LU4
LU5
LU6
LU7
LU8
LU9
LU10
LU11
LU12
LU13
IN1
IN2
IN3
IN4
IN5
IN6
IN7
IN8
IN9
IN10
IN11
IN12
CN1
CN2
CN3
CN4
CN5
CN6
CN7
CN8
CN9
CN10
ID1
ID2
Possible Credit Title
Scores
Weight (GCW)
0, 1
0.850
Diversity of Uses
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.549
Reduced Automobile Dependence
0, 1
0.749
Smart Location
0, 1
0.416
Agricultural Conservation
0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1
0.521
Reduced Sprawl
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.674
Compact Development
0, 1
0.464
Transportation Demand Management
0, 1
0.368
Reduced Ecological Impact
0, 1
0.512
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
0, 1
1.000
Housing and Job Proximity
0, 1
0.543
Park and Ride Proximity
0, 1
0.637
Transit Oriented Development
0, 1
0.491
Reduced Development Area
0, 1
0.343
Public Transit Access
0, 1
0.372
Walkable Street
0, 1
0.248
Bike Network
0, 0.5, 1
0.188
Smart Signals
0, 1
0.658
Interconnected Street Network
0, 1
0.084
Natural Barrier
0, 0.5, 1
0.136
Access to Green Communities
0, 0.5, 1
0.139
Access to Green Buildings
0, 1
0.092
Natural Medians
0, 1
0.161
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
0, 0.5, 1
0.143
Smart Lighting
0, 1
0.210
Emergency Response Plan
0, 1
0.118
Site Ecology Enhancement
0, 1
0.138
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0.277
Stormwater Management
0, 1
0.152
Minimize Site Disturbance Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
0, 1
0.177
0, 1
0.112
Noise Pollution Prevention
0, 1
0.117
Light Pollution Prevention
0, 1
0.201
Environmental Purchasing
0, 1
0.24
Minimum Consumption of Resources
0, 1
0.408
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Innovation and Exemplary Performance 0‐1 *project‐specific
0.629
0, 1
0.181
LEED Accredited Professional
189
Applicability of SCRS The following criteria were established for corridors being evaluated under SCRS: • The term “corridor” refers to the road and adjacent land uses that factor into the assessment • The corridor must be local in nature in that the corridor serves the local community • The corridor must be within a range of 2‐5 miles in length • The corridor can be proposed or existing (to be redeveloped), therefore the construction category refers to either the development or redevelopment process, respectively Although some of the credits can be related to corridors with characteristics other than those previously defined, it is not suggested. This recommendation is made in order to ensure that the credits within SCRS do not favor a specific type of corridor and are only applied to corridors that are similar in nature. Implications of SCRS SCRS was developed based on the assumption that the focus is on the environmental impacts, directly influenced by 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 is 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 sustainable corridors development, a pilot phase should be implemented. Similar to the LEED 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. 190
Land Use Category 1. LU1‐ Diversity of Uses (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide connection to a variety of mix of land uses. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least one residential development b. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least 7 diverse uses: Diverse uses include: bank, child care facility, community center, hair care, hardware store, health club, dry cleaners, library, laundromat, medical/ dental office, pharmacy, police station, place of worship, fire station, post office, restaurant, school, senior care facility, supermarket, and theater 2. LU2 ‐Reduced Automobile Dependence (scores = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in areas that already have superior transportation accessibility through modes other than vehicular. Requirements: a. Option 1: Corridor must have 20+ accessible transit rides/weekday. Number of rides available during weekdays are based on the number of buses/ streetcars within ¼ mile walk distance of 50% of businesses along corridor and number of bus rapid transit buses, light rail, heavy passenger rail, and ferries that stop within ½ mile of 50% of businesses along corridor. b. Option 2: Corridor must be located within region(s) served by metropolitan planning organization(s) (MPO) and within traffic analysis zone(s) (TAZ) where the individual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or single occupancy vehicle (SOV) is no more than 80% of average metropolitan region as a whole. The highest % of average regional per capita VMT will be used to determine points earned (see next page). Percentages must be derived from household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. 191
3. LU 3‐ Smart Location (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located within existing communities that have an already established public transit system, is served by a MPO, or provides access to an infill site. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to an infill site b. Option 2: Corridor must be located near existing or planned transit service so that at least 50% of dwelling units and business entrances are within ¼ mile of a bus stop or within a ½ mile of bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy passenger rail, or ferry terminals. c. Option 3: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and within TAZ(s) where annual home based and non‐home based VMT is lower than average annual rate of the metropolitan region as whole. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. d. Option 4: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and demonstrate through peer review analysis that average annual daily VMT on corridor will be lower than average annual rate for existing corridors within 10 mile radius of proposed corridor. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. 4. LU 4‐ Agricultural conservation (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: a. Option 1: Corridor must be located on a site that contains no more than 25% prime soils, unique soils, or soils of a significant state as identified by Natural Resources Conservation Service/local agency soil survey 192
b. Option 2: Corridor must be located on site that is within a designated receiving area for development rights under a publicly administered farmland protection program that provides for transfer of development rights from lands designated for conservation to lands designated for development 5. LU 5‐ Reduced Sprawl (scores = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in existing communities in order to reduce urban sprawl. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to one of the following locations: 1. Option 1: An infill site that is also a previously developed site (score = 1) 2. Option 2: An infill site that is not a previously developed site (score = 0.8) 3. Option 3: An “adjacent site” that is also a previously developed site (score = 0.6) 4. Option 4: A previously developed site that is not an adjacent or infill site (score = 0.4) 5. Option 5: An adjacent site that is not a previously developed site (score = 0.2) An adjacent site is defined as a site having at least 25% of its perimeter bordering land that has been previously developed. Previously developed site is defined as a site that includes 75% previously developed land. 6. LU 6‐ Compact Development (scores = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to areas with already high density and promote community livability. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development that achieves an average density of 50 or more dwelling units/acre b. Option 2: Corridor must be provide access to at least one residential/ non‐residential development that achieves the following density requirements: 193
*FAR= floor area ratio (building sq. ft./parcel sq. ft.) 7. LU 7‐Transportation Demand Management (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in an area that has an established TDM plan through a DOT, MPO, or local agency. Requirements: a. Corridor must be located within jurisdiction of a MPO b. DOT, MPO, or local agency has an established comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for the TAZ(s) in which the corridor is located. TDM must aim at reducing weekday peak period trips by vehicles by at least 20% compared to forecasted trip generation without TDM strategies and be funded for a minimum of 2 years. 8. LU 8‐Reduced Ecological Impact (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Protect endangered species and natural habitat through avoiding development within ecological communities. Requirements: a. Endangered species must not be located within the corridor area (species listed below are not to be found on site or have a high likelihood of passing through site due to presence of suitable habitat)‐ check with Natural Heritage Program or local wildlife agency. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act 2. Species classified by NatureServe as GI (critically imperiled), or G2 (imperiled). 9. LU 9‐Proximity to Major Public Spaces (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to open public spaces and encourage outdoor physical activity. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one public open space that is a minimum of 1/6th of an acre in land area. 194
10. LU 10‐Housing and Job Proximity (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect residential to office/industrial spaces. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development and one center for employment (offices, industrial land uses) b. Corridor must provide access for at least 25% residents living within ½ mile of the corridor to their place of employment (which must be accessible from the corridor). Local MPO must provide a travel survey to residents to determine job destinations. Travel survey must be conducted within 10 years of submission and completed by a qualified transportation professional. 11. LU 11‐ Park and Ride Proximity (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to a park and ride facility and promote public transit accessibility. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one existing or proposed park and ride facility. Park and ride facility can be either for public transit (light rail, bus, heavy passenger rail) for carpool, or for rideshare programs 12. LU 12‐Transit Oriented Development (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located in an area that is transit oriented and is designated as “TOD”. Requirements: a. Corridor must be located in a neighborhood designated as transit oriented (TOD) 13. LU 13‐Reduced Development Area (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce facility footprint through minimizing the number of lanes required in each direction. Requirements: a. Corridor footprint must be evaluated by local DOT to ensure that the minimum number of lanes are established while still adequately accommodating the traffic capacity in both directions i. Road capacity must be determined through the application of the 4 step travel demand model based on predicted traffic volumes and surrounding population counts. The travel demand calculations must be performed by a qualified transportation professional and must be conducted within 2 years of submission. 195
ii. Volume/ capacity ratio must be below 0.75 at peak periods (7‐
9am and 4‐6pm) in order to ensure a level of service C or better (see table below) Infrastructure Category 1. IN 1‐Public Transit Access (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage transit ridership through development of public transit stops along the corridor every ½ mile. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide at least one transit stop every ½ mile i. At least one bench at each transit stop must be provided ii. A covered and partially enclosed shelter must be provided in order to allow for adequate buffer to wind and rain. iii. The transit facility must be illuminated to an average of 5 maintained foot‐candles. 2. IN 2‐Walkable Street (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage pedestrian mobility through implementation of sidewalks and crosswalks along corridor. Requirements: a. Corridor must achieve the following: i. Continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking must be provided along both sides of the corridor. Sidewalks must be at least 4’ wide. Equivalent provisions include woonerfs (a common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists and footpaths) ii. At least 2’ of natural boundary should be in place between roadway curb and sidewalk such as trees, bushes, or plants iii. Residential streets accessible from the corridor must be designed for a maximum speed of 25 mph 196
3. IN 3‐ Bike Network (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage bicycle mobility through implementation of bike paths or lanes and connections to existing regional bike infrastructure. Requirements: a. Corridor must achieve the following: i. At least one continuous bike lane or parallel bike path must be provided in both directions of the corridor ii. Bike lane must be at least 5 feet wide. iii. Bike lane must have proper signage and striping designating lane as a cycling facility iv. Bike lane must connect to at least one existing bike lane on intersecting road in both directions 4. IN 4‐Smart Signals (scores = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage solar power usage through implementation of traffic signals, variable message signs, and other regulatory signs that are powered by solar energy. Requirements: a. Option 1: For 75% of all signage and signals, solar power must be used (score = 0.5) b. Option 2: All signage and signaling must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used (score = 1) 5. IN 5‐Interconnected Street Network (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is connected to the larger grid‐like street design without cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends in order to connect the road to the existing network. Requirements: a. For at least 2 distinct areas of the corridor, representing 10% of the length of the corridor, the following centerline density must be achieved within 2 miles on either side of the corridor: i. 20 centerline mile/square mile (equivalent to 10 blocks) b. Corridor must not include any cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends 6. IN 6‐ Natural Barrier (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Provide a natural barrier through proper landscaping in order to reduce noise, light pollution and improve aesthetics of the corridor. Requirements: a. Corridor must have landscaping (minimum of 5’ width not including sidewalk, curb, and gutter) between corridor and any residential buildings. Landscaping must be a minimum height of 6’ tall including trees, bushes, and other natural features. 197
7. IN 7‐Access to Green Communities (scores = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to or within certified LEED Neighborhood Development program communities. Requirements: a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to least one neighborhood that is a LEED ND program and has received a minimum of 40 points based on the pilot rating system (score = 0.5) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to at least two LEED ND programs and have received a minimum of 40 points each based on the pilot rating system (score = 1) 8. IN 8‐ Access to Green Buildings (scores = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to certified LEED projects such as New Construction, Retail, Homes, Schools, Existing Building or Green Globes certified buildings. Requirements: a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to one building that is either a certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools, or Green Globes certified project (score = 0.5) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to two buildings that are certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools or Green Globes certified buildings (score = 1) 9. IN 9‐Natural Medians (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote safety and improve aesthetics through implementation of natural medians as directional separations. Requirements: a. Corridor must have a median separating traffic directions that consists of natural landscaping 10. IN 10‐Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote the use of alternative fuels through providing accessibility to hydrogen refueling tanks and other alternative fuel infrastructure. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide direct access to a facility that provides hydrogen refueling tanks or other infrastructure that promotes alternative fuel sources for vehicles 198
11. IN 11‐Smart Lighting (scores = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage solar power usage through implementation of lights that are powered by solar energy. Requirements: a. Option 1: For 75% of all lights along corridor, solar power must be (score = 0.5) b. Option 2: All lighting must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used (score = 1) 12. IN 12‐ Emergency Response Plan (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development of an emergency response plan for the corridor developed by local agencies using in order to protect life and property from natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other disasters. Requirements: a. Regional Department of Transportation must develop an emergency response plan depicting the traffic alternatives that can be put in place when disturbances such as natural disasters occur. The following issues should be included: reversibility of road, connectivity, continuity and multimodal options. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Construction Category 1. CN 1‐Site Ecology Enhancement (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote growth of natural plants along corridor through landscaping the corridor with natural species. Requirements: a. Specify a naturalized landscape using native trees, shrubs, and groundcover with minimal lawn surrounding the corridor b. Create a biophysical inventory of on‐site plants to be retained or salvaged and re‐planted along corridor 2. CN 2‐ Recycled Content for Infrastructure (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage the use of recycled materials for signage, pavement, guiderail and other corridor features in order to decrease the amount of virgin materials generated. Requirements: a. Any aggregate base and aggregate sub‐base must be at least 90% by volume recycled aggregate materials such as Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete 199
b. Any asphalt concrete pavement must be either : i. Minimum of 15% by volume recycled asphalt pavement ii. Minimum of 75% by volume rubberized asphalt concrete from crumb rubber from scrap tires c. Portland cement concrete must contain: i. Recycled mineral admixtures such as coal fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, silica fume to reduce by at least 25% the concrete mix’s typical Portland cement content ii. Minimum of 10% by volume reclaimed concrete material aggregate 3. CN 3‐ Stormwater Management (scores = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1) Intent: Address runoff concerns through natural stormwater management facilities such as swales, retention ponds, recharge facilities, etc. in order to reduce peak flow rates generated by stormwater. Requirements: a. Option 1: For previously developed sites‐Develop a comprehensive stormwater management system for the corridor project that infiltrates, reuses, or evapotranspirates the below specified amount of rainfall from the corridor’s development footprint b. Option 2: For all other sites‐Implement a comprehensive plan for the project that infiltrates reuses or evapotranspirates the below specified rainfall from the projects development footprint 200
4. CN 4‐ Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce the amount of environmental impact generated through construction/redevelopment by protecting trees, preventing erosion, reducing runoff, and preventing other human impacts on the land Requirements: Corridor must achieve one of the following options: a. Option 1: Locate the development footprint on areas that are 100% previously developed and for which the zone of construction impact is 100% previously developed b. Option 2: For portions that are previously undeveloped identify limits of disturbance through the creation of construction impact zones and limit all site disturbance to 15’ beyond roadway curb c. Option 3: For sites with trees‐ i. Survey the site to identify: trees in good condition, Heritage or Champion trees of special importance, caliper of all trees at 4’6” above ground, any invasive species of tree present on the site ii. Preserve the following trees on‐site that are also identified as good or excellent condition: Heritage or Champion trees, minimum of 75% of all non‐invasive trees over 18” in caliper, minimum of 25% of all non‐
invasive trees that are over 12” in caliper if deciduous, and 6” in caliper if conifer 5. CN 5‐ Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce pollution by controlling soil erosion, airborne dust generation and waterway sedimentation during construction process. Requirements: a. Create an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan for all construction activities associated with the project. The ESC plan must list Best Management Practices (must be selected from the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit) and accomplish the following objectives: i. Prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and wind erosion ii. Prevent sedimentation of any impacted stormwater conveyance systems or receiving streams iii. Prevent polluting the air with excess dust and particulate matter 201
6. CN 6‐ Noise Pollution Prevention (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce noise pollution during construction by implementing a barrier between construction site and adjacent land uses. Requirements: a. Temporary barrier must be used during construction of the corridor in areas where residential neighborhoods are located i. Barriers must stand 10’ tall at minimum and be made of recyclable materials 7. CN 7‐ Light Pollution Prevention (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky‐glow at night, and reduce development of nocturnal environments by reducing the amount of light emitted during and post construction/redevelopment. Requirements: a. Corridor lighting must not exceed 80% of the lighting power densities as defined in the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1‐2007 and only light areas as required for safety and comfort 8. CN 8‐ Environmental Purchasing (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce impact on the environment by selecting materials that have the lowest lifecycle environmental burden in terms of resource use, production of waste and energy use. Requirements: a. For at least 50% of materials, products and equipment reduce impact on the environment by applying environmental purchasing criteria or integrate the green aspects of the National Master Specification (NMS) and specify energy‐saving, high‐efficiency equipment based on NMS or similar programs 9. CN 9‐Minimum Consumption of Resources (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Conserve resources and minimize energy and environmental impacts required for extraction, and processing of non‐renewable materials. Requirements: a. Conserve resources by complying to at least one of the following requirements: i. For at least 5% of materials used, require reused materials ii. For at least 5% of materials used, require recycled materials iii. For at least 5% of materials used, require renewable materials selected based on lifecycle assessment iv. For at least 5% of materials used, require locally manufactured resources 202
10. CN 10‐Corridor Durability and Adaptability (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Extend the life of a corridor and its components by increasing the durability of the road and minimizing the need to replace materials. Requirements: a. For a majority of materials used toward the corridor use durable and low‐
maintenance building materials/assemblies that can withstand the following: sunlight, temperature and humidity changes, condensation, and wear and tear associated with the amount and type of traffic expected b. A future development plan for the corridor must be developed by the local MPO/DOT based on adaptability and future use. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Innovation and Design Process Category 1. ID 1‐ Innovation and Exemplary Performance (scores = 0‐1 *project‐specific) Intent: Award points for projects that go above and beyond the standard requirements that are not addressed in this rating system. Requirements: a. In writing, identify the intent of the proposed innovation credit, the proposed requirement for compliance, the proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance, and the design approach and strategies that might be used to meet the requirements 2. I D 2‐ LEED Accredited Professional (scores = 0 or 1) Intent: Award points for project that was planned and involved the design integration of a LEED AP who served as a principal member of the team. Requirements: Corridor must achieve one of the following options: a. Option 1: At least one principal member of the project design team shall be a LEED accredited professional. b. Option 2: This point may be used instead as an additional point available under ID credit for performance not related to professional team member experience Figure F.1-SCRS Document (Option 1: Weighted Approach)
203
SCRS “Sustainable Corridor Rating System” Approximate Approach Overview Sustainable Corridor Rating System (SCRS) is a rating system that has applied green building principles to transportation, specifically corridor development/redevelopment. It is similar to a “LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Corridors” where credits have been developed in order for projects, both new and existing, to incorporate more sustainable practices in corridor design. SCRS includes four categories of credits: land use, infrastructure, construction, and innovation and design. The credits were developed using existing green building programs such as LEED and Green Globes, as well as existing sustainable implementation frameworks. The points assigned to each credit are strictly based on the results of a participatory phase and the engineering judgment in using a decision making model, Analytic Hierarchy Process. How is SCRS (Approximate Approach) Applied? SCRS consists of 37 credits. Each credit has a maximum number of points associated to it based on the Approximate Approach method. If none of the credit requirements are achieved, zero points are granted. However, if the credit requirements are achieved to their fullest extent the maximum number of points for that credit is granted. If a gradation of points is specified for the credit (between zero and the maximum number of points), then the project is granted a score associated to the level of achievement of the credit requirements. The possible points are specified in the following “Credit Points Table,” as well as next to each credit explanation. Once the final credit points are calculated, they are added to determine the total points achieved in SCRS. The individual credits are optional, however, the minimum point total for certification is 26 points, for silver is 32 points, for is gold 37 points, and for platinum is 50 points. These point requirements are specified in the “Rating Scale for the Approximate Approach” table. Members of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and state Departments of Transportation can work together with project teams (typically consisting of owners, engineers, architects, planners, and designers) in order to utilize SCRS. SCRS should be applied to a corridor in order to determine whether the development/redevelopment project is “green” and meets the criteria of a SCRS certified project. 204
CREDIT POINT TABLE
Credit
LU1
LU2
LU3
LU4
LU5
LU6
LU7
LU8
LU9
LU10
LU11
LU12
LU13
IN1
IN2
IN3
IN4
IN5
IN6
IN7
IN8
IN9
IN10
IN11
IN12
CN1
CN2
CN3
CN4
CN5
CN6
CN7
CN8
CN9
CN10
ID1
ID2
Title
Diversity of Uses
Reduced Automobile Dependence
Smart Location
Agricultural Conservation
Reduced Sprawl
Compact Development
Transportation Demand Management
Reduced Ecological Impact
Proximity to Major Public Spaces
Housing and Job Proximity
Park and Ride Proximity
Transit Oriented Development
Reduced Development Area
Public Transit Access
Walkable Street
Bike Network
Smart Signals
Interconnected Street Network
Natural Barrier
Access to Green Communities
Access to Green Buildings
Natural Medians
Alternative Infrastructure Accessibility
Smart Lighting
Emergency Response Plan
Site Ecology Enhancement
Recycled Content for Infrastructure
Stormwater Management
Minimize Site Disturbance Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Noise Pollution Prevention
Light Pollution Prevention
Environmental Purchasing
Minimum Consumption of Resources
Corridor Durability and Adaptability
Innovation and Exemplary Performance
LEED Accredited Professional
Possible Points 0, 5
0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2
0, 4
0, 2
0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2
0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.25, 3
0, 2
0, 2
0, 2
0, 6
0, 2
0, 3
0, 2
0, 2
0, 2
0, 1
0, 0.5, 1
0, 3
0, 1
0, 0.5, 1
0, 0.5, 1
0, 1
Max Points
5
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
0, 1
0, 0.5, 1
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0, 1
0, 2
0‐3 * project‐specific
0, 1
1
2
3
1
205
Applicability of SCRS The following criteria were established for corridors being evaluated under SCRS: • The term “corridor” refers to the road and adjacent land uses that factor into the assessment • The corridor must be local in nature in that the corridor serves the local community • The corridor must be within a range of 2‐5 miles in length • The corridor can be proposed or existing (to be redeveloped), therefore the construction category refers to either the development or redevelopment process, respectively Although some of the credits can be related to corridors with characteristics other than those previously defined, it is not suggested. This recommendation is made in order to ensure that the credits within SCRS do not favor a specific type of corridor and are only applied to corridors that are similar in nature. Implications of SCRS SCRS was developed based on the assumption that the focus is on the environmental impacts, directly influenced by 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 is 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 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. 206
Land Use Category 1. LU1‐ Diversity of Uses (points = 0 or 5) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide connection to a variety of mix of land uses. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least one residential development b. Corridor must provide accessibility to at least 7 diverse uses: Diverse uses include: bank, child care facility, community center, hair care, hardware store, health club, dry cleaners, library, laundromat, medical/ dental office, pharmacy, police station, place of worship, fire station, post office, restaurant, school, senior care facility, supermarket, and theater 2. LU2 ‐Reduced Automobile Dependence (points = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in areas that already have superior transportation accessibility through modes other than vehicular. Requirements: a. Option 1: Corridor must have 20+ accessible transit rides/weekday. Number of rides available during weekdays are based on the number of buses/ streetcars within ¼ mile walk distance of 50% of businesses along corridor and number of bus rapid transit buses, light rail, heavy passenger rail, and ferries that stop within ½ mile of 50% of businesses along corridor. b. Option 2: Corridor must be located within region(s) served by metropolitan planning organization(s) (MPO) and within traffic analysis zone(s) (TAZ) where the individual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or single occupancy vehicle (SOV) is no more than 80% of average metropolitan region as a whole. The highest % of average regional per capita VMT will be used to determine points earned (see next page). Percentages must be derived from household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. 207
3. LU 3‐ Smart Location (points = 0 or 4) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located within existing communities that have an already established public transit system, is served by a MPO, or provides access to an infill site. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to an infill site b. Option 2: Corridor must be located near existing or planned transit service so that at least 50% of dwelling units and business entrances are within ¼ mile of a bus stop or within a ½ mile of bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy passenger rail, or ferry terminals. c. Option 3: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and within TAZ(s) where annual home based and non‐home based VMT is lower than average annual rate of the metropolitan region as whole. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. d. Option 4: Corridor must be located within region served by MPO and demonstrate through peer review analysis that average annual daily VMT on corridor will be lower than average annual rate for existing corridors within 10 mile radius of proposed corridor. VMT must be derived from a household transportation survey conducted within 10 years of submission and prepared by a qualified transportation professional. 4. LU 4‐ Agricultural conservation (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Preserve irreplaceable agricultural resources by protecting farmland and forestland. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: 208
a. Option 1: Corridor must be located on a site that contains no more than 25% prime soils, unique soils, or soils of a significant state as identified by Natural Resources Conservation Service/ local agency soil survey b. Option 2: Corridor must be located on site that is within a designated receiving area for development rights under a publicly administered farmland protection program that provides for transfer of development rights from lands designated for conservation to lands designated for development 5. LU 5‐ Reduced Sprawl (points = 0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, or 2) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in existing communities in order to reduce urban sprawl. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to one of the following locations: 1. Option 1: An infill site that is also a previously developed site (points = 2) 2. Option 2: An infill site that is not a previously developed site (points = 1.6) 3. Option 3: An “adjacent site” that is also a previously developed site (points = 1.2) 4. Option 4: A previously developed site that is not an adjacent or infill site (points = 0.8) 5. Option 5: An adjacent site that is not a previously developed site (points = 0.4) An adjacent site is defined as a site having at least 25% of its perimeter bordering land that has been previously developed. Previously developed site is defined as a site that includes 75% previously developed land. 6. LU 6‐ Compact Development (points = 0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.25, or 3) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to areas with already high density and promote community livability. Requirements: Corridor must satisfy one of the following options: a. Option 1: Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development that achieves an average density of 50 or more dwelling units/acre b. Option 2: Corridor must be provide access to at least one residential/ non‐residential development that achieves the following density requirements: 209
*FAR= floor area ratio (building sq. ft./parcel sq. ft.) 7. LU 7‐Transportation Demand Management (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is located in an area that has an established TDM plan through a DOT, MPO, or local agency. Requirements: a. Corridor must be located within jurisdiction of a MPO b. DOT, MPO, or local agency has an established comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for the TAZ(s) in which the corridor is located. TDM must aim at reducing weekday peak period trips by vehicles by at least 20% compared to forecasted trip generation without TDM strategies and be funded for a minimum of 2 years. 8. LU 8‐Reduced Ecological Impact (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Protect endangered species and natural habitat through avoiding development within ecological communities. Requirements: a. Endangered species must not be located within the corridor area (species listed below are not to be found on site or have a high likelihood of passing through site due to presence of suitable habitat)‐ check with Natural Heritage Program or local wildlife agency. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act 2. Species classified by NatureServe as GI (critically imperiled), or G2 (imperiled). 9. LU 9‐Proximity to Major Public Spaces (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to open public spaces and encourage outdoor physical activity. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one public open space that is a minimum of 1/6th of an acre in land area. 210
10. LU 10‐Housing and Job Proximity (points = 0 or 6) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to connect residential to office/industrial spaces. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one residential development and one center for employment (offices, industrial land uses) b. Corridor must provide access for at least 25% residents living within ½ mile of the corridor to their place of employment (which must be accessible from the corridor). Local MPO must provide a travel survey to residents to determine job destinations. Travel survey must be conducted within 10 years of submission and completed by a qualified transportation professional. 11. LU 11‐ Park and Ride Proximity (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to a park and ride facility and promote public transit accessibility. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide access to at least one existing or proposed park and ride facility. Park and ride facility can be either for public transit (light rail, bus, heavy passenger rail) for carpool, or for rideshare programs 12. LU 12‐Transit Oriented Development (points = 0 or 3) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses so that it is located in an area that is transit oriented and is designated as “TOD”. Requirements: a. Corridor must be located in a neighborhood designated as transit oriented (TOD) 13. LU 13‐Reduced Development Area (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Reduce facility footprint through minimizing the number of lanes required in each direction. Requirements: a. Corridor footprint must be evaluated by local DOT to ensure that the minimum number of lanes are established while still adequately accommodating the traffic capacity in both directions i. Road capacity must be determined through the application of the 4 step travel demand model based on predicted traffic volumes and surrounding population counts. The travel demand calculations must be performed by a qualified transportation professional and must be conducted within 2 years of submission. 211
ii. Volume/ capacity ratio must be below 0.75 at peak periods (7‐
9am and 4‐6pm) in order to ensure a level of service C or better (see table below) Infrastructure Category 1. IN 1‐Public Transit Access (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Encourage transit ridership through development of public transit stops along the corridor every ½ mile. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide at least one transit stop every ½ mile i. At least one bench at each transit stop must be provided ii. A covered and partially enclosed shelter must be provided in order to allow for adequate buffer to wind and rain. iii. The transit facility must be illuminated to an average of 5 maintained foot‐candles. 2. IN 2‐Walkable Street (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Encourage pedestrian mobility through implementation of sidewalks and crosswalks along corridor. Requirements: a. Corridor must achieve the following: i. Continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking must be provided along both sides of the corridor. Sidewalks must be at least 4’ wide. Equivalent provisions include woonerfs (a common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists and footpaths) ii. At least 2’ of natural boundary should be in place between roadway curb and sidewalk such as trees, bushes, or plants iii. Residential streets accessible from the corridor must be designed for a maximum speed of 25 mph 212
3. IN 3‐ Bike Network (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage bicycle mobility through implementation of bike paths or lanes and connections to existing regional bike infrastructure. Requirements: a. Corridor must achieve the following: i. At least one continuous bike lane or parallel bike path must be provided in both directions of the corridor ii. Bike lane must be at least 5 feet wide. iii. Bike lane must have proper signage and striping designating lane as a cycling facility iv. Bike lane must connect to at least one existing bike lane on intersecting road in both directions 4. IN 4‐Smart Signals (points = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage solar power usage through implementation of traffic signals, variable message signs, and other regulatory signs that are powered by solar energy. Requirements: a. Option 1: For 75% of all signage and signals, solar power must be used (points = 0.5) b. Option 2: All signage and signaling must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used (points = 1) 5. IN 5‐Interconnected Street Network (points = 0 or 3) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor that is connected to the larger grid‐like street design without cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends in order to connect the road to the existing network. Requirements: a. For at least 2 distinct areas of the corridor, representing 10% of the length of the corridor, the following centerline density must be achieved within 2 miles on either side of the corridor: i. 20 centerline mile/square mile (equivalent to 10 blocks) b. Corridor must not include any cul‐de‐sacs or dead ends 6. IN 6‐ Natural Barrier (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Provide a natural barrier through proper landscaping in order to reduce noise, light pollution and improve aesthetics of the corridor. Requirements: a. Corridor must have landscaping (minimum of 5’ width not including sidewalk, curb, and gutter) between corridor and any residential buildings. Landscaping must be a minimum height of 6’ tall including trees, bushes, and other natural features. 213
7. IN 7‐Access to Green Communities (points = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to or within certified LEED Neighborhood Development program communities. Requirements: a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to least one neighborhood that is a LEED ND program and has received a minimum of 40 points based on the pilot rating system (points = 0.5) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to at least two LEED ND programs and have received a minimum of 40 points each based on the pilot rating system (points = 1) 8. IN 8‐ Access to Green Buildings (points = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage development/redevelopment of a corridor and its adjacent land uses in order to provide access to certified LEED projects such as New Construction, Retail, Homes, Schools, Existing Building or Green Globes certified buildings. Requirements: a. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to one building that is either a certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools, or Green Globes certified project (points = 0.5) b. Within a 3 mile buffer around corridor, connection must be provided to two buildings that are certified LEED NC, Retail, Homes, Core and Shell, Existing Building, Schools or Green Globes certified buildings (points = 1) 9. IN 9‐Natural Medians (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote safety and improve aesthetics through implementation of natural medians as directional separations. Requirements: a. Corridor must have a median separating traffic directions that consists of natural landscaping 10. IN 10‐Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Accessibility (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote the use of alternative fuels through providing accessibility to hydrogen refueling tanks and other alternative fuel infrastructure. Requirements: a. Corridor must provide direct access to a facility that provides hydrogen refueling tanks or other infrastructure that promotes alternative fuel sources for vehicles 214
11. IN 11‐Smart Lighting (points = 0, 0.5, or 1) Intent: Encourage solar power usage through implementation of lights that are powered by solar energy. Requirements: a. Option 1: For 75% of all lights along corridor, solar power must be (points = 0.5) b. Option 2: All lighting must be powered strictly by solar panels. No other power sources can be used (points = 1) 12. IN 12‐ Emergency Response Plan (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage development of an emergency response plan for the corridor developed by local agencies using in order to protect life and property from natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other disasters. Requirements: a. Regional Department of Transportation must develop an emergency response plan depicting the traffic alternatives that can be put in place when disturbances such as natural disasters occur. The following issues should be included: reversibility of road, connectivity, continuity and multimodal options. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Construction Category 1. CN 1‐Site Ecology Enhancement (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Promote growth of natural plants along corridor through landscaping the corridor with natural species. Requirements: a. Specify a naturalized landscape using native trees, shrubs, and groundcover with minimal lawn surrounding the corridor b. Create a biophysical inventory of on‐site plants to be retained or salvaged and re‐planted along corridor 2. CN 2‐ Recycled Content for Infrastructure (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Encourage the use of recycled materials for signage, pavement, guiderail and other corridor features in order to decrease the amount of virgin materials generated. Requirements: a. Any aggregate base and aggregate sub‐base must be at least 90% by volume recycled aggregate materials such as Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete 215
b. Any asphalt concrete pavement must be either : i. Minimum of 15% by volume recycled asphalt pavement ii. Minimum of 75% by volume rubberized asphalt concrete from crumb rubber from scrap tires c. Portland cement concrete must contain: i. Recycled mineral admixtures such as coal fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, silica fume to reduce by at least 25% the concrete mix’s typical Portland cement content ii. Minimum of 10% by volume reclaimed concrete material aggregate 3. CN 3‐ Stormwater Management (points = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1) Intent: Address runoff concerns through natural stormwater management facilities such as swales, retention ponds, recharge facilities, etc. in order to reduce peak flow rates generated by stormwater. Requirements: a. Option 1: For previously developed sites‐Develop a comprehensive stormwater management system for the corridor project that infiltrates, reuses, or evapotranspirates the below specified amount of rainfall from the corridor’s development footprint b. Option 2: For all other sites‐Implement a comprehensive plan for the project that infiltrates reuses or evapotranspirates the below specified rainfall from the projects development footprint 216
4. CN 4‐ Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce the amount of environmental impact generated through construction/redevelopment by protecting trees, preventing erosion, reducing runoff, and preventing other human impacts on the land Requirements: Corridor must achieve one of the following options: a. Option 1: Locate the development footprint on areas that are 100% previously developed and for which the zone of construction impact is 100% previously developed b. Option 2: For portions that are previously undeveloped identify limits of disturbance through the creation of construction impact zones and limit all site disturbance to 15’ beyond roadway curb c. Option 3: For sites with trees‐ i. Survey the site to identify: trees in good condition, Heritage or Champion trees of special importance, caliper of all trees at 4’6” above ground, any invasive species of tree present on the site ii. Preserve the following trees on‐site that are also identified as good or excellent condition: Heritage or Champion trees, minimum of 75% of all non‐invasive trees over 18” in caliper, minimum of 25% of all non‐
invasive trees that are over 12” in caliper if deciduous, and 6” in caliper if conifer 5. CN 5‐ Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce pollution by controlling soil erosion, airborne dust generation and waterway sedimentation during construction process. Requirements: a. Create an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan for all construction activities associated with the project. The ESC plan must list Best Management Practices (must be selected from the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit) and accomplish the following objectives: i. Prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and wind erosion ii. Prevent sedimentation of any impacted stormwater conveyance systems or receiving streams iii. Prevent polluting the air with excess dust and particulate matt 6. CN 6‐ Noise Pollution Prevention (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce noise pollution during construction by implementing a barrier between construction site and adjacent land uses. Requirements: 217
a. Temporary barrier must be used during construction of the corridor in areas where residential neighborhoods are located i. Barriers must stand 10’ tall at minimum and be made of recyclable materials 7. CN 7‐ Light Pollution Prevention (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky‐glow at night, and reduce development of nocturnal environments by reducing the amount of light emitted during and post construction/redevelopment. Requirements: a. Corridor lighting must not exceed 80% of the lighting power densities as defined in the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1‐2007 and only light areas as required for safety and comfort 8. CN 8‐ Environmental Purchasing (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Reduce impact on the environment by selecting materials that have the lowest lifecycle environmental burden in terms of resource use, production of waste and energy use. Requirements: a. For at least 50% of materials, products and equipment reduce impact on the environment by applying environmental purchasing criteria or integrate the green aspects of the National Master Specification (NMS) and specify energy‐saving, high‐efficiency equipment based on NMS or similar programs 9. CN 9‐Minimum Consumption of Resources (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Conserve resources and minimize energy and environmental impacts required for extraction, and processing of non‐renewable materials. Requirements: a. Conserve resources by complying to at least one of the following requirements: i. For at least 5% of materials used, require reused materials ii. For at least 5% of materials used, require recycled materials iii. For at least 5% of materials used, require renewable materials selected based on lifecycle assessment iv. For at least 5% of materials used, require locally manufactured resources 10. CN 10‐Corridor Durability and Adaptability (points = 0 or 2) Intent: Extend the life of a corridor and its components by increasing the durability of the road and minimizing the need to replace materials. Requirements: 218
a. For a majority of materials used toward the corridor use durable and low‐maintenance building materials/assemblies that can withstand the following: sunlight, temperature and humidity changes, condensation, and wear and tear associated with the amount and type of traffic expected b. A future development plan for the corridor must be developed by the local MPO/DOT based on adaptability and future use. A formal document must be developed and submitted with the project for review. The document must be updated every 4 years. Innovation and Design Process Category 1. ID 1‐ Innovation and Exemplary Performance (points = 0‐3 *project‐specific) Intent: Award points for projects that go above and beyond the standard requirements that are not addressed in this rating system. Requirements: a. In writing, identify the intent of the proposed innovation credit, the proposed requirement for compliance, the proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance, and the design approach and strategies that might be used to meet the requirements 2. I D 2‐ LEED Accredited Professional (points = 0 or 1) Intent: Award points for project that was planned and involved the design integration of a LEED AP who served as a principal member of the team. Requirements: Corridor must achieve one of the following options: a. Option 1: At least one principal member of the project design team shall be a LEED accredited professional b. Option 2: This point may be used instead as an additional point available under ID credit for performance not related to professional team member experience Figure F.2-SCRS Document (Option 2: Approximate Approach)
219