EAST SIDE HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Sustainability Practices - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EAST SIDE HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Sustainability Practices Focus Working Group Meeting #1 March 15, 2012

WELCOME

“What sustainable practices do you use at your house?....

FOCUS WORKING GROUP MEETING #1 AGENDA

• Review Ground Rules
• Discuss Purpose of FWG
• Provide ESH Project Background
• Project Area Environmental Resources
• Sustainability‐ What is it?
• Potential Sustainability Features to Investigate
• Next Meeting

FOCUS WORKING GROUP GROUND RULES

1. All input from all participants in the process is valued and considered. 2. All participants will come to the process with an open mind and participate

• penly and honestly.

3. All participants in the process will treat each other with respect and dignity. 4. The project must progress at a reasonable pace based on the original project schedule. 5. Project milestones (Purpose and Need, Range of Alternatives) will not be altered

• nce concurrence has been granted unless substantial new information becomes

available. 6. The role of the FWG is to advise the PSG. An FWG consensus is sought prior to project decisions. The PSG will fully consider all FWG and stakeholder input when making project decisions. 7. All decisions of the joint lead agencies must be made in a clear, transparent manner and stakeholders should agree that their input was duly considered. 8. The list of FWG members is subject to change at any time as events warrant.

ALTERNATIVE MODES FOCUS WORKING GROUP WHAT IS A FWG?

• Specific and structured form of

an advisory group with specific interests and knowledge

• Assembled for input to planning

and design aspects of project

• Advises the PSG at key

milestones, before the information is finalized

• Introduced at Public Information

Meeting #4

ALTERNATIVE MODES FOCUS WORKING GROUP

ESH FOCUS WORKING GROUPS

• 1. Land Use and Access Management
• 2. Sustainability
• 3. Alternative Modes

SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS WORKING GROUP

Timeline Evaluation Process Remaining Alternatives Website, www.eastsidehighway.com

EA BACKGROUND

Study Milestone Public Information Meeting (PIM) Public Hearing

2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014

Project Intro Purpose & Need Reasonable Range of Alternatives Preferred Alternative

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ALTERNATIVE MODES FOCUS WORKING GROUP

TIMELINE

WE ARE HERE

FWG #1 MARCH 2012

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 5 STEP 4

Initial Screening Evaluation Purpose & Need Screening Macro Analysis Alignment Analysis Environmental Assessment

129 93 85 40 4

SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS WORKING GROUP

EVALUATION PROCESS

REMAINING ALTERNATIVE S

NORTHTOWN RD TOWANDA BARNES RD ZIEBARTH RD VETERAN’S PARKWAY IRELAND GROVE RD CR 1300 N CR 2000 E FORT JESSE RD GENERAL ELECTRIC RD

REMAINING ALTERNATIVES

SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS WORKING GROUP

SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS WORKING GROUP

Typical Sections Crossroads Bicycle/Pedestrian Considerations Transit Considerations

ROADWAY DESIGN

TYPICAL SECTIONS

SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS WORKING GROUP

I-LAST

Illinois - Livable and Sustainable Transportation Rating System and Guide

I-LAST Team

Cooperative effort between members of:

Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association American Council of Engineering Companies of Illinois Illinois Department of Transportation

What is I-LAST?

The purpose of I-LAST is threefold:

• Provide a guide to sustainable practices
• Establish a simple way to evaluate project

sustainability

• Recognize the use of sustainable

practices in the transportation industry

Why I-LAST?

• Growing interest in sustainability among:
• 1. Public
• 2. Legislators
• 3. Engineers
• At the time we started there were no other

comprehensive guides available for roadways.

• Sustainability requirements are coming.

An opportunity to be proactive.

What is Sustainability?

“A set of environmental, economic, and social conditions in which all of society has the capacity and opportunity to maintain and improve its quality of life indefinitely without degrading the quantity, quality, or the availability

• f natural resources and ecosystem.”

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Sustainable Development Committee, 2009

Sustainable Highways

1. Protect, maintain and preserve natural resources 2. Design to enable and encourage lower impact forms of transportation 3. Use construction practices that reduce the environmental and community impacts

Sustainable Highways, includes three principal ideas:

Other Systems

F H W A INVEST – Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool

Foundation Principles

• Project team oriented

– Focus on issues addressed by project team

• No policy issues

– Scoring for each team – Resource to project teams

• Bottom up approach

I-LAST Goals

• Increase use of sustainable features
• Guide
• Useful information
• Feedback
• Measures of success
• Scores

Foundation Principles

• Applicable to all highway projects

– Small to large – Simple to complex

• Applicable to all Phases
• Phase I Planning
• Phase II Final Design
• Phase III Construction
• No prerequisites – all projects
• Information for all users

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Context Sensitive Solutions – 4 Items
• Land Use / Community Planning – 6 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Alignment and Cross Section – 7 Items
• Context Sensitive Design – 6 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Wildlife and its Habitat –

11 Items

• Trees & Plant Communities – 10 Items
• Noise Abatement –

13 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Reduce impervious area –

11 Items

• Stormwater treatment –

10 Items

• Construction practices –

13 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality 5. Transportation Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Traffic Operations –

6 Items

• Transit –

10 Items

• Bicycle & Pedestrian –

13 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality 5. Transportation 6. Lighting Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Reduce Electrical Consumption – 7 Items
• Stray Light Reduction –

2 Items

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality 5. Transportation 6. Lighting 7. Materials Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• Material Specifications – 31 items in 13 Groups

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality 5. Transportation 6. Lighting 7. Materials 8. Innovation Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

What is in I-LAST?

1. Planning 2. Design 3. Environmental 4. Water Quality 5. Transportation 6. Lighting 7. Materials 8. Innovation Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items are in nine major categories:

• 9. Construction
• Items beyond IDOT specifications
• Items that are options in IDOT specifications

ILAST CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

• 44 Sustainable Items
• Includes: Wildlife habitat, plant communities,

energy, stormwater, and material management

Check List

Category Intent and Rationale

P-2: Land Use / Community Planning

Intent The objective of this section is to consider balancing community goals and transportation needs through increased consideration of transportation alternatives that accommodate a broad perspective of community interests. Rationale Sustainable transportation alternatives can emphasize the relationship between land use and transportation planning. Local and Regional planners are incorporating sustainable design principles into their development plans, thus reflecting the diverse goals and interests of communities. Social and environmental issues, such as congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy consumption, can be addressed through consideration of managed growth planning initiatives. The growing concern for the environment is leading to the objective of developing multi-modal transportation solutions that address mobility needs in an effective, efficient, and responsible manner. By focusing on land use and transportation planning from a holistic perspective and considering all users, transportation projects can achieve higher levels of sustainability.

Item Descriptions

P-2a Promote reduction in vehicle trips by accommodating increased use of public transit (2 points) Criteria Two points will be awarded for incorporation of design elements offering alternatives to single occupancy vehicular usage such as Park-and-Ride lots, dedicated bus lanes, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. P-2b Accommodate multi-modal transportation uses (e.g. transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists) (2 points) Criteria Two points will be awarded to projects applying “Walkable Communities” and/or the “Complete Streets” concepts by providing safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. These designs include considerations for older people, children, and people with disabilities.

Source Material References

Sources & Resources

• AASHTO. A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, May 2004.
• FHWA, Flexibility in Highway Design, 1997.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm.

• IDOT Departmental Policies. Context Sensitive Solutions, August 1, 2005.
• ITE. Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares

for Walkable Communities, 2006.

• Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Transit-Oriented Development

– Building A Regional Framework, January 2001. http://www.nipc.org/planning/pdf/nipc_transit.pdf.

• National Complete Streets Coalition. http://www.completestreets.org.

Scoring

• Scoring is not the most important part
• It was the most difficult

– Hard to fairly compare items

• NOT carbon footprint based, for example
• Level of Effort difficult to quantify
• Make it simple

– No certification documentation – Self scoring – Quick and easy

Scoring Philosophy

Scoring Goals

• No Prerequisites
• Applicable to all highway projects

– Small to large – Simple to complex

• Applicable to all Phases

– Phase I Planning – Phase II Final Design – Phase III Construction

Weighted Scoring

• Total of 233 points on 153 items
• Comparing projects of different size and scope

– A very sustainable small project may score fewer points than a much larger project where not much was done.

• So, use percentage of applicable items
• Two scoring steps:

1. Determine at the start of the project which items are applicable to the project 2. Evaluate at the end for which of those items the goal was accomplished

• Resulting score is a percentage

Sample Scoring

2 2 2 2 19 max 8/12=67% N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 applicable

Scoring

• Self Scoring system

– No certification, record keeping or outside auditing – No calculations, either an objective was accomplished, or not – Project Manager should be able to score a project in an hour or so

• Scoring summary

– IDOT is gathering data as it scores projects to develop a scoring curve

Implementation

• Completed First Year Trial Period

– IDOT District I scored completed projects – Construction Phase Draft by IRTBA – Joint Committee is updating I-LAST now – Developing a scoring curve based on reports

• Goal is a new version early 2012

What is the Future?

• Multiple rating systems

– About 500 systems worldwide – GreenRoads – University of Washington – envision – Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ACEC-APWA-ASCE) – INVEST – FHWA’s Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool Which will survive? – Needs to provide value – Needs to be easy to use – Related to funding?

How to get I-LAST

Download from: http://www.acec-il.org/docs/UPDATEDI-LASTManual.pdf