Sustainable Transportation

Climate Change Adaption for Sustainable Transportation Systems

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:32:00 GMT

Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country in the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions needed to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone -- hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs -- will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today's dollars) by 2100 (1).

In the transportation and other infrastructure disciplines, there continues to be some representatives who continue to ignore the existence of climate change and the need for adaptation. Ignoring future climate change impacts places at risk the infrastructure that the public owns and depends upon state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to manage and operate. It is important that new transportation and other infrastructure projects are designed with flexibility and resiliency to accommodate climate change’s short and long term impacts. Climate change needs to be part of the long term thinking for transportation planning, design, and operation and maintenance of transportation systems.

These opinions are shared by Secretary of the Department of Transportation Ray LaHood in a Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation in June, 2011(see Attachment 1 for the full policy statement) (2). This policy statement was required by the President and the Council of Environmental Quality that requires Federal Agencies to develop and implement climate adaptation plans (10).

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) shall integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions. The climate is changing and the transportation sector needs to prepare for its impacts.

Through climate change adaptation efforts, the transportation sector can adjust to future changes, minimize negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities. Accordingly, DOT modal administrations shall incorporate consideration of climate adaptation into their planning processes and investment decisions. DOT encourages State, regional and local transportation agencies to consider climate change impacts in their decision-making, as well– Ray LaHood.

The Federal Highway Administration also agrees with the existence of climate change and went as far as saying that human-induced increases are a contributing factor (3):

There is general scientific consensus that the earth is experiencing a long-term warming trend and that human-induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the predominant cause. The combustion of fossil fuels is by far the biggest source of GHG emissions. In the United States, transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions, after electricity generation. Within the transportation sector, cars and trucks account for a majority of emissions.

In addition to contributing to climate change, transportation will likely also be affected by climate change. Transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to predicted changes in sea levels and increases in severe weather and extreme high temperatures. Long-term transportation planning will need to respond to these threats.

AASHTO is also acknowledging the occurrence of climate change and the need for climate change adaptation to protect transportation infrastructure (4):

Among climate scientists, there is overwhelming evidence and consensus that climate change is already occurring and that it will intensify in coming decades, even if significant steps are taken to reduce GHG emissions. Current and future climate impacts include higher temperatures, rising sea levels, more severe storms, increased precipitation in some areas and decreased precipitation in other areas, higher risk of drought and wildfires in the West, stress on ecosystems, acidification of the ocean, damage to coral reefs, impacts on agriculture, and greater risk of flooding. While the most obvious risks are to coastal areas, there are also significant climate risks and changes for inland areas.

In 2008, the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the evidence on climate change and issued Special Report 290, "Potential Impact of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation," with the following key findings and conclusions (5):

Climate change will affect every mode of transportation and every region in the United States, and the challenges to infrastructure providers will be new and often unfamiliar
State and local governments and private infrastructure providers will need to incorporate adjustments for climate change into long-term capital improvement plans, facility designs, maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response plans
Design standards will need to be re-evaluated and new standards developed as progress is made in understanding future climate conditions and the options for addressing them
Transportation planners will need to consider climate change and its effects on infrastructure investments. Planning timeframes may need to extend beyond the next 20 or 30 years
Institutional arrangements for transportation planning and operations will need to be changed to incorporate cross-jurisdictional and regional cooperation

So let’s get over the argument that climate change is not happening….let’s get to work on addressing real greenhouse gas reduction with the same vigor as developing long term sustainable infrastructure that addresses climate change adaptation. Both federal agencies and state DOTs need to take a more aggressive approach in addressing climate change adaptation to protect infrastructure, maintain public safety and the environment and continue to promote the movement of goods and services.

FHWA Model and Climate Change Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Studies

In order to respond to climate change adaptation, FHWA developed a conceptual risk/vulnerability model and pilot study in 2010. The goal of the conceptual model is to support transportation decision makers responsible for planning and asset management in the identification of assets that are vulnerable to climate change related threats (see figure 1). The model consists of three primary components elements (6,7):

develop inventory assets,
gather climate information,
assess transportation as a whole from projected climate change

FHWA provided grants to several DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in 2010 who were interested in pilot testing this conceptual model.The objective of this study was to advance the practice and application of transportation planning among state, regional, and local transportation planning agencies to successfully meet growing concerns about the relationship between transportation and climate change. This study explored the possibilities for integrating climate change considerations into long range transportation planning at state DOTs and MPOs. The study reviewed the experience of a number of DOTs and MPOs that are already incorporating climate change into their transportation planning processes and identified their successes as well as challenges faced by these agencies.The DOTs who participated in the study were all coastal states:

New Jersey DOT (coastal and central areas)
Washington State DOT (state-wide)
Virginia DOT (Chesapeake Bay segment)
Oahu-Hawaii MPO
California Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay)
Gulf Coast-Metropolitan Scale (Central Gulf Coast and Mobile, Alabama)

Figure 1

FHWA Conceptual Model

There just a few states that have already started to identify the climate change threats to their infrastructure investments and have developed climate change adaptation plans (8). The following are some examples of state DOTs and how they are starting to address climate change adaptation management (12):

Washington State- one of the few states to receive a FHWA grant for the FHWA conceptual model for vulnerability and risk assessment; DOT has established strategies to address sea rise, scour monitoring and is working with the University of Washington on climate data predictions
Oregon- developed a Climate Change Technical Advisory Committee to identify potential climate change impacts on the transportation system; adaptation strategies developed to support transportation planning, project development and emergency response
California- efforts were initiate by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order directing state agencies to plan for climate change impacts; CALTRANS was directed to undertake vulnerability assessment for transportation infrastructure
Alaska- has faced significant climate change impacts already from permafrost thawing that has impacted coastal highways costing at least $10 million annually; very little reliance and flexibility has been built into their systems
Florida- adopted a Energy and Climate Change Action Plan with a framework for adaptation strategies; 2060 Florida Transportation Plan and Strategic Intermodal System Plan requires evaluation of infrastructure risk
Maryland- Maryland State Highway Administration developing their own adaptation plan; planning and engineering efforts must be adaptative to address effects of climate change impacts (increased rain, snow, heat, bridge scouring, pavement rutting and buckling, flooding, etc.)

The possible transportation adaptation responses for DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to address climate change are (7):

Accommodate the climate change- increasing maintenance and repair costs and improve response time to severe events
Strengthen structures and protect facilities- increasing resiliency and flexibility by using new design criteria to address new variables and conditions (drainage systems, sea walls, slope stability)
Relocate and/or avoidance-move key facilities to less vulnerable areas
Abandon and divest
Enhance system redundancy and flexibility
Monitor high risk infrastructure to avoid unexpected failure

During a FHWA/AASHTO Climate Change Adaptation Peer Exchange State Roundtable Meeting, several State DOT representatives identified the following challenges or barriers to climate change adaptation (9):

Requires support at all levels of government and the public in which communication and education are important
The time it takes to change existing practices and business for a public organization or entity
Public perception to justify additional expenses for impacts not seen for 50 years thus the need for public outreach and education
Must be clear direction, leadership and resources at a state DOT level to promote climate change adaptation
Lack of standardized and accurate local and regional climate projections and data
Coordination between DOTs and other agencies (drainage and water resources management)
Lack of management awareness or concern about climate change and impacts
Lack of coordination between DOTs and federal partner agencies
Lack of available financial resources to initiate programs and accommodate new design criteria at a project level; additional funding and taxing would be required
In Colorado, there is no support at the state-level by the legislature or transportation commission (due to information gaps)
Some DOTs not willing to accept climate change uncertainties in weather extremes and location

Summary and Observations

Overall I believe that FHWA has started to develop important resources and tools for DOTs and MPOs to start addressing climate change adaptation. This climate change adaptation work performed by FHWA seems to have started around 2008 and the development and pilot testing of the conceptual risk/vulnerability model initiative started back in 2010. There is a lot of risk based information available.

Let’s face it, in reality a serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, unless there is a significant climate crisis. Even though greenhouse gases are regulated as an air pollutant by the Clean Air Act, there is too much big business influence and pressure and lack of political will to do anything meaningful towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions for climate change mitigation. I think it is important to continue to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using technology, regulations, carbon taxing and social awareness but there is too much greenhouse gases/carbon in the air that will take centuries to naturally reduce. We must start addressing adaptation now to protect our infrastructure investment in order to develop and maintain a sustainable transportation system.

I am not aware of any FHWA or DOT requirements of addressing climate change adaptation into the NEPA documents based upon conceptual designs. In the United Kingdom a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) requires transportation planners and designers to evaluate transportation climate change impacts. The SEA formally enables the development and implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures to address climate change impacts. Climate change is considered a cumulative impact caused by a buildup of many actions thus causing serious effects (11).

What I have seen so far at FHWA and some DOTs to address climate change is boiler plate statements about green house gas emission and climate change impacts at a project level. I have seen nothing about addressing potential impacts to transportation projects associated with climate change such as increased fire risk, loss of slope stability, inadequate drainage systems, increased storm intensities (snow and rain), increased temperature impacts on materials, bridge scouring from higher storm intensities, etc.

FHWA should start requiring DOTs to address climate change adaptation at the project and program levels. Ray LaHood’s policy statement set the stage for FHWA to start requiring state DOTs to address climate change adaptation in transportation planning, design and maintenance/operations but no real nation-wide effort is currently noted. A few progressive state DOTs and MPOs have started developing their own climate change adaption plans; however, the resistance, challenges and climate change denial is huge in other states. The argument that legislature and transportation commissioners are not supporting climate change adaptation action due to information gaps is unbelievable in this day and age. Overall many DOTs will not initiate the programs on their own, especially if they are non-coastal states unless they are required to do so by their federal partners.

It is going to take FHWA leadership and policy requirements to force many DOTs and MPOs to address climate change adaption for the protection of FHWA’s and the public’s infrastructure assets. There needs to be a concurrent and orchestrated effort to start addressing greenhouse gas emission with climate change adaptation at the national and state level. This approach should be part of an integrated sustainable strategy that supports a healthy economy, environment and community that adapts to weather extremes.

References

Natural Resources Defense Council; Cost of Climate Change http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.asp
Department of Transportation; Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation; June 2011;http://www.dot.gov/docs/climatepolicystatement.pdf
FHWA; Highway and Climate Change; Regional Climate Change Effects; http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/climate_effects/effects01.cfm
AASHTO Transportation and Climate Change Resource Center; http://climatechange.transportation.org/
Potential Impacts of CLIMATE CHANGE on U.S. Transportation; Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation; Transportation Research Board; 2008; http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12179
Highway and Climate Change; Assessing Vulnerability and Risk of Climate Change Effects on Transportation Infrastructure: Pilot of the Conceptual Model; http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/conceptual_model162410.htm
FHWA Climate Change Adaptation Activities; Southern Transportation & Air Quality Summit, 2011; Heather Holsinger
FHWA; Highways and Climate Change; Literature Review on Climate Change Vulnerability, Risk Assessment and Adaptation Approaches; ttp://www.fhwa.dot.hep/climate/ccvaraaa.htm
FHWA, Highways and Climate Change, FHWA/AASHTO Climate Change Adaptation Peer Exchange (State Roundtable)http://fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate_peer exchange/peer07.cfm
Council on Environmental Quality; Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Planning; Implementation Instructions (March 4, 2011)
AEA Groups, United Kingdom’s Experience with Climate Change Adaptation and Transportation
AASHTO, State Departments of Transportation Working to Adapt to a Changing Climate; Caroline Paulsen and Amy Phillips

Attachment 1

POLICY STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION (Ray LaHood)

(June 2011)

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) shall integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions. The climate is changing and the transportation sector needs to prepare for its impacts. Through climate change adaptation efforts, the transportation sector can adjust to future changes, minimize negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities. Accordingly, DOT modal administrations shall incorporate consideration of climate adaptation into their planning processes and investment decisions. DOT encourages State, regional and local transportation agencies to consider climate change impacts in their decision-making, as well.

The DOT policy is to incorporate climate adaptation strategies into its transportation missions, programs, and operations. Climate change adaptation is a critical complement to mitigation efforts to address the causes and consequences of climate change. Every modal administration has the responsibility to consider climate change impacts on current systems and future investments. Furthermore, planning for climate adaptation assists State and local transportation agencies, and DOT, to identify how climate change is likely to impact their ability to achieve their mission, continue operations, and to meet policy and program objectives. Therefore, DOT agencies will develop, prioritize, implement, and evaluate actions to moderate climate risks and protect critical infrastructure using the best available science and information.

This policy is based on Executive Order (E.O.) 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. The E.O. includes direction to address climate adaptation planning. Additionally, the Secretary of Transportation has authority under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 322 – General Powers. This Policy is effective immediately and will remain in effect until it is amended, superseded, or revoked. This Policy does not alter or affect any existing duty or authority of individual components or Offices.

In implementing this Policy, DOT will adhere to the following guiding principles.

Guiding Principles for Climate Change Adaptation

Adopt integrated approaches. Climate change adaptation strategies should be integrated into core policies, planning, practices, and programs.
Prioritize the most vulnerable. Adaptation plans should prioritize helping people, places, and infrastructure that are most vulnerable to climate impacts. They should also be designed and implemented with meaningful involvement from all parts of society. Issues of inequality and environmental justice associated with climate change impacts and adaptation should be addressed.
Use best-available science. Adaptation should be grounded in best-available scientific understanding of climate change risks, impacts, and vulnerabilities. Adaptive actions should not be delayed to wait for a complete understanding of climate change impacts, as there will always be some uncertainty. Plans and actions should be adjusted as our understanding of climate impacts increases.
Build strong partnerships. Adaptation requires coordination across multiple sectors, geographical scales, and levels of government and should build on the existing efforts and knowledge of a wide range of stakeholders. Because impacts, vulnerability, and needs vary by region and locale, adaptation will be most effective when driven by local or regional risks and needs.
Apply risk-management methods and tools. A risk management approach can be an effective way to assess and respond to climate change because the timing, likelihood, and nature of specific climate risks are difficult to predict. Risk management approaches are already used in many critical decisions today (e.g., for fire, flood, disease outbreaks), and can aid in understanding the potential consequences of inaction as well as options for risk reduction.
Apply ecosystem-based approaches. Ecosystems provide valuable services that help to build resilience and reduce the vulnerability of people and their livelihoods to climate change impacts. Integrating the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services into adaptation strategies will increase resilience of human and natural systems to climate and non-climate risks, providing benefits to society and the environment.
Maximize mutual benefits. Adaptation should, where possible, use strategies that complement or directly support other related climate or environmental initiatives, such as efforts to improve disaster preparedness, promote sustainable resource management, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions including the development of cost-effective technologies.
Continuously evaluate performance. Adaptation plans should include measurable goals and performance metrics to continuously assess whether adaptive actions are achieving desired outcomes. In some cases, the measurements will be qualitative until more information is gathered to evaluate outcomes quantitatively. Flexibility is critical to building a robust and resilient process that can accommodate uncertainty and change.

Each modal administration within DOT shall, in a manner consistent and compatible with its mission:

Analyze how climate change may impact its ability to achieve its mission, policy, program, and operation objectives.
Report annually on its accomplishments in implementing climate adaption strategies.
Coordinate actions with the Senior Official responsible for implementing climate adaptation and the Center for Climate Change Steering Committee member.
Implement climate change adaptation implementing instructions issued by CEQ.

The Counselor to the Secretary (in her capacity as DOT’s Senior Sustainability Officer) and designated modal executives are responsible for ensuring implementation of this Policy supported by the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy and the DOT Center for Climate Change.

The climate is changing and will impact the U.S. transportation system. Efforts are already underway at the Federal level and in some States and local areas, but more needs to be done. DOT will encourage efforts to ensure a transportation infrastructure that is resilient to climate impacts; however success will depend on the whole transportation sector embracing and implementing this policy.

The Development of Cost Effective Sustainability Programs and Rating Systems

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:25:00 GMT

Is developing a transportation sustainability program and establishing project level best practices (criteria) cost effective?

This question is one of the reasons why sustainability programs have not been well adopted and endorsed by many transportation management, engineering and maintenance representatives at the federal, state and local level and transportation lending institutions. Sustainability-cost effectiveness is an area that has not been well articulated to upper management and key decision makers.
The bottom-line is that many of the transportation decision makers do not care or see the value of sustainable elements, such as environmental habitat enhancement, unless there is a cost savings or perceived value. It is a challenge to put a cost toward increasing lynx mobility via sub-grade animal crossings or avoidance of species habitat.

While I was in Washington, D.C. last January, I was fortunate enough to have discussions with and give lunch presentations to the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the Millennium Challenge Corporation about sustainability rating systems. The presentation presented the case that sustainability rating systems at the program and project level provide added value and are cost effective to lending institutions supporting infrastructure projects. The audiences were a mixture of economists, environmental scientists, transportation planning and design engineers, and sustainability coordinators. I discussed the following advantages toward implementing a sustainability rating system for lending institutions:

Tool that provides sustainability based good practices and performance measures
Mechanism to promote program and project level engineering awareness
Use early at project scoping to establish sustainable action goals and actions
Management tool for program accountability and project comparison
Internal and external recognition for program and project sustainable actions
Public relations tool on how sustainable practices are being used
Quantify performance and need for program adjustments
Track sustainability project progress at critical milestones within project cycle
Consistency with organizations’ overall vision and sustainability philosophy
Value added at minimal transaction cost at each stage of project cycle (identification, appraisal, implementation, post-evaluation)
Complements compliance, monitoring and evaluation processes
Cost effective for infrastructure projects

The presentation slide that generated the most discussion with these lending institutions was the cost effectiveness of developing and implementing a sustainability plan and rating system. I discussed a slide that estimated sustainability cost effectiveness from my work on a design-build project (120th Avenue) and an interchange project (I-70/Eagle Interchange) both of which utilized a sustainability-based plan and/or rating system:

Reduction of the project footprint-$50,000-$70,000
Avoidance of sensitive environmental habitat- $30,000
Material reuse and recycling/landfill reduction-$15,000
Reuse of top soil on site-$12,000
Use of Warm Mix Asphalt versus Hot Mix- potential $13,000
Water conservation/native species landscaping (reduced watering and right of way mowing/maintenance)-potential $80,000 over 50 years
Reduced environmental permitting and management via habitat avoidance-$10,000

One comment I received from a bank economist was “this is not much money being saved”. This list could have been expanded to address other sustainability criteria and potential savings that could be commonly encountered in transportation projects. My point was that developing and implementing a sustainability plan and process can result in short and long term cost savings to a project, in light of limited research on this issue.

DOTs and privately generated sustainability rating system programs (GreenLITES, INVEST, Envision, ILAST, Green Roads etc.) need to start developing internal programs to collect and analyze data to determine cost effectiveness of their particular programs. Existing rating systems need to evolve to start addressing the actual cost of a resource (avoidance, minimization or mitigation) to address cost effectiveness in a sustainability program or process (e.g. What is the cost of not putting in a stormwater BMP that discharges pollutants directly into a high quality trout stream? What is the cost per acre of wetland not being avoided?)

I know that project-economics is only one part of the sustainability concept; however, to many transportation DOTs and bank lending decision makers it still may be the main decision element and the driving force behind accepting sustainability programs and rating systems. Sustainability professionals must do a better job in demonstrating this cost effectiveness to decision makers who do not really understand or accept the sustainability concept.

The Lack of Infrastructure Funding for Highway Maintenance and Enhancement

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:54:00 GMT

Why is it that the general public who use the federal and state highway transportation system are unwilling to invest in maintaining their current infrastructure system? Why is there so little political leadership to address this critical issue?

Many states are trying to encourage and entice businesses to stay in or relocate to their states; however, tax breaks alone are not enough or the best way. A well designed and maintained transportation system and a strong educational system are strong selling points. These elements are also critical expectations of the states’ population. Having a great transportation system and educational system in the first place is what made the US the most competitive and productive nation on the planet. Are we going to continue to do nothing about our infrastructure while other countries pass us by economically?

It appears that the days of a free federal paid lunch to fund large highway systems in order to add additional highway capacity are gone. In the past, state DOTs have spent a great deal of energy on acquiring federal dollars to expand their transportation capacity without doing a real life cycle cost analysis. This has resulted in the lack of highway maintenance that has led to the deterioration of many of our nation’s bridges and road surfaces. To underscore this point, the American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our nation highway infrastructure a score of D minus (1).

I recently attended a local highway corridor meeting (US 36 Commuting Solutions in Broomfield, Colorado). The meeting hosted numerous politicians from the US House of Representatives, State House and Senate Representatives and local municipality mayors and transportation representatives. Most of these political representatives talked about their support of transportation systems and the new design build project on US 36 but do or say nothing toward improving the department of transportation’s budget. They seem content focusing on small issues and not developing and pushing through funding bills, fees or referendums to solve road deterioration problems. Support is one thing; action and leadership is quite different and needed.

Only one state politician (State Senator Rollie Heath) voiced concern about transportation funding and understands the long term economic impacts to the State of Colorado. He mentioned in his speech that there has been no new or increased funding sources for highways over the past 10-15 years; although the population and vehicle miles traveled has dramatically increased over the same time. The state is unwilling to face the infrastructure problems and seems to be afraid of increasing taxes to those who use the transportation system.

It seems like the public and the politicians are expecting this problem to fix itself.

There seems to be only two options; increase taxes and/or fees onto the public to pay for the use, maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure or privatize the systems to investors who are within and outside of the United States.

There needs to be an increase in the Colorado State Gas Tax since it has not been raised in over 15 years. As cars become more fuel efficient, there is less revenue generated by this archaic funding mechanism. Fees for driver licenses and plates should be increased to cover the short fall in maintenance budgets. Innovative approaches to tax the public based upon their miles traveled on state roads is something to consider. If you use the system you should pay for the service; similar to an electrical utility. To aid in this approach, DOTs like the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) can do a better job in educating the public on the deteriorating conditions of the highway infrastructure (that is actually paid for and owned by the people) and market the public to support fee or tax increase referendums. These conditions are not unique to Colorado and are common nationwide.

The other option is to privatize highway operations and maintenance via the payment of tolls. Some states have “given away” portions of their road systems to private investors to reduce their state operating budgets (like the Indiana Tollway). These investors have long term agreements with DOTs and have the ability to set and raise tolls over time to achieve a desired profit margin. These investors will at least maintain the road systems but at a profit based cost to those who use the road system. CDOT is well on their way of using this mechanism; as mentioned by the CDOT Executive Director that all new road capacity will be funded by public-private partnerships (meaning tolls).

So what is the answer?

DOTs need to better educate and inform the public on current and future highway issues using main stream multi-media. Most DOT outreach seems to focus on forecasted or current storm conditions, construction projects, hazardous spills, etc. via 2 minute sound bites on the local news. DOTs need to inform the public on the current and future conditions of transportation systems and the implication of not having enough maintenance and enhancement funding. It is interesting that utility companies for a profit (even though they are regulated differently) get rate increases more frequently and easier than DOTs get funding increases to maintain their systems. DOTs need to market the public for additional funding to effectively manage road systems. The push for better infrastructure must now come from an educated traveling public, since politicians do not have the political will to ask for unpopular increased taxes and/or fees. The educated public needs to provide input to DOTs management and politicians about their desire for better transportation systems to improve and maintain their quality of life and the future competitiveness of the states.

Bottom line- Using our federal and state transportation systems can no longer be considered free by the traveling public. According to ASCE the challenges imposed by our highway infrastructure require a large increase in capital investment on the part of all levels of government and other sources as well. The failure to adequately invest in the nation’s highways and roads will lead to increased congestion and delays for motorists and the further deterioration of pavement conditions and will pose increased safety concerns. An overstressed infrastructure will also slow freight delivery, create unpredictability in supply chains, diminish the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and increase the cost of consumer goods. There must also be a significant change in the way we manage the system, which should include the use of emerging technologies and innovative operational strategies (1).

(1) ASCE Report Card For America’s Infrastructure –Transportation/Roads (2009) (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/roads)

FHWA Every Day Counts Initiatives and a Summary of Innovative Sustainable Actions

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:51:00 GMT

One of the many challenges facing federal state and local transportation agencies developing sustainable "green highway systems" is the lack of research and the subsequent adoption as inclusions in design/contractor specifications. If new sustainability based actions are to be realized on highways, new approaches and technologies need to be tested, proven and adopted by DOTs. A menu of sustainability based specifications needs to be provided to transportation designers, contractors and operation/maintenance professionals to improve implementation timing.

Why does it take so long for new and innovative sustainable ideas to become adopted by state and local departments of transportation (DOTs)? Maybe I am missing something, but it appears that many DOTs do not directly and quickly adopt research and new sustainability based specifications developed and approved by other states DOTs, agencies or professional associations. I also appears that other countries, especially in Europe, are more progressive and proactive in adopting and implementing sustainability-based technologies for transportation.

The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Every Day Counts (EDC) is designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of roadways, and protecting the environment. These goals are worth pursuing for their own sake. But in challenging times, it's imperative to pursue better, faster, and smarter ways of doing business. EDC is designed to focus on a finite set of technical initiatives. The FHWA EDC program is currently promoting five current innovation technologies to state and local partners (1):

Adaptive Signal Control
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System
Prefabricated Bridge
Safety Edge
Warm-Mix Asphalt

I think it is great that FHWA Teams will work with our state, local, and industry customers to deploy the new initiatives and will develop performance measures to gauge their success; however, the innovation technologies need to be expanded beyond these very limited five technologies. EDC actions need to be expanded and be more sustainability-based towards environmental enhancement, efficient energy management, water conservation and material reuse-recycling. As part of the EDC effort, FHWA needs to actively promote the creation of proven sustainable-innovative technologies into specifications; this will aid in implementing innovative technologies is a more expedited fashion. These expedited actions will support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and reduce material and energy costs.

On a side note, it is hoped that the Department of Transportation/FHWA will consider better performance on meeting the sustainability targets established by President Obama's Executive Order 13514; Department of Transportation /FHWA performed marginal to poor in the categories of: 1) use of renewable energy, 2) reduction in potable water intensity, 3) reduction in fleet petroleum use, 4) green buildings, and 5) scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions reductions (2). Improved sustainability performance at an agency level will provide more creditability to Department of Transportation/FHWA when promoting new innovative technologies and their commitment towards sustainability.

The following are eleven of many innovative and sustainable ideas and technologies that I found by performing a recent literature search. These are some innovative technologies that should be actively considered, tested, promoted and implemented by FHWA and state DOTs; many of these practices are currently being used in Europe.

I hope my readers find these brief summaries interesting and informative:

1. Pressure Plate Piezoelectricity

The charge that gathers in crystal and ceramic solid materials in response to strain has recently begun to gain the interest of entrepreneurs and scientists alike. A number of materials are piezoelectric, including topaz, quartz, cane sugar, and tourmaline; meaning an electrical charge begins accumulating inside these materials when pressure is applied. A company called Innowattech is installing strips of asphalt embedded with piezoelectric materials. According to the company, the generators could produce 1 MWh of electricity from a four lane highway, or enough to power 2,500 homes. Princeton University researchers combined silicone and nanoribbons of lead zirconate titanate to create PZT, an ultra-efficient piezoelectric material that can convert up to 80 percent of mechanical energy into electricity (9).

2. Solar Roadways

In Idaho, a 45 mile section of a highway is currently being tested with solar panels installed onto the road surface. Solar roadways may efficiently generate power because they allow for generally unobstructed sunlight to strike the surface. Theoretically, the roadways in the U.S. can supply the land area required for the country to replace other energy sources with clean, renewable solar power. Solar Roadways is an Idaho-based company started by an electrical engineer, Scott Brusaw, after he found out that covering just 1.7% of the country's land surface in the Continental United States with PV panels, could power the country's entire energy demands with solar power.

The innovative solar roadway concept includes the installation of a durable glass-based roadway surface in which photovoltaic panels will be wired directly into the grid. Solar roadways would also be heated during the winter by the system, melting ice and snow and increasing safety for drivers. The top road surface layer contains the solar collector cells, LED lights, and heating element, and is covered with a translucent, high‐strength glass that still provides traction for cars. The electronics layer is in the middle, and contains a microprocessor board that can sense vehicle and pedestrian loads, control the heating element for snow and ice removal, control variable lighting, and provide communications (6,8).

3. Road Energy Systems (RES) Thermal Energy Asphalt Pavements

Asphalt pavements have gained acceptance in recent years as an interesting new renewable energy source. As asphalt pavements can heat up to 70 degrees Celsius during solar irradiation, a comparison with solar hot water systems seems obvious. Several designs have been developed to extract heat from an asphalt pavement. Most available solutions apply a heat exchanger design by incorporating tubes in the asphalt pavement. In addition to its energy potential, the advantage in using an asphalt collector is the maintenance of the pavement. In summer time the maximum temperature of the asphalt pavement can be reduced so that the chance of permanent deformation is mitigated. In winter time, it is possible to avoid slippery roads by increasing the minimum pavement temperature. Snow-free pavement is the result, requiring no salt or other environmentally hazardous contaminants. RES® has been successfully applied in several road and airport projects in the Netherlands, Belgium and Scotland and there is a growing interest and demand for the technology in the US and China (3).

4. Heated Bridge Decks

Heated bridge decks in colder climates can be beneficial for a number of reasons: 1) the life cycle of bridges improves when bridges are temperature controlled (cooled in the summer, and heated in the winter); the amount of expansion and contraction stresses is reduced. This can extend the life of a bridge by reducing the cyclical wear and tear on joints and panels, 2) heated decks can increase safety and improve mobility, heated bridges can melt black ice and light snow accumulation. By removing these potential hazards, there could be fewer accidents on bridges. With fewer accidents, bridges would be passable during inclement weather, and traffic congestion (idling, vehicle emissions) could be reduced, 3) reduced infrastructure deterioration is realized by the reduced use of salt. The salt often corrodes steel and shortens the bridge lift. Also, salt is only effective within certain temperature ranges. If bridge decks were internally heated, the use of salt could be reduced dramatically, 4) improvement of the surrounding environment could be seen by using less salt or sand to de‐ice bridge decks which could potentially improve the surrounding groundwater and benefit local flora and fauna, 5) reduced required maintenance during snow events by making snow removal easier because the heated deck surface could prevent hard ice from forming. Snow plows could potentially become more efficient by removing snow faster (and with fewer vehicle emissions).

Three methods for heating bridges are hydronic, heat pipe, and electrical. Hydronic involves circulating a heated fluid through pipes that are embedded within the bridge, near the surface of the pavement. Fluid can be heated by various sources including geothermal energy. Renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power can also be developed to run the heating unit. The cooled fluid is pumped back to the source and reheated to circulate again. Heat pipe, a series of pipes containing a 'working' fluid, is embedded in the bridge deck. The fluid is vaporized at one end of the pipes, and condenses (releasing heat) as it travels to the other end. Through capillary action or gravity, the condensed fluid returns to the heat source to be vaporized again. The electrical method involves electrical current pushed through metals embedded in a concrete bridge deck. This current produces heat, which is then transferred to the surrounding materials. Heating cables placed within the concrete can also be used. Heated bridges are mainly meant to eliminate black ice and light snow, they are not designed for or intended to combat or melt heavy snowfall. Application of heated bridge technologies generally can be justified economically and practically only for installations in a temperate region (5).

5. Greener Roads Through New Mixing and Compaction Technologies

The Ammann Compaction Expert (ACE) enables the operator of a roller to choose a vibration mode on the road construction site. Very fast compaction is achieved and the current level of compaction is measured constantly. Excessive or over-compaction is prevented and in addition, the energy consumption of the machine itself is minimized. Intelligent compaction with high-tech measurement and control equipment therefore is a key enabling technology for the wider application of low-temperature asphalt. Lowering the maximum temperature of the asphalt during production and mixing allows a reduction of fuel consumption at the mixing plants, since less energy is needed to heat the minerals and the bitumen. The second advantage of lower temperatures is the significant decrease of construction worker exposure to asphalt smoke and fumes (3).

6. Environmentally Sound Road Marking Products

Ostrea Route and Ostrea Spray are road marking products made from pine resins, vegetable oils and ground oyster shells. The environmental/health balance sheet for the water-based road paint show impacts at least 30% lower than for a typical solvent-based paint. Atmospheric VOC emissions are an impressive 88% lower, especially during the application phase. An airless line marker shows several clear advantages, compared to other machines/systems: superior operator ergonomics and safety; excellent application quality; centralized control station management of the main marking work; optimum reliability, safety and service life; lower noise levels. The two marking products replace the use of quarry lime thus eliminating the need for extraction and much of the raw material transport. They reduce the use of non-renewable petroleum resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% on application and over the whole product life cycle and eliminate packaging waste (3).

7. Terminal Blend Tire Rubber Asphalt (TBTRA)

TBTRA creates quieter and safer driving conditions and also provide a very durable surface while creating a more environmentally friendly atmosphere. After extensive research, it was learned that using "wet" and "dry" tire rubber asphalt manufacturing processes led to excessive smoke and aroma being released into the atmosphere at asphalt plants. However, using a terminally blended manufacturing process proved to be the most environmentally-friendly option. TBTRA is produced in a closed-system plant, preventing smoke and particulates from entering the atmosphere. In addition to being smoother, quieter, and safer-particularly during rainstorms, the TBTRA has proven to have a significantly lower concentration of roadway pollutants running into the roadside ditches compared to contaminated stormwater runoff of other asphalt pavement (3,7).

8. Biofuels Based Pavements

Biofuel has several applications as an alternative to petroleum-based asphalt. A biofuel co-product (BCP) containing lignin can be used as an agent to stabilize pavement bases and sub-grades in road construction. The Iowa DOT and Iowa State University released a report in April, 2010, which showed that BCP is a viable material for soil stabilization. The BCPs tested demonstrated excellent potential for stabilizing low-quality soils for low and high volume roads. Another innovation that is being studied at Iowa State University is referred to as "Bioasphalt." Bioasphalt is made using a 5% mixture of bio-oil as a potential alternative to petroleum-based products. Bioasphalt utilizes renewable materials and can be mixed at a lower temperature, which saves energy and reduces fossil fuel emissions during the mixing process. Bioasphalt is currently being tested on a bike trail in Des Moines, Iowa. If the tests are successful, further demonstrations will be conducted containing higher percentages of bio-oil (6).

9. Photocatalytic Concrete

Self‐cleaning, photocatalytic concrete contains a type of cement mix coated with highly reactive titanium dioxide particles which react to break down harmful air pollutants. When exposed to sunlight, the concrete's titanium dioxide compound (known as TX Active) has its electrons combine with pollutants, such as formaldehyde, benzene, and ammonia, to break down into innocuous water molecules. This process cleans the concrete by deflecting and degrading dirty air particles. In addition to cleaning the air, titanium dioxide helps keep the concrete cool by reflecting sunlight. Self‐cleaning concrete has been actively researched over the past ten years by the world's fifth largest cement producer, Italcementi. Photocatalytic concrete has been experimented with success throughout the world. In Italy, a busy Milan street saw its nitrous oxide emissions reduced by 60% after being paved with photocatalytic concrete. A project that paved roughly two acres of an industrial area in Bergamo, Italy with photocatalytic concrete caused nitrous oxide emissions to reduce by 45%. Experts claim that if 15% of exposed urban surfaces were coated with TX Active then air pollution could be diminished by as much as 50%. Photocatalytic concrete is also economical because the TX Active only needs to be applied to the exposed surface rather than throughout an entire substance (6).

10. Design for Deconstruction

Designing for deconstruction (also referred to as designing for disassembly) involves managing and extending the life-cycle of building and construction materials. In terms of transportation, highway construction projects could take advantage of reuse or recycled building materials (such as lumber for formwork) from another worksite instead of consuming raw, new materials. This reduces the impact on the environment and can be more cost-effective than purchasing new materials. Also, by minimizing the amount of and types of material used in construction, fewer items are left to recycle or reuse at the end of the structures life cycle. When demolishing or removing a roadway structure, the concept of designing for deconstruction encourages careful removal of construction components and materials, so they can be purposefully reused elsewhere. This practice not only increases the life cycle of materials, but also reduces the amount of waste or rubble that traditionally needs to be sent to a landfill (6).

11. Solar, Wind Power Generator Jersey Barriers

Researchers in the United States are seeing Jersey barriers as a source for wind and solar energy. Mark Oberholzer, a Houston based architect and former professor at Rice University, is developing a concept to harness the energy produced by wind from passing traffic along a highway. He is researching the design of Jersey Barriers embedded with miniature wind turbines to capture wind generated from passing vehicles. Initially, a single row of vertical axis turbines was to be installed but the design has been revised to embed a dual row of turbines. While the energy can be redistributed to the electrical grid, feeding it to an adjacent electric railway would minimize the losses and inefficiencies associated with moving electricity long distances. The researchers claim that the generated solar energy can be used to supply power to the highway's night-time illumination (6).

References

(1) FHWA Every Day Counts; http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/index.cfm
(2) Executive Office of the President Council on Environmental Quality; http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/April_19_2011
(3) International Road Federation Innovative Practices for Greener Roads (2009);
http://www.irfnet.ch/files-upload/pdf-files/IRF_BP_Environment_Web.pdf
(4) Building Green Infrastructure International Road Federation; http://www.springsgov.com/units/communications/Building_Green_Infrastructures.pdf
(5) An Electronic Freeway to the Future; http://chusid.com/pdf/CI-We-May2011.pdf
(6) Sustainable Transportation Solutions and Emerging Technologies (June 2011) I-15 Mobility Alliance; http://www.i15alliance.org/pdfs/tech_memos/sustainability_emerging_technologies/I-15CSMP_Sustainability_FINAL.pdf
(7) Building Green Infrastructures; http://www.springsgov.com/units/communications/Building_Green_Infrastructures.pdf
(8) Solar Roadways; http://www.solarroadways.com/main.html
(9) Electricity Generating Dance Floors and Other Miracles of Piezoelectricity; http://www.good.is/post/electricty-generating-dance-floors-and-other-miracles-of-piezoelectricity.

Watershed-Ecosystem Based Approaches for Post-Construction Stormwater Management Along Highway Corridors

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:34:00 GMT

Many state, county and municipal departments of transportation (DOTs) are spending significant amounts of financial resources on stormwater management; especially for the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit requirements for post-construction best management practices. Is this really an environmentally and financially sound approach to protect water quality?

Maybe I am missing something, but I have not seen any technical water quality studies performed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) to quantify and demonstrate the environmental cost/benefit associated with highway system post-construction BMPs here in Colorado and in other states.

Is local, watershed, and regional water quality actually being improved from having transportation projects design, construct, and maintain expensive post construction BMPs? Is this regulatory and stormwater management approach being used by many DOTs really sustainable? Do the millions of dollars spent by DOTs for construction and maintenance of post construction BMPS make environmental engineering sense? Why do the EPA and state regulators continue to force fit the MS4 model to transportation projects and corridors?

The MS4’s New Development and Redevelopment Program (NDRD) requirements (that are more applicable to urban municipalities than highway corridors) “shall include comprehensive planning procedures and controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants after construction is complete, from areas of new highway development and significant redevelopment and associated drainages. The program must ensure that permanent controls are in place that would prevent or minimize water quality impacts” (CDOT 2007 MS4 Permit). Constructing and maintaining post-construction BMPs for the sake of following an inflexible standard or guidance needs to be revaluated by DOTs and regulators.

In my opinion, it does makes sense to design, construct and maintain post construction BMPs that collect, treat and discharge stormwater collected from highway impervious areas that directly discharge into any surface water system; especially if traction sand is used for wintertime maintenance operations. This BMP implementation can be thought of as a mitigation requirement called out in the NEPA document to address a surface water impact. These BMPs can protect the surface water system from sediment loading, heavy metals and other pollutants; but do little to treat salt-based chemical deicing chemicals and poly aromatic hydrocarbons.

It does not seem logical that blindly placing structural BMPs beneath every drainage culvert along a highway corridor within a MS4 area will protect water quality and is sustainably sound.

A new way is needed here in Colorado and in other state DOTs that looks at stormwater management in terms of a watershed-ecosystem based approach.

In a watershed perspective, the surface area associated with highway right of way and impervious areas is very small in relationship to the entire watershed. In urban areas the amount of impervious surface area is dominated by parking lots, homes, driveways and municipal streets. The MS4 NDRD program requirements are really geared towards the municipal/urban setting. Transportation projects are being forced by some inflexible regulatory agencies to institute post construction BMPs in areas without adequate right of way (thus requiring costly land acquisition) and placing them in locations where there is no direct discharge into surface waters. There is some resistance by some regulatory agencies and DOTs to use regional stormwater ponds, and banking/trading those are more cost effective and protective than individual culvert discharge BMPs.

Stormwater from highway runoff needs to be managed in a new way that actually improves the watershed’s water quality and ecosystem. The implementation of post construction BMPs should be watershed-ecosystem based; meaning they should be located within the project area and/or within the watershed where they will actually improve water quality and the complex ecosystem. This watershed based concept is not new to some DOTs.

A watershed approach for transportation projects has been shown to work well in eastern portions of the United States. The strategy promotes the integration of both public and private stakeholder interests in working toward a common goal to support the sustainable use of natural resources within a watershed context. The objective of a watershed based approach is to implement a collaborative, watershed-based approach to storm water management that focuses on water quality results. Highways systems need to coexist with other land uses and have cost effective storm water management approaches providing watershed protection and improvements. It follows then that DOT stormwater programs need to integrate planning, maintain flexibility, and focus on outcomes.

The Principles used by the Mid-Atlantic Green Highways Partnership are straightforward and progressive:

Delivering transportation programs including effective stormwater management in ways that address resource protection issues in the most effective ways in addressing watershed-wide needs
Effective stormwater management should be done for the benefit of multiple stakeholders such as highway agencies and environmental protection agencies to achieve “better than before”
Flexible approaches to implement and meet the desired goals of regulatory programs to protect natural resources
Cost effective approaches to derive watershed benefits that are identified and promoted
Promote integrated water and habitat resource protection (i.e. Storm Water and Watershed plans) into highway project development and project features
Use collaboration and partnerships to deliver watershed improvements

Watershed organization coordination and consultation by DOTs for project stormwater management is generally not often used by many DOTs.

The Green Highways Watershed Approach to stormwater management recognizes that highways coexist with other land uses within watersheds, and a collaborative approach provides an opportunity for highway agencies to plan and deliver the most cost-effective protection and improvements to watersheds. To aid in watershed recovery, address watershed impairments, and to be prepared to address future potential water quality standard requirements, designers must begin thinking outside of the right-of-way. The overall Green Highways Watershed approach encompasses the following (GreenHighways):

Stormwater management plans should be an integral part of the project development and NEPA studies
Watersheds’ water quality and land management needs should be the focus of stormwater management plans, not just on-site regulatory compliance
Project minimum responsibilities should be established on regulatory compliance and a plan should consist of a combination of onsite and watershed-wide management opportunities including banking and trading.
Both in-kind and out of kind BMPs should be part of the plan to obtain the best environmental result in a cost effective manner
Coordinate with other projects when possible to coordinate and implement mitigation and enhancement strategies

The Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) has made tremendous progress in developing watershed-based stormwater management strategies. Raja Veeramachaneni, in his career with MDSHA, became a pioneer in this area pointed out that conventional approaches to stormwater management are focused on point discharges and designed only to meet regulatory requirements. However, these practices don’t necessarily address watershed needs or improve water quality. To aid in watershed recovery, address watershed impairments, and still fulfill Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, designers must begin thinking outside of the right-of-way (State of Maryland).

In summary, I believe it is impractical to continue down the same old road without the metrics to show that local and regional water quality has been maintained and/or improved by expensive post-construction BMPS; to purchase right of way and design, construct, monitor and maintain post-construction BMPs when using a point discharge approach is not sustainable and cost effective towards protecting water quality. Here are some final thoughts about highway post-construction BMPs:

Coordinate with watershed organizations, local municipalities and other stakeholders to decide upon the local and watershed placement of BMPs to protect water quality
Place BMPs along roadsides and at bridges locations where they will actually protect water quality, such as near surface water systems and sensitive wetland/riparian areas
Instead of spending financial resources on right of way acquisitions and designing and constructing BMPs in constrained areas or in areas not near surface water systems, fund watershed-ecosystem based projects outside the project area to actually improve water quality and enhance ecosystems
Eliminate costly and ineffective BMPs in their placement along highway corridors
Coordinate with local watershed organizations or state agencies to identify potential watershed based projects that will address TMDL sources and ecosystem stressors
Spending financial resources directly within the watershed for remediation or enhancement projects will have a direct positive impact on the environment and will significantly reduce DOT BMP life cycle costs and improve the aesthetic and recreational experience for the community; a real sustainable scenario
The reduction in the purchasing additional right of way property to accommodate ineffective BMPs would be a significant cost savings to highway projects
The watershed-ecosystem based stormwater approach would reduce the project life cycle costs and environmental risks to DOTs by reducing the number of BMPs to maintain, the operation and maintenance documentation to regulatory agencies, and the environmental oversight.

Summary of the 2011 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Waste Management & Resource Efficiency Committee Workshop

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:17:00 GMT

Summary of the 2011 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Waste Management & Resource Efficiency Committee Workshop; “Sustainability & Liability in Transportation”

The Sustainability & Liability in Transportation Workshop was held in Portland, Oregon (hosted by the Oregon Department of Transportation) from July 25-27, 2011. There were a total of 37 presentations given by national and international transportation professionals during the first two days of the workshop. The third day involved a boat tour of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The workshop was well attended by representatives from state departments of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and transportation consulting firms.

It was critical and essential that as many micro-breweries be visited and tested by TerraLogic’s owner and other TRB committee representatives, as time allowed.

TerraLogic was a Silver Sponsor of the workshop and volunteered its marketing space to the Oregon Chapter of Engineers Without Borders. The Chapter’s President Steve Adams was the last speaker of the workshop. Engineers Without Borders partners with developing country communities to improve their quality of life through the implementation of environmentally sustainable, equitable and economical engineering practices. The organization has over 350 projects worldwide; the Oregon Chapter has active projects in Haiti, Ecuador and Tanzania.

Along with the other presentations, TerraLogic gave two presentations at the workshop; Sustainable Sediment Control Action Plan Strategies for Winter Highway Maintenance and Sustainable Rest Area Design and Operation (see copies of these Power Point Presentations under the web site’s Resources Tab).

The presentation topic that caught my attention and could impact numerous state departments of transportation was given by Deborah Cade (Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington). A federal judge recently decided that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is joint and severally liable for CERCLA (Superfund) response costs incurred by the USEPA at the Thea Foss Water Waterway.

The original principle parties (City of Tacoma and local utilities) responsible for the site contamination spent $119 million in site cleanup costs from an old coal gasification plant. WSDOT installed a storm drain system for a connector road under the Interstate 705 freeway. The drains fed into the City of Tacoma’s storm sewers that emptied into the waterway. WSDOT also built the state Route 509 cable bridge over the waterway. It was claimed by the principal parties that the storm drains and the Route 509 construction resulted in releases of hazardous substances into the waterway.

It was argued that the stormwater drainage system from a state highway adjacent to the site, contained hazardous chemicals that historically contributed to the contamination of the site. There was no proof of stormwater control before stormwater MS4 regulations. As a result, WSDOT was held liable and was required to pay $6 million in cleanup costs, and 2 percent of all future costs to monitor and maintain the waterway remedy. It also was held liable for the utilities’ $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.

It is interesting to note that the court found that WSDOT had ignored repeated requests from the Washington Department of Ecology to stop the discharges of contamination into the Waterway, failed to respond to their requests until higher management got involved, unreasonably delayed implementing a solution to releases from the drains, and took 11 years after finding coal tar material in the drains to completely sever the connection with the storm sewer system that emptied into the waterway.

The take away message is that CERCLA liability can arise no matter how small the potential effect may be or the duration of time after site remediation, as long as there is proof that the defendant’s sources, which can be associated with stormwater management, contributed to part of the contamination. It is ironic that WSDOT, a leader in stormwater management, gets hit by this CERCLA action associated stormwater discharges.

This should be a wakeup call for many state DOTs that should consider performing a risk based analysis of potential surface water impacts from highway stormwater into or near CERCLA sites or streams that are or are potentially impaired. Risk management decisions from this type of pro-active study may reduce long term liability and protect financial resources. For interesting reading, I suggest you read the summary of the decision at http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100714-cercla-arranger-liability.

Summary of Transportation Sustainability Rating System Programs

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:24:00 GMT

Sustainability based rating systems have become quite numerous over the past few years. It is estimated that there are over 200 individual rating systems for civil engineering projects. I thought it would be informative to share a summary of some rating systems that are or are currently being planned to be used by transportation agencies. It is hard to determine if these rating systems will eventually be consolidated into just a few credible rating systems or programs. Many programs that have been developed are specific to an organization’s operations, environmental needs, local context and sustainability philosophy.

There are numerous questions for transportation agencies to consider when choosing or developing sustainability-based rating system and program. Here are a few questions to think about when developing or adopting a sustainability rating system program:

Will the sustainability rating system be endorsed by upper management?
Will upper management require the implementation and maintenance of the rating system?
Is there added value in obtaining a rating program certification?
Is there a cost savings and what is the return on the investment for program implementation?
Do the rating system criteria reflect the agency philosophy?
Is the rating system so complex or subjective that additional resources will be needed to manage the program or is it so superficial that the rating system means nothing?
Does the rating system fit the context of the area and the projects?
Will there be recognition for the Project Manager and staff who successfully implement the rating system?
Does the rating system cover transportation planning, design, construction and operation/maintenance?
Is there a life cycle analysis component that will identify short and long term financial requirements?

Summary of Transportation Sustainability Rating System Programs

Agency	Program Name	Rating Categories	Description
New York State Department of Transportation	Green Leadership in Transportation and Environmental Sustainability (GreenLITES)	Sustainable Sites Water Quality Material Resources Energy and Atmosphere Innovation	LEED type rating system for transportation design. The internal based Certification Program is a means of evaluating the sustainability of transportation projects and to encourage the minimization of impacts to the environment and promoting sustainability in project design. Four levels of certification based upon a point/rating system. A requirement before projects can be advertized for construction. Also a version for transportation maintenance operations.
Washington DOT/University of Washington	GreenRoads	Basic Program Requirements Environment & Water Access & Equity Construction Activities Materials and Resources Pavement Technologies Custom Credits	Flexible rating system (performance metric) used to rank, score and compare road design and construction to a level of sustainability higher than current common practices. The ranking system contains a collection of required and voluntary best management practices that apply to highway design and construction. The rating system comprises 51 scoring criteria with a total of 118 points and has 4 certification levels. Points are verified by an independent review team. Basic program requirements (environmental management plans and life cycle analysis) must be met to achieve certification.
Illinois DOT	Illinois Livable and Sustainable Transportation (I-LAST) Rating System and Guide	Planning Design Environmental Water Quality Transportation Lighting Materials Innovation	The guide was developed by IDOT, the American Council of Engineering Companies and Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association. The guide contains a list of practices to bring sustainable practices into highway designs. The guide contains a total of 154 scoring elements with a maximum of 228 points. The rating guide provides a section that describes in detail the rating criteria and measure of effectiveness. ILAST is voluntary and not an official policy of IDOT. No internal certification program exists.
Portland (Oregon) Bureau of Transportation; Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission	Sustainable Transportation Access Rating System (STARS)	Integrated Process Access Climate and Energy Ecological Function Cost Effectiveness Analysis Innovation	STARS is an integrated planning/NEPA/design framework for transportation plans and projects which evaluates the full life cycle of transportation projects. The program is performance based thus requiring users to establish specific goals and objectives. The rating system takes a non-traditional approach by encouraging a mix of transportation and land use strategies to meet transportation needs. The program is organized into 29 credits; five specific credit areas are required to obtain certification. The program is currently in the pilot stage.
Wisconsin DOT, University of Wisconsin	Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure Highways (BE2ST)	Social/Regulatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Use Waste Reduction Water Consumption Social Carbon Cost Savings Life Cycle Noise Hazardous Waste	The BE2ST system employs quantitative assessment techniques to assess life cycle performance associated with highway design-construction. The approach uses a holistic perspective that incorporates quantitative metrics and uses mandatory screening and judgment indicators. Life cycle analysis is performed on environmental and economic parameters.
Federal Highway Administration	Sustainable Highways Self Evaluation Tool	Ecology Equity Economy Context Performance Education	The FHWA tool is a performance metric to monitor progress towards the goal of more sustainable roadways. The tool addresses sustainability in all phases of transportation process from planning through operation and maintenance. The rating system was developed with input from AASHTO, ASCE, ACEC and APWA. It builds upon other sustainability rating systems and encompasses the entire transportation life cycle. Some criteria weighting is used in the analysis. FHWA does not require the use of this tool to receive federal funding. Currently being Beta tested.
US EPA (Region 3), FHWA:, State Maryland DOT, District of Columbia DOT, Virginia DOT	Green Highway Partnerships	Context Sensitive Design Ecosystem Initiatives Planning and Environmental Linkages Ecological Geospatial Tools Recycling Watershed Based Stormwater Management Low Impact Development	The program has an enormous amount of stakeholder involvement on the eastern mid-Atlantic portion of the US. It is a voluntary partnership to share sustainability information and guidance for highway systems. The emphasis is to fund and research innovative resource conservation practices such as watershed based best management practices.
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure Ranking System	Envision	Project Pathway/Siting Project Strategy Communities Land Use and Restoration Landscaping Ecology and Biodiversity Water Resources and Environment Energy and Carbon Resource Waste Management Transportation	The American Society of Civil Engineers has been working jointly with the American Council of Engineering Companies and the American Public Works Association on a new infrastructure rating system that will verify civil engineering projects as sustainable. The rating system is based on the approach known as the "Triple Bottom Line" – economic, environmental and social impacts. The foundation of the rating system is the scoring based upon five levels of achievement for each criteria/objective. Guidance and methodologies are provided for the user. The program is out for public review and comment.
American Society of Landscape Architects	The Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES)	Site selection Pre‐design assessment and planning Site design‐water Site design‐soil and vegetation Site design‐materials selection Site design‐human health and well‐being Construction Operations and maintenance Monitoring and innovation	The Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES™) is an interdisciplinary effort by the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at The University of Texas at Austin and the United States Botanic Garden to create voluntary national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design, construction, and maintenance practices. Included within the Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks is the SITES rating system, which assesses specific site performance on a 250‐point scale. Points are awarded based on credits covering such areas as site selection, the use of materials, restoration of soils and vegetation, and sustainable practices in construction and maintenance. Credits can apply to projects ranging from corporate campuses and transportation corridors to public parks and single‐family residences
Institution of Civil Engineer Research and Development Enabling Fund	Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL)	Project management land use landscape Ecology and biodiversity The historic environment Water resources and the water environment Energy and carbon Material use Waste management Transport Effects on neighbors Relations with the local community and other stakeholders	The Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL) is an assessment and awards approach for improving sustainability in civil engineering and the public realm. It aims to deliver improved project specification, design, and construction and to demonstrate the commitment of the civil engineering industry to environmental quality and social performance. The program rigorously assesses project performance across 12 areas of environmental and social concern. It rewards project and contract teams in which clients, designers, and constructors go beyond the legal and environmental minima to achieve distinctive environmental and social standards.
Australia DOT, Vic Roads	Integrated VicRoads Environmental Sustainability Tool (INVEST)	Under development	INVEST is similar to a number of programs in the US and distinguishes projects based on the extent to which they have incorporated sustainable choices both in design and construction. What differentiates this tool is that there are a number of prerequisite requirements that must be met before projects can be considered for a rating. While projects initially complete a self assessment questionnaire, this will be followed by independent verification where evidence of performance will need to be provided.

Sustainability in the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Process

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:00:00 GMT

Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) is a very popular tool being used by FHWA and State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in an attempt to improve the transportation planning process, while streamlining the NEPA process. The PEL concept is to integrate environmental, community and economic factors (sounds like sustainability elements) into the planning process.

Does the PEL approach really go far enough in addressing transportation sustainability concepts early in the planning process with project life cycle emphasis?

PEL has been identified as one of ten initiatives for the FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative. The PEL encourages the use of information developed in planning to inform the NEPA process. FHWA states that this can lead to less duplication of effort and more informed project-level decisions. PEL studies are any long range systems or project planning studies, for a State or MPO long range plan at the corridor or subarea planning level. These studies could include the feasibility of projects, tiered environmental studies, refinement of a project's scope or design, the development of compatible land use, demand management and operational strategies (FHWA, 2010).

A PEL Questionnaire has been developed by FHWA to guide corridor vision studies and is intended to act as a summary of the planning process to ease the transition from the planning study to a NEPA analysis. (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_colorado2_quest.asp). Here are some of my observations and comments on the PEL concept:

The incorporation of the PEL concept into the planning process is an excellent time to start integrating sustainability based transportation concepts into the corridor vision. The PEL Questionnaire fails to explicitly mention a sustainability vision.

It is good that the PEL addresses public “coordination” but at what level? The public should have a chance to actively participate in the planning process and assure the planning process is consistent with the community context. Many times public meetings for transportation planning are informational in nature and less interactive.

The PEL should be specific about addressing community objectives and priorities and be consistent with local and regional land-use planning. It should address smart growth issues and those potential impacts as part of the community analysis. Social justice issues need to be considered as part of the community PEL assessment. The overall economic benefits and quality of life impacts to the community are priority.

The questions posed by the PEL Questionnaire mention the alternative (strategy) screening criteria and screening process. Sustainability-based elements should be explicitly mentioned in the PEL guidance as a requirement for alternative (strategy) selection. Sustainability based criteria should be balanced equally between environmental, community and economic factors especially when considering life cycle evaluations. Historically, the balance has tipped heavily towards the economic factors.

The definition of PEL references the concept of life cycle analysis but is absent from the PEL Questionnaire. A common problem in transportation planning is the failure to identify the amount and sources of financial resources necessary to maintain and operate a given highway system or corridor for its estimated life. The cost for developing progressive sustainability-based transportation elements needs to be incorporated into these life cycle costs. The cost for potential environmental enhancement and mitigation should also be factored into the PEL process.

Life cycle analysis at the planning/PEL stage should evaluate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption that will increase or decrease over the life time of the system. The planning/PEL process should address state climate change goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The PEL Questionnaire mentions environmental resources (wetlands, cultural, etc) but fails to address other resources such as finite fossil fuels and construction related material resources. Efficient use of resources and how that will be accomplished should be addressed in the PEL process.

The PEL Questionnaire fails to consider climate change (variability/chaos) and how this condition could impact the local community and the infrastructure. Planning for climate change (variability/chaos) adaptation could result in additional infrastructure and thus impacting estimated life cycle costs. The PEL process should guide planners to understand and evaluate the risk posed by climate change. A range of adaptive responses can be planned and employed through re-design, relocation, increased redundancy of critical services and operational movements.

The PEL Questionnaire should be specific about future project infrastructure and transportation lane preference to accommodate alternative fuel cars.

The PEL Questionnaire and concept should address the identification of areas for potential environmental restoration and enhancement opportunities and not just focus on potential mitigation.

There should be some training provided to transportation planning organizations (Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Transportation Planning Regions) on the concepts of sustainability-based planning. It is important for them to recognize that the infrastructure that will be built will need to be flexible and adaptive to change for at least the next 50 years. Understanding the equal balance and balance between the environment, community and economic factors is important for planning organizations to understand and manage.

Finally, I am a little confused about why there are PEL studies being performed on highway systems that have just gone through the NEPA-EIS process (like in Colorado on North Interstate 25). It seems like the planning portion of the project and alternative analysis should have already been completed via the EIS process. There should be no need to do a PEL in these areas in anticipation for a Tier II EA or EIS (as I recall, an EA is a test case for a potential EIS). It seems possible (to the extreme) that a project corridor could go through transportation planning, followed by a Tier I EIS, followed by a PEL, and followed by a Tier II EA or another EIS.

Overall, is this PEL tool progressive and is it really meeting long term FHWA and State DOT goals for sustainability? Do State DOTs PEL guidance documents mention the sustainability concept?

The Use of DOT Right of Ways for Alternative Energy Generation

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:42:00 GMT

Highway Right of Way (ROW) represents an unused resource to most DOTs. Instead of using ROW areas for traffic safety zones and utilities placements, DOTs could be using their ROWs more effectively to generate alternative energy. This action would help reduce the consumption of fossil fuel-generated electrical energy and greenhouse gas emissions, which is consistent with many state’s climate control action plans (such as Colorado). Why are ROWs not being used for alternative energy generation? Is it not technically feasible? Is it “red tape”? Is it a lack of management innovation and imagination? Is it capital? It is all the above?

The National Highway System (NHS) is approximately 163,000 miles of roadway consisting of the Interstate Highway System and approximately 69 percent located within rural areas. It is estimated that there are approximately five million acres of NHS ROW nationwide and approximately 68 percent of those acres (3.4 million) are estimated to be unpaved. The amount of NHS ROW within Colorado is estimated to be 110,156 acres (Department of Transportation, 2010,). CDOT maintains approximately 9,144 total linear miles of ROW (CSU-Pueblo, 2011).

It is impressive that the Oregon Department of Transportation has established a ROW solar array system in the Portland Area consisting of 594 solar panels that produce nearly 112,000 kWh per year to light the I-5/I-205 Interchange. The project uses the utility grid as a battery, gathering energy during the day to light the interchange at night. Oregon DOT is working through a public private partnership to expand this solar highway concept with a goal of lighting the entire transportation system with renewable energy (TR News 267, 2010). This aggressive strategy is being taken by Oregon even though it does not have high average amounts of sunshine days; Portland, Oregon has an annual percent average possible sunshine percentage of 48%. In comparison, Denver, Colorado has an annual percent average possible sunshine percentage of 69% (NOAA, 2004). In a state that promotes the “green economy” and its high quality alternative energy resources, there are no ROW solar array systems managed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).

The CDOT DTD Applied Research and Innovation Branch funded a research project entitled Assessment of Colorado Department of Transportation Rest Areas for Sustainability Improvements and Highway Corridors and Facilities for Alternative Energy Source Use to assess the alternative energy generation potential within their ROW. The alternative energy research was conducted by Colorado State University at Pueblo and by David Evans & Associates (Denver, Colorado). The year-long research study evaluated CDOT ROW power generation from potential alternative sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric generation (see the report at www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/pdfs/2011/restareas/view). This alternative energy information was recently presented at the National Association of Environmental Professionals in Denver, Colorado. The following summarizes the key points of the presentation and report:

Solar – Based on the rates of solar insolation in various areas within Colorado and the existing
ROW acreage in each insolation level, Colorado ROW receives almost 554,700 giga-watt hours of solar energy per year (GWh/year). If 100 percent of this energy was converted to electricity it would meet ten percent of Colorado’s total electricity demand based on year 2007 consumption rates. However, based on an estimated net efficiency rate of ten percent, approximately 55,500 GWh/year could be produced from CDOT ROW.

Wind – Although Colorado does have windy areas, relatively little usable CDOT ROW is located in those locations. Wind energy is still limited by technology, and large turbines require wide spacing and safety set-backs from the highway for safe and efficient operation. Total potential wind for all usable ROW would generate approximately 380 GWh/year statewide.

Biomass – Most of the state is capable of producing some amount of biomass from wood (beetle killed forests), certain grasses, landfill methane, manure and crops including corn. One ton of dry biomass can produce approximately 1 MWh of electricity, and for the entire state an estimated 4,974 tons could be roduced annually on CDOT ROW, generating approximately 5.0 GWh/year.

Geothermal – Research indicates that geothermal resources within Colorado are concentrated in the south central portion of the state. Statewide, approximately 8,530 acres of ROW are located in geothermal areas. Opportunities for CDOT to use geothermal resources may include heating and cooling with heat pumps and the production of steam power.

Hydropower -It is unlikely that CDOT ROW contains any existing hydropower facilities and the study did not attempt to quantify usable acres of ROW. Rather, about a dozen potential sites that may be located within 1/2 mile of a CDOT roadway were identified. Such sites could provide electricity through a short transmission line to CDOT facilities such as rest areas, maintenance buildings and for roadway lighting or signals.

Transmission – Although Colorado has thousands of miles of transmission lines, there are large portions of the state with sparse coverage. Yet, these mostly rural areas can have significant potential for renewable energy production such as wind, solar and biomass. Without access to transmission lines, production of such energy may be cost prohibitive.

FHWA -Prior to 1988, the FHWA prohibited the installation of most new utilities within interstate ROW, and many states including Colorado adopted the same policy for state highways. In 1988, that policy was changed to allow each state to decide whether to permit new utilities within interstate ROW and to specify the conditions for approval. Each state is required to prepare a Utility Accommodation Policy (UAP) that describes the state’s plan for allowing public and/or private utilities within ROW. The state’s Utility Accommodation Policy must be approved by FHWA.

CDOT- CDOT’s most recent UAP was adopted in 2009. However, the definition of ‘utility or utility facility’ does not specifically describe alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal or biomass, nor does it provide guidelines or standards for permitting alternative energy in ROW such as setbacks or other safety buffers. A recommendation of the study is that CDOT revise the UAP to include design standards for alternative energy within ROW.

My final thoughts- perhaps better leadership with technical and regulatory guidance can be developed by FHWA to DOTs that will promote the use of ROWs for alternative energy generation. The energy generated within the ROWs could be used to power near-by maintenance facilities, rest areas and lighting systems in addition to putting the energy onto the grid. This localized approach may make the ROW concept cost effective at some locations. It is recommended that CDOT continue further research on ROW/alternative energy generations in the form of feasibility studies to evaluate existing technologies, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel based energy consumption, and assess full life cycle costs and return on investment. All these elements are consistent with former Governor Ritter’s Executive Order for State of Colorado agency sustainability.

Sustainable Actions Associated with Highway Operation and Maintenance

Mon, 09 May 2011 23:15:00 GMT

Transportation has major economic, environmental and social implications in its ability to provide for the public mobility, movement of goods and services and connectivity in our society. It is clear that many transportation practices are financially and environmentally unsustainable. Transportation is a major source of green house gas emissions that is associated with climate change, next to buildings and electrical power generation. Vehicle miles traveled is increasing three times faster than our population rate. Transportation projects are being planned, designed and constructed without looking at the full life cycle costs and manpower resources.

Transportation maintenance operations are an example of this unsustainable economic condition. There is a lot of emphasis on developing new or improving existing road systems that take advantage of federal and state funds; however, there is very little emphasis focused on the necessary monetary and manpower resources to effectively operate and maintain the road system. State maintenance departments are funded through state budgets and not federal budgets and many have been underfunded for years, well before hard economic times hit state DOTs. Transportation planning, NEPA and design documents do not adequately address this long term economic life cycle issue.

If given the appropriate funding and support, highway maintenance departments can become more sustainable when considering community, economic, and environmental issues. Many sustainable actions are cost effective; however, in many cases there is a lack of short term money necessary to save long term money.

The following are just some of the many sustainable ideas that state and municipal DOTs should consider for their maintenance operations. Other sustainable maintenance actions can also be found in the New York State Department of Transportation’s GreenLITES Operations Certification Program.

Community/Social

DOTs could develop a public relations campaign to help the general public understand that highway maintenance operations necessary to maintain safety and aid in the movement of goods and services is not free and comes at a cost, especially during hard economic times. The public needs to be educated about maintenance actions and actual costs required to keep them safe and maintain their mobility for employment and recreation. CDOT and former Governor Ritter did not do a good job explaining why the cost of vehicle license plates increased $40 to improve maintenance and repair/replace high risk bridges. There needs to be some political will to increase the gas tax or develop other funding mechanisms to long term increase funding for highway maintenance.

Very few people really understand highway maintenance except perhaps when they see a snow plow during storm events. There is a public involvement process for transportation planning, NEPA and design phases of a project but there is no public outreach for maintenance. For example, visits and presentations to local school children showing large equipment and discussing maintenance actions would be a great public outreach technique. If the public really understood what maintenance professionals did to ensure safety, maybe there would be less push back when additional funding is needed for highway maintenance.

Maintenance sustainability outreach needs to occur not only to the general public but also to maintenance personnel. Maintenance employees need sustainability awareness and outreach training as part of their annual training. The sustainability concept needs to be incorporated into standard operating procedures and part of their every day maintenance duties.

DOT Maintenance facilities could sponsor a hazardous waste/material disposal day for the local community. DOTs could coordinate with hazardous waste disposal companies to collect residential type hazardous waste/materials at the same time their waste material is being collected for disposal. This would avoid residential waste from being inappropriately disposed of in the local environment and landfills.

Maintenance representatives could interface with local neighborhood communities in an effort to provide strategic vegetation plantings (trees or shrubs) that would help with the local aesthetics impacted by road structures and traffic.

Economic

Transportation planning and NEPA documents need to address life cycle manpower and economic costs. Many people believe that NEPA documents address sustainability concepts. In the area of community involvement and environmental impact this statement is true; however, it is inadequate when addressing long term operation and maintenance costs. Transportation systems or major improvements should not be built before there has been adequate funding allocated for long term maintenance at the Record of Design (ROD) phase of the project.

Rest area operations should be reviewed in the areas of energy and water conservation and landscaping for cost savings. TerraLogic recently developed a sustainable rest area evaluation of six representative rest areas and identified numerous opportunities for cost efficiency and savings (see http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/pdfs/2011/restareas/view and TerraLogic Sustainable Rest Areas- June 2010 blog). The mission, objectives and regulations for rest area operations need to be re-evaluated by CDOT and other DOTs to allow public private partnerships to augment costs and reduce public services that are energy intensive or those that wastefully consume valuable finite resources.

Environmental

Maintenance facilities should be recycling and reusing materials such as guardrails, lighting posts, sign posts, asphalt, concrete and collected traction sand. These materials could be stockpiled at maintenance faculties for reuse/recycling instead of landfilling. Hazardous materials such as waste oil and filters, degreasing agents and glycols should be recycled. Maintenance professionals could collect and recycle plastic, glass and aluminum containers from rest areas and maintenance facilities. State procurement guidance for the purchasing of green chemicals should be followed by maintenance professionals.

Maintenance departments could remove non-native grass vegetation at rest areas and instead plant native trees or shrubs. Rest areas could serve as a nursery that would grow trees for natural snow fences or other vegetative uses (see January 2011 blog Living Snow Fences Within Highway Corridors). Rest areas have the necessary water and maintenance labor resources to grow and maintain native plants for future relocation.

Large land areas owned by DOTs and municipalities (like rest areas) can be used to grow local food crops, providing there is an existing water source. An innovative company located in Golden, Colorado (Agriburbia) performs organic-sustainable agricultural practices by growing of food crops on unused land from seeding to harvesting to selling (see http://www.agriburbia.com/).

Maintenance facilities could look for ways to reduce the amount of right of way mowing without impacting public safety. Reduced mowing would improve local wildlife habitat, reduce labor, fuel consumption and fuel costs and reduce green house gas emissions.

Maintenance facilities and rest areas that are near or adjacent to sensitive environmental areas (surface waters, wetland and riparian areas) should implement stormwater/snow melt best management practices regardless if they are in a MS4 Area. This action will protect local environmental resources while reducing environmental risks.

The Incorporation of Sustainability Requirements into Designer and Contractor Contracts

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:51:00 GMT

Departments of Transportations (DOTs) and some municipal transportation departments have sustainability policies, programs and projects that are consistent with their environmental philosophy, stewardship guidance and mission statements. They fund numerous types of research projects in an attempt to protect and enhance the traveling public (community), the local environment and economic-social resources. Some DOTs and municipalities have programs or guidance that address sustainability based element integration into transportation planning, NEPA, design, operation and maintenance and demolition. Many sustainability based actions are consistent with state and local climate action plans and existing stewardship guidance.

One of the main sustainability program challenges facing DOTs and municipal transportation departments is the ability to require the execution of sustainable actions from planning, design consultants and construction contractors directly within contracts or request for proposal (RFP) scopes of work. This is a significant gap in a transportation based sustainability program. Consultants and contractors will not perform sustainable actions unless there is a requirement directed by the DOT. Without incentives or detailing specific requirements, consultants and contractors will not be proactive in the incorporation of sustainably elements into their projects. There are enormous opportunities that can be gained by providing sustainability based direction, leadership and guidance to consultants and contractors.

I understand there are two types of contract mechanisms used to obtain consulting and contracting services. The typical design-bid-build projects use the standard lowest bid method which is the required or preferred method of procurement for many transportation departments. The design-build projects can use the Best Value Method of contracting.

Regardless of the contract vehicle, sustainability requirements could be inserted into the RFP’s scope of work. Competing teams must develop their proposals in a way that addresses these required elements. The winning team therefore must develop or implement sustainable or “green designs” based on the RFP requirements.

The following are some thoughts and contracting options that should be considered by transportation organizations that have or are considering developing sustainability programs. To implement these ideas or options, it important that upper engineering, environmental and maintenance management endorse and support the sustainability concept:

For design build and design/bid/build projects, RFPs could require that contractors develop a sustainability plan as part of the proposal submission that will be evaluated with the entire bid package. Compliance to the submitted plan will be required by contract and reviewed throughout the project.
For design build and design/bid/build projects, RFPs could require that contractors develop a sustainability plan after the project award that must be approved by the appropriate DOT Sustainability Coordinators. Compliance to the approved plan will be required by contract and reviewed throughout the project.
Sustainability plans should, at a minimum, contain the following elements: a material re-use and recycling, emissions control, public outreach and feedback meetings, water conservation, environmental enhancement, context sensitive design, energy conservation and cost effective long term operation and maintenance.
As part of the RFP, designers could be required to participate as a team member in DOT or municipal internal transportation sustainability programs (such as GreenLITES or GreenRoads).
Economic incentives for contractors have already been used to accelerated contract schedules; therefore, incentive clauses could be added within the RFP or contract for the design and implementation of sustainability-based actions. Additional environmental impact avoidance beyond the NEPA document or the reuse/recycling of at least 75% of construction waste are just a few examples.
Proposal scoring criteria for designer/contractor proposals could be modified to address sustainability requirements based upon state or local sustainability orders, climate change initiatives and overall natural resource management.
It is my understanding that the FHWA “Every Day Counts” concept could suggest the development of template contract language for design/build projects and General Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) type projects. FHWA could help promote and integrate sustainability into design and construction projects by providing strong guidance in this template contract model that is consistent with their documented sustainability philosophy.

Sustainable Winter Highway Maintenance

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:56:00 GMT

The majority of the traveling public who use road systems in the winter time really do not understand the complexity and environmental issues associated with winter road maintenance. Many drivers expect to safely and expeditiously travel on road systems no matter how sever the snowstorm event or they expect to drive on bare pavement immediately after a storm. Many of the maintenance departments do such a good job that some drivers do not have adequate vehicles and snow tires. This driver expectation comes with an environmental and a highway operational price that is often hidden to the general public. One of the main sustainable transportation challenges associated with highway operations is the use of traction sand and excess application of chemical de-icing/anti-icing agents.

In some states the main course of action for wintertime road maintenance has been the reactive application of traction sand onto highway and municipal road surfaces, especially in mountainous and foothill environments. Studies have shown that overall, traction sand is not very efficient and of limited use when applied to icy roads. When dry sand is applied to roadways, approximately 30% is immediately displaced off the road surface and as few as 12 cars can entirely sweep the traction sand from snow covered surfaces (AASHTO, Center of Excellence, 2010). Traction sand is generally comprised of a mixture of well defined sediment sized material and salt, usually 5-15% of sodium chloride. The use of sodium chloride is to prevent clumping of sand material which facilitates the spreading of the sand mixture onto the road surface from the truck and not for deicing.

Traction sand is removed from the road surface and into the drainage system by vehicle movement and displacement, wind, snowmelt and plowing and by the actual application to the road surface. Traction sand released into the watershed or highway drainage system has been shown to impact the local watershed environment by increasing sediment in waterways that can drastically change the stream morphology and existing habitat. High amounts of applied traction can change the stream benthic region thus impact macro invertebrates and fish egg viability. Large amounts of traction sand deposition can fill in sensitive wetlands, riparian vegetation and destroy wildlife habitat.

State and local municipalities using traction sand for winter maintenance carry an environmental risk related to the environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the US without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The discharge of stormwater pollutants into waters of the US must not impact the physical, chemical and biological integrity of a receiving stream. Highway departments run the risk of EPA Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Program violations, obtaining a notice of violation to the Clean Water Act from the enforcement agency or are forced to be involved with the development and implementation of a potentially expensive Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TerraLogic’s Art Hirsch has been involved with sediment-based TMDLs for Straight Creek (Eisenhower Tunnel) and Black Gore Creek (Vail Pass). Other regulations need to be considered such as Section 404 of Clean Water Act (dredge and fill of waters of the US; wetlands) and the Endangered Species Act.

New pro-active wintertime techniques have been used, tested and adopted by many State Departments of Transportations (DOTs) that use anti-icing and pre-wetting techniques along with new types of chemical and solid deicers. Reactive approaches wait for the storm to start or ice/snow layer to develop on the road surface before initiating deicing action.

Proactive practices such as anti-icing are taken prior to and in anticipation of winter storms. Studies have shown that proactive wintertime actions are cost effective, less environmentally damaging and provide improved safety to the traveling public. The Colorado Department of Transportation has taken a proactive approach towards wintertime maintenance that has been cost effective and environmentally protective.

Anti-icing is a proactive strategy in which snow and ice control materials are applied before a snow, ice or frost event. This strategy treats potential conditions before problems arise giving maintenance professionals an advanced advantage. Anti-icing prevents precipitation from bonding (freezing) with the pavement surface or weakens the bonds that may have formed for easier removal than with deicing. Once the bond is broken between the road surface and the ice/snow, accumulated snow and ice can be removed easier by snowplowing. When used correctly anti-icing can reduce plowing and decrease the quantity of chemicals used for winter maintenance. Reduction in accidents due to improved vehicle traction from increased ice/snow removal was realized by Idaho DOT (83% accident reduction) and Colorado DOT (23% reduction).

Pre-wetting is the injection or spraying of a liquid chemical on solid chemicals or abrasives (traction sand) to enhance their effectiveness and reduce material loss and other forms of waste. It is a viable and desirable alternative to dry application of abrasives of solid deicing chemicals. When pre-wetting traction sand, the wetting agent adds weight and a cushioning effect when directly applied to the road surface; therefore, the material is less susceptible to displacement off the road. If the roadway surface has a layer of ice/snow, the pre-wet agent will partial melt the ice/snow thus allowing the abrasive to become embedded in the layer thus making the material more resistant to displacement. Pre-wetting has been shown to reduce the amounts of traction sand by 50% in cold weather (NCHRP, 2007).

The successful implementation of anti-icing and pre-wetting is dependent upon accurate weather forecasts that will guide the timing and the amount of material applied to the road surface. Anti-icing roads prematurely can result in inefficient use of chemical agent material and labor. For maintenance departments without weather forecasting, “just in time anti-icing” is an option in which anti-icing agent is applied immediately before or during the initiation of the snowstorm. Material Decision Management Systems exist that interfaces with weather forecasting and have been instrumental in improving the level of service and reducing maintenance costs.

Over the past several years deicing and anti-icing chemicals have improved in quality. The Pacific Northwest Snowfighters Association (PNS), which is composed of DOT maintenance departments from the intermountain west and western Canada has established chemical constituent specifications. These specifications have specific concentration limits for heavy metals, phosphorus and cyanide. The main environmental concerns toward using chemical agents have been impacts to water quality and roadside vegetation. Studies have shown that there is a road dilution effect from snowmelts coming off the road surface that reduces the salt concentrations when discharged into a stream. The proximity of the road to a receiving stream is also a critical factor with direct stormwater discharges. Research studies have identified vegetation and soil impacts from high chemical application rates. Proper and efficient application of anti-icing and de-icing chemical is critical towards reducing vegetative impacts.

Highway maintenance department need to review and re-evaluate their winter time maintenance operations in light of increasing maintenance costs, potential environmental risks and liabilities and driving public safety. More public education and outreach would sensitize the traveling public about the overall environmental and economic costs of winter driving expectations.

Highway departments need to develop winter highway maintenance programs that are sustainable and pro-active in nature by the integration of three main and broad areas; environment, driving public safety and economics. Highway Maintenance-Sediment Control Action Plans that adopt pro-active actions, complement this sustainability concept by identifying cost effective actions that will reduce environmental impacts, while maintaining the driving publics’ safety and meeting the aesthetic expectations of the community. The overall benefits of a Sustainable Sediment Control Action Plan are as follows:

Save wintertime maintenance costs (labor, materials and fuel) by optimizing plowing frequencies and changing deicing strategies thus reducing fuel consumption and green house gas emissions
Reduce overall environmental liability and risk to the highway maintenance department; thus saving potential cost associated with fines and imposed mitigation
Reduce life cycle cost by using chemical deicing versus traction sand
Improve air quality by reducing PM10 development
Enhance habitat for native wildlife and vegetation
Improve the roadside aesthetics
Improve driver and bicycle safety and awareness
Minimize costs associated with traction sand application, collection, transportation, handling and landfilling

Living Snow Fences within Highway Corridors

Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:24:00 GMT

Living snow fence utilization is one of the most sustainable engineering actions DOTs can do along highway corridors. Living snow fences are designed plantings of trees and/or shrubs and native grasses along highways, roads and ditches that create a vegetative buffer that traps and controls blowing and drifting snow. These strategically placed fences have been shown to be cost effective in reducing highway maintenance associated with blowing and drifting snow conditions.

This is not a new concept. As early as 1905 railroad companies planted trees as barriers to control blowing snow along rights of way. By 1915, the Great Northern Railway Company had planted over a million trees. In North Dakota over 96,000 trees and shrubs were established. This action reduced snow drifting, line closure and helped maintain an expected level of service along the rail line.

Many Highway road system designs do not take into account the potential of using living snow fences. It is possible that DOT and/or consulting designers do not understand the long term cost benefits of these snow fences and are not taking a big picture look at the long term highway maintenance operations and costs, when planning for wintertime conditions.

Many DOTs use wooden slat fencing in areas with large open areas and fetches that are expensive to purchase, install and maintain. The maintenance of snow fences was estimated to be $3 per mile per year, compared to $185 per mile per year for a 4 foot slat fence (USDA, 1994). In Minnesota, benefit/cost ratios range from 9:1 to 46:1 in favor of living snow fences (University of Minnesota, 2002).

Why is the implementation of living snow fences such a great sustainable transportation action for highway DOTs? The living snow fence concept really incorporates all the components associated with sustainable actions such as environmental condition improvements, consideration of financial resources and cooperation with the local landowners/community. The following summarizes the main advantages of living snow fencing and why DOTs should consider increasing their use along highway corridors:

The service life of living snow fences is 50-75 years in comparison to the 20-25 year life of a slat fence.
Living mature trees can capture up to 12 times more snow than slat fences.
Living snow fences can be installed to address tree mitigation from highway construction projects
Trees and shrubs sequester carbon that can reduce a DOTs overall carbon footprint
Wildlife habitat is enhanced
Maintenance plowing activities and the potential of road closures are reduced
Reduced soil erosion along the right of way
Reduced amount of snow plowing thus minimizing fuel consumption and costs, and green house gas emissions
Increased vegetation provides enhanced aesthetic features along the highway corridor
Maintenance free when trees are established

The challenges to living snow fences are that they require more space than the wooden slat fencing, plantings need to be protected from livestock and wildlife and it takes 5-7 years to provide effective snow control and up to 20 years for trees to reach full maturity. There may be site conditions such as shallow soils, arid climate and soil pH issues that may challenge plant establishment.

The design and implementation of living snow fences requires acceptance and cooperation of stakeholders. Generally for large open areas living snow fences need to be 150-200 feet away from the road surface which many times requires planting off the DOT right of way. Coordination with the following stakeholders may make the planning process more complex: 1) the local landowner, 2) county commissioners, 3) resource conservation districts, 4) state and federal forest services, 5) land management agencies and 6) local environmental organizations. Cooperation among stakeholder is critical to the success of the living snow fencing in regards to the following:

site access
tree plantings
irrigation water
fencing from livestock or wildlife
weed maintenance
aesthetics
erosion control

The Minnesota Department of Transportation initiated a Living Snow Fence Partnership Program with the US Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The intent of the Program is to efficiently manage blowing and drifting snow on Minnesota roadways to reduce accidents and save lives. The Living Snow Fence Partnership Program is very proactive in establishing work groups, raising public awareness, cost sharing among stakeholders and defining specific program roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders.

Living snow fences can be a win/win for both the DOT and landowner by increasing the number of planted trees to sequester carbon, improving soil stability, improve aesthetics, and wildlife habitat improvements.

There needs to be more emphasis on using living snow fences along highway systems. It makes economic and environmental management sense for many DOTs to implement living snow fence programs. DOT’s environmental, maintenance and engineering professionals need to work together and review potential construction sites for implementing living snow fencing especially during the design-NEPA phase of the project. It is possible to directly specify the use of living snow fences in the NEPA document that must be incorporated into the final design. A landscaping plan that incorporates the NEPA requirements should be developed and provided to the selected construction contractor. DOTs should consider increased education, training and awareness about snow fencing design opportunities. Finally, DOTs could perform a state-wide, landscape GIS study to identify existing road corridors where cost effective living snow fences could be implemented along and near the existing highway right of ways.

The reader is directed to the following websites for living fence design criteria:

www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/windbreaks.html (Colorado State University Extension)
www.unl.edu/nac/aug94/snowfences/snowfence.html (USDA National Agroforestry Center)
www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7277.html (University of Minnesota Extension)
http://environment.transportation.org (AASHTO)
http://climate.umn.edu/snow_fence/intro/html (Minnesota DOT)

Climate Change Risks to Transportation Systems

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:42:00 GMT

No matter what it is called, climate change, climate chaos, global warming, or greenhouse effect, the dramatic warming of the earth represents a long term risk to State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Many transportation professionals feel that this risk is non-existent or insignificant, since it is gradual and the effects are subtle and random. The two significant snow storms in Washington D.C. in the winter of 2009-2010 demonstrate the chaotic and episodic nature to our climate. These events had a significant impact on the momentum of climate change management in the US from a political and public point of view.

Regardless of the politics and industrial lobbying, significant scientific evidence has demonstrated that climate/chaos, regardless if it is due to natural or anthropogenic sources, is real and the long term impacts need to be managed for future generations. If certain types of biological and chemical thresholds are exceeded, there is no time for mitigation and recovery within the human timeframe.

It is important to note that there has been more emphasis on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and less focus on how to manage and adapt to climate chaos. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were eliminated or stabilized today, the effects of global climate change/chaos would still be experienced for the next 50 years and beyond.

Transportation systems are at some risk within the United States including Colorado and the Intermountain West. In the long term, climate chaos impacts have a probability of impacting the levels of service, safety and the integrity of the transportation system infrastructures. Existing highway system design criteria that are based upon current climate patterns and statistical data will become outdated and ineffective. This system ineffectiveness could lead to: 1) structural failure 2) safety risk to the traveling public, and 3) significant impact to the environment.

The long term cost to maintain transportation system integrity and level of service could be significant, if potential climate chaos impacts are ignored; therefore, an understanding of the potential impacts, mitigation and an identification of vulnerable areas within State DOTs is critical in order to effectively manage climate chaos risk.

As an example, high intensity storms may become more intense and frequent within Colorado, thus making highway drainage design criteria out-dated; 50 year storm events may now be 10 year storm events due to the higher intensity and episodic nature of storm events. Existing highway drainage capabilities may become ineffective over time and thus pose a safety hazard to the traveling public caused by hydroplaning or colliding with deep standing water in below grade structural areas (below bridges).

Intermountain West Perspective

Climate chaos impacts realized in the Intermountain west will be based upon numerous variables such as geographical location, land form characteristics, wind patterns, elevation, and distance from tropical disturbances. Intermountain states like Colorado, are not likely to directly experience climate chaos impacts associated with the increase in Arctic temperatures, rising sea levels and increase in hurricane intensity; however, there is a probability that western states will be impacted by increases in hot days and heat waves, and increases in intense precipitation storm events. These weather impacts will eventually have an impact on the transportation systems.

It is very possible that the design criteria that has been used in past will not be applicable to the new climatic conditions of the next 50 years and beyond. There will be some existing transportation infrastructure that may be at risk and may require retrofitting or monitoring to ensure that the level of service, structural integrity and environmental safety is protected and maintained.

To address these risk management issues, direct and indirect climate chaos impacts that have a probability of impacting highway infrastructure should be defined and better understood. Direct impacts are those felt directly from physical climate chaos factors such as temperature, wind, snow and rainfall events. Indirect impacts are more environmental and behavioral in nature such as biological responses to climate chaos that may influence transportation patterns, habits or safety. The infestation of bark beetle has killed millions of trees in Colorado due to stressors aggravated by climate chaos. These trees represent a significant risk to the regional transportation system and residents. Wildfire conditions may occur in heavily infested areas where residents and wildlife are unable to safely evacuate the area and landslides may be experienced due to vegetative cover loss.

The following are some examples of potential climate chaos impacts that need to be better understood by Intermountain West DOTs:

High Temperatures

Pavement buckling
Increased traffic congestion due to vehicle overheating
Pavement rutting due to surface softening
Wildfire evacuations
Temporary loss of the movement of goods and services from wildfires

Precipitation Extremes

Increased rain accumulation and drainage
Undersized drainage systems
Undersized water quality structural controls
Increased erosion from construction sites
Increased road closures from high snowfall events-need for traveling public shelters
Proximity to stream systems during intense storm events
High risk watersheds
Road and bridge wash outs and failures
Increased accidents due to increased standing water in low areas
Temporary loss of the movement of goods and services from flooding or structure failure
Change in floodplain delineations that may impact bridge integrity
Increased usage of traction sand and/or deicing chemicals from high intensity snowfall events

To maintain the level of service to Intermountain West DOTs’ transportation systems and maintain the public safety, Intermountain states need to investigate the long term risk associated with potential climate chaos. In order to manage the climate chaos risk, DOTs should identify and understand probable impacts that may occur in the next 50 years and beyond until greenhouse gas emissions stabilize. The following are the DOT benefits gained from this type of risk management study:

Provide DOT management an awareness and understanding of potential climate chaos impacts and the need to develop risk assessment strategies.
Maintain safety to the driving public by identifying high risk infrastructure problems and improving evacuation routes and shelters for wildfire and extreme weather events.
Anticipate significant long term costs and risks by identifying suspect design criteria that may become ineffective due to parameter changes.
Anticipate additional costs associated with new highway design criteria, retrofits and highway maintenance activities due to weather extremes.
Save financial resources by identifying and preventing infrastructure failure for highways adjacent to streams and bridges within high risk watersheds and within new floodplain delineations.
Save maintenance costs by identifying highway materials that are more sustainable under extreme weather conditions.
Increase public relations and education on climate chaos impacts to the transportation system; the DOT will be seen as a proactive leader that is looking ahead in managing public safety and managing future financial risks.

Stormwater

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:17:00 GMT

Stormwater. Just the word “stormwater” can give construction project managers on transportation projects an ulcer and a bad attitude. The risk of non-compliances to federal, state and local environmental regulations or DOT agency directives and policies is real risk to the project manager whose main goal is finishing the construction project on time and within budget. Many times the project-level stormwater compliance management is seen by some DOT management as unnecessary and the construction and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) as too costly. Some management do not understand the environmental regulations and say that stormwater programs such as the EPA-based Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regulations do not apply to linear projects like transportation.

The reality of the situation is that sediment and nutrient loading into surface water systems from non-point sources is the major reason for water body impairment in the United States; i.e. the reason why a trout fishery is declining, algae is affecting a favorite beach or swimming area or why it costs more to treat water for domestic consumption, to name a few examples. Transportation activities such as construction and operation and maintenance do cause a threat to our waters of the US by exposing soil to erosion and sedimentation, discharging chemicals/nutrients into storm sewers or water bodies without BMPs or releasing petroleum-based chemicals from maintenance operations.

There are some problems with trying to retrofit a MS4 stormwater regulatory program geared for municipalities to DOTs; such as requiring a stormwater permit and BMPs on small projects with no stormwater runoff into sewers or water bodies or on projects where the area of disturbance is long and narrow and exceeds one acre thus triggering the need for a stormwater permit and possibly a post construction BMP. The need for a monitoring and evaluation program can be argued by a DOT as a waste of money by the permit holder due to the extreme cost and variability in the water quality-monitoring data whose results will rarely lead to a real change in BMP design, construction, placement or overall MS4 program changes. However, the vision and the intent of these MS4 regulations, policies and guidance is sound and make sense to protect our valuable water resources at a local, regional and national level.

DOTs need to work with regulatory agencies in an effort to allow flexibility in the implementation of MS4 program requirements. For example, there are situations where there is not enough right of way to place a permanent post-construction BMP such as a retention/detention pond; in fact there are many situations where having a BMPs for every culvert is impractical and too costly. DOT stormwater managers need to have flexibility in developing stormwater strategies that: 1) use larger “regional” BMPs that collect stormwater from multiple sources, 2) allow for the over design/over sizing of BMPs for increased stormwater treatment retention time or collecting and treating stormwater from another source that would otherwise be directly discharged into a surface water, using a credit scheme or 3) use a watershed based approach where surface water quality can be improved to an equal or greater level than conventional stormwater BMPs.

DOT stormwater programs need to emphasize actual water quality protection during and after construction activities with less emphasis on large amounts of paper work and documentation filing. The development and maintenance of some DOT stormwater management plans take away from actual time that the erosion control specialist can be in the field solving problems and maintaining BMPs. Regulatory agencies need to realize this situation. Some DOTs are more interested in making their computer tablets work in the field than observing site conditions.

Finally, regulatory agencies need to ensure that transportation and other types of construction activities are in compliance by conducting on site audits and concentrating on project areas that represent a real risk to water quality. State regulatory agencies and DOTs who are serious about protecting water quality need to provide adequate financial and technical resources to site inspections on a state wide basis. It is hard to understand just how state stormwater-regulatory managers can evaluate the success of a regulatory program to adequately protect water quality when there are just a small handful of state inspectors to inspect hundreds of outstanding stormwater permits (as the case here in Colorado). During site inspections, regulatory agencies should attempt to help problem DOT construction sites by providing technical support and advice with a cooperative attitude but also be willing to promptly file notice of violations for problem permittees with poor track records or obvious non compliances that threaten local water resources.

Carbon Footprintng Methodology for DOT Rest Areas

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:13:00 GMT

This month’s blog in the area of environmental-transportation sustainability is more technical in nature, as it relates to calculating a carbon footprint for the operation and maintenance of rest areas. Rest areas are often overlooked by DOTs as a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. DOTs need to be more aware and proactive in evaluating and implementing cost effective sustainable operations of rest areas to protect the environment and to anticipate upcoming federal and state greenhouse gas/climate regulations. The following discusses a carbon calculation methodology that can be used for rest areas:

TerraLogic and Colorado State University at Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) is using an innovative and unique approach when assessing the sustainability of Colorado Department of Transportation Rest Areas (CDOT). There has been very limited if any research performed on carbon footprinting of rest areas so there limited opportunity to compare actual or estimated carbon loadings from other state Department of Transportation rest areas.

The carbon footprint calculation approach used by TerraLogic and the CSU-Pueblo Team is consistent with an international standard established to calculate the emission of greenhouse gases known as the Green House Gas Protocol (GHGP). This standard was initiated by two major organizations; the World Resource Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

The GHGP identifies three main “scopes” to identify and delineate direct and indirect emission sources. These scopes are used to provide consistency in accounting for and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The following summarizes the GHGP scopes as they relate to CDOT rest areas (WRI, 2004):

Scope 1- Direct GHG Emissions- these type of emissions come from combustion sources that are owned by the entity (CDOT) that are directly related to the operations of the rest area such as propane and natural gas for heating, and gasoline/diesel fuel for the transportation of materials, equipment, mowing and personnel transportation to and from work.

Scope 2- Electrical Indirect GHG Emissions- accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company (CDOT). The actual emissions occur that the power facility where the electricity is generated. This type of indirect emission will be used for rest area heating/cooling and lighting and is expected to be the largest type of emission for rest areas.

Scope 3- Other Indirect GHG Emissions- these types of emissions are a consequence of activities of the company (CDOT) but occurs from sources not owned or controlled by the company (CDOT). The main rest area source for this type of indirect emission is from truck idling.

Scope 1 Direct Emission Equation

Equation 1 is used for the direct emissions associated with the operation and maintenance of the rest areas. The equation basically uses emission factors (kg/gallon) for CO2, N2O, and CH4 that are referenced from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2005). These emission factors are multiplied by the amount of fossil fuel consumed and by the respective Global Warming Potential (GWP). GWP is defined as the amount of impact or the degree of harm a particular gas has on the atmosphere (IPCC, 2007). When the GWP is multiplied by the amount emitted, it is converted to an equivalent amount of CO2 and that is called “Equivalent CO2” or CO2e .

Equation 1 is applicable to any type of fossil fuel, such as diesel fuel; however, emission factors will change whenever the type of fuel changes since emission factors are specific to the type of fuel being used in the carbon footprint calculations.

Scope 2- Electrical Indirect GHG Emission Equation

Equation 2 is used to calculate the Scope 2 Electrical Indirect GHG Emissions for the Project rest areas. The equation involves the amount of electricity consumed in KWh. This electrical consumption information will be obtained directly from the electrical provider is based upon a 5 year average, whenever possible. Equation 2 is based upon the consumption of electricity (KWh) multiplied by the emission factor and GWP, similar to Equation 1. The emission factors used in Equation 2 are based upon eGRID data developed by EPA (EPA, 2008), and since the EPA data are given in pounds rather than kilograms, an extra conversion factor is included in Equation 2. These factors are regional based within the United States and are dependent upon varying methods for generating electricity (coal, natural gas, nuclear or renewable).

Scope 3- Other Indirect GHG Emissions

Trucks idling in rest areas represent a significant greenhouse gas emission source that is associated with the operation and service of the rest area. It is estimated that greater than 500,000 heavy duty trucks (>26,000 lbs) travel more than 500 miles as an average daily trip within the United States. Long haul truck drivers are required by the Department of Transportation to rest 8 hours after a maximum of 10 hours driving (EPA, 2002). During this time most long haul truckers continue to idle their engines. Assuming that these 500,000 truck idle for 8 hours a day for 300 days per year at fuel consumption rate of 0.8 gallons per hour, trucks can generate and emit over 10.9 million tons of CO2 per year (21.7 tons /year per truck) and 190,476 tons of NOX per year (0.38 tons per year per truck). Under this trucking scenario, heavy duty trucks would consume 960 million gallons of diesel fuel while idling (EPA, 2009).

Scope 3 Calculation (example Vail Pass Rest Area)

As a hypothetical example, it is assumed that the average heavy duty truck consumes 0.82 gallons per hour of diesel fuel while idling and there is an average of three trucks that individually idle 8 hours/per day at the rest area; therefore, 6.6 gallons of diesel would be consumed per truck with an overall consumption value of 19.7 gallons of diesel fuel for three trucks per day. It is assumed that the 3 trucks idle for 8 hours for 365 days per year, in which 7,183 gallons of diesel is consumed annually from idling at the Vail Pass Rest Area. The following is an example calculation for the truck idling carbon footprint. Equation 1 is again used to estimate the Scope 3 Indirect GHG Emissions for Vail Pass rest area.

Diesel fuel consumption per year(idling) = 7,183 gallons

Emission factor−CO2 = 10. Kg 𝐶𝑂/gallon
Emission factor−N2 O = 0.000199 Kg/gallon
Emission factor−CH4 =0.18 Kg/gallon
GWP−CO2 =1
GWP−N2 O=310
GWP−CH4 =21

The development of a rest area’s carbon footprint is a unique way of analyzing the rest areas’ energy consumption and air quality impact. By identifying the greenhouse gas emissions from rest area, potential mitigation schemes and recommendations can be developed toward making the rest area carbon neutral. Potential mitigation techniques may include but not limited to changes in rest area operating procedures, reducing gas consumption, heating/energy conservation, vegetation/tree sequestration, truck electrification and alternative energy photovoltaic cells.

References

(EPA 2002) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Study of Exhaust Emissions from Idling Heavy-duty Diesel Trucks and Commercially Available Idle Reducing Devices, EPA420-R-02-025, October, 2002.

(EPA 2008) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, EPA430-K-08-004, May, 2002.

http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/mobilesource_guidance.pdf

(Jakubski, 2008) Jakubski, Paul. “Calculating and Reducing Your Carbon Footprint.” GATF World 20.3(2008):40-43

http://www.pneac.org/publicationoftheyear/Calculating-and-Reducing-Your-Carbon-Footprint.pdf

(EPA 2008) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, eGRID2007 Version 1.1 Year 2005 GHG Annual Output Emission Rates, December 2008

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2007V1_1_year05_GHGOutputRates.pdf

(EPA 2009) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Appendix A: Carbon Footprint/Greenhouse Gas Inventory Analysis for Sediment, Floodplain, and Treatment/Disposition Alternatives, March 2009

http://www.epa.gov/region1/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/cms/447141_Appendix_A.pdf

(EPA, 2005) Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Facts; Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel; EPA420-F-05-001, February 2005

(WRI, 2004) Bhata, Pankaj ; Janet Ranganathan, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, March 2004

(DOE, 2005) Energy Information Administration, Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 2005, DOE/EIA 0638 (2005)

(JCI, 2010) Spreadsheets of electrical consumptions sent to Art Hirsch from Johnson Controls (Nichole Stennes), September, 2010

(IPCC, 2007) Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

GreenLITES Sustainable Design Integration

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:02:00 GMT

Instituting sustainability into transportation processes is an area of interest of many State DOTs, municipal transportation departments and the Federal Highway Administration. Many State DOT engineering managers claim to endorse sustainability without really understanding the sustainability concept, how to successfully integrate it into their transportation processes or even fully endorsing the concept. To really develop and implement a cost effective transportation sustainability program, sustainable design elements must be identified early in the design scoping phase of the project (with management support) as opposed to later in the design process where sustainable design elements are simply considered an afterthought.

TerraLogic is supporting the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in taking a proactive approach toward integrating sustainability elements into their transportation design practices. CDOT is currently “test driving” the New York State Department of Transportation’s GreenLITES (Leadership In Transportation and Environmental Sustainability) process, which is an internal sustainability rating and certification process for transportation designs. CDOT is using this model on two Interstate 70 interchange design projects to determine how well the GreenLITES sustainability process can be integrated into CDOT transportation projects state-wide.

TerraLogic, in teaming cooperation with PBS&J, is working with the CDOT Environmental Programs Branch and Region 3 (Eagle Residency) for this GreenLITES Project. The Edwards-Interstate 70 Interchange, located west of Vail, Colorado, is being used as a baseline condition, where the design did not contain any preconceived sustainability actions developed by the Project Design Team. The test project is the Eagle-Interstate 70 Interchange. Both of these interchange projects are very similar in design scope, size and environmental sensitivity.

TerraLogic is currently facilitating and coordinating the GreenLITES meetings for CDOT. The NYDOT GreenLITES evaluation checklist was initially modified to eliminate requirements unique to the NYDOT (www.nysdot.gov/programs).

The CDOT/NYDOT GreenLITES evaluation and scoring centers on five GreenLITES certification categories: 1) sustainable sites, 2) water quality, 3) materials and resources, 4) energy and atmosphere, and 5) innovation

The Edwards Interchange Project (baseline) scoring was performed by the CDOT Design Team using the final design plans developed in 2009. The Eagle-Interstate 70 Project will be scored three times by the Project Design Team during the initial project scoping, interim 60% design and final design phases of the Project.

The CDOT GreenLITES Project was initiated in April 2010 and is expected to be completed in November, 2010. The following are some TerraLogic’s comments regarding integrating the GreenLITES process into a DOT design process:

There needs to be a main DOT management champion to ensure the program is developed, implemented and maintained; it is essential that the DOT Chief Engineer and Director endorse and actively support the program.
The Project Manager needs to be the driving force behind the GreenLITES coordination, scoring and design integration at the Project level.
The GreenLITES Sustainability Criteria needs to be modified to address individual State DOT programs, environment and community context.
Scoring team members need to review and pre-score the scoring criteria sheets before meetings and be prepared to discuss critical items; this action will help reduce the scoring meeting time.
The Project Design Team needs to include the Environmental Manager or representative for their input and insight into permitting and environmental protection.
There needs to be specific State DOT definitions of the checklist criteria for consistent evaluation and understanding.
Scoring criteria should include other sustainability elements such as electrical energy conservation, petroleum conservation, and water reduction requirements.

TerraLogic gave the Transportation Research Board (Raleigh, North Carolina- June 7, 2010) a presentation on the CDOT GreenLITES Project. For further information, go to the Resource section to review the presentation.

Right of Way and Alternative Energy

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:28:00 GMT

There is an enormous untapped resource that is managed by all US DOTs that can make a difference in electrical generation and consumption; it is called right of way (ROW). This often unused land area along highway systems can contain several types of alternative energy systems that can be used to generate electrical power for highway interchange lighting, signal lighting, rest areas, and maintenance facilities. Generated power can also be sent to the “grid” as a potential source of additional utility power and revenue. DOTs need to take a proactive sustainable management approach by taking advantage of this ROW as a resource; to reduce reliance of fossil fuel generated electricity that will reduce highway operation and maintenance costs.

There is a significant amount of space within the nations ROWs to accommodate innovative electrical generation. The National Highway System (NHS) contains approximately 163,000 miles of roadway consisting of the Interstate Highway System. There are approximately 5.05 million acres of land within the NHS nationwide and roughly 68 percent, or 3.4 million acres, is unpaved. It is estimated that Colorado contains a total of 110,156 ROW acres with approximately 75,000 acres being unpaved (Federal Highway Administration, Carbon Sequestration Pilot Program, May 2010). The State of Oregon estimates that solar arrays installed on ROW comprising less than 1 percent of the state’s 19,000 lane miles could supply all the of the transportation systems power needs annually by generating 50 million kWh (TR News, March-April 2010).

TerraLogic has teamed with David Evans and Associates and Colorado State University-Pueblo to identify innovative energy generation capabilities within the CDOT ROW to power rest areas, maintenance facilities and intersection lighting and signaling. TerraLogic will be providing the team with sustainable transportation analysis associated with ROW usage, maintenance and technical peer review. The CDOT Alternative Energy Project is similar to an alternative energy approach recently used by the Oregon Department of Transportation that resulted in constructing a solar array of 594 solar panels generating 112,000 kWh per year.

The goals and objective of the ongoing CDOT Alternative Energy Project are: 1) take advantage of the alternative energy resources within Colorado and large amounts of CDOT ROW by identifying energy resources within CDOT management that are high in quantity and quality and will result in reduced operation costs, 2) conceptualize and identify potential energy cost saving measures using alternative energy generation (solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuel) that will reduce CDOT energy costs (lighting, signaling, building heat, etc.), 3) evaluate the physical and operational potential of using CDOT ROW areas to generate and sell energy to electric utility companies throughout Colorado, and 4) implement cost effective alternative energy sources into CDOT operations state-wide thus saving financial resources and reducing indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

The final report is expected to be delivered to CDOT in January 2011. Stay tuned to the TerraLogic blog for a summary of the results.

It is recognized that many state DOTs are being challenged by low operating budgets that makes it difficult to finance and operate innovative-sustainable projects. It is important that DOTs become aggressive in finding new funding approaches to address future increases in electrical costs that will be driven by EPA and/or congressional carbon regulations. State DOTs need to find the necessary funding and support from their state legislatures or via federal agencies to implement cost effective-short and long term strategies that make sense in meeting the expectations of the public. DOTs must be given the financial resources in order to spend money to save money in the long term.

Next TerraLogic blog- Sustainable transportation design using the NYDOT GreenLITES approach.

TerraLogic Sustainable Rest Areas

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:33:00 GMT

Rest areas have been elimination targets by State Department of Transportations (DOTs) over the past few years due to high maintenance and operation costs in a time of limited financial state resources. Rest areas are important to the safety of the traveling public and the interstate trucking industry. Many DOT rest areas are old and have unsustainable designs and operating procedures that are costly, promote the generation of greenhouse gases, and provide a poor public perception to the visiting public.

TerraLogic has teamed with Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) to evaluate rest area sustainable designs and operations for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Many CDOT rest areas are non-sustainable system in regards to costs, high quality services, environmental enhancement and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Very limited research information exists nationwide on sustainable rest area designs and operating practices, and their environmental/carbon footprint.

There are three types of rest area within the CDOT system: 1) visitor centers that are the largest and provide the most services to the traveling public, 2) recreational/natural resource rest areas that allow the public to access trails or highlight a natural feature, and 3) basic rest areas that provide motorists limited services such as rest rooms. TerraLogic in coordination with CDOT has selected 6 rest areas statewide; two of each rest area type will be evaluated for sustainable design and operation. The following are the overall goals of the project:

Reduce life cycle cost for energy, materials and CDOT manpower

Conceptualize sustainable and renewable actions and features to rest areas
Improve the visitor experience in Colorado
Reduce long term rest area operation and maintenance costs and avoid a large manpower-resource commitment by CDOT maintenance.
Develop sustainable actions that will be adopted by all CDOT Regions
Improve the environmental footprint by reducing emissions and conserving natural resources by reduced consumption, reuse and recycling.

The TerraLogic/CSU-Pueblo Team has developed a sustainable rest area design and operations checklist that will be used during field evaluations starting in July, 2010. It is expected that the field evaluations will be completed by late August, 2010. The field evaluation results will be inputted into a database to aid in data analysis and report development. A sustainable rest area sustainability scoring methodology has been developed that will aid in a numeric comparison of rest area sustainability. The final Sustainable Rest Area Evaluation Report will be submitted to CDOT in January 2011.

Copies of the field evaluation sheets and scoring criteria can be obtained by interested parties via TerraLogic.

Sustainability In the Design-Build Process

Mon, 10 May 2010 19:14:00 GMT

Design-build transportation projects have dramatically increased in popularity over the past several years throughout the United States. Significant cost savings have been realized on these fast tract design-build projects because of the shortened delivery schedules. These cost savings have become an increasingly important issue to State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) experiencing increased construction material costs along with lower project construction budgets. The concept of sustainability has also increased in popularity at a national, state and local level. There is more demand by DOT’s and municipalities for the integration of environmental, public and economic sustainable components into their transportation projects.  

Design-build projects are known to be both cost and time efficient in comparison to typical design-bid-build projects. Design-build is a fast paced project delivery method under which a project owner (DOT) executes a single contract for both design engineering services and construction. Design build projects are able to concurrently perform design and construction activities, which require close coordination between the environmental, design and construction engineers.  

There is a misconception that adding sustainability elements into a design build project will add costs; quite the opposite, incorporating sustainable design elements has shown to be cost effective while being environmentally advantageous. There are several opportunities and conditions within the design build process to incorporate sustainability concepts:

Close coordination between environmental, design and construction engineers- this type of coordination and interaction is the key to a successful design-build project. This coordination provides the setting for the development and implementation of innovation and proactive sustainable actions.
Design flexibility and creativity-there are a lot of available options for design flexibility between the usually acquired 30% design to the final design. Vertical and horizontal alignments can be modified to reduce project footprints, realize potential cost savings, improve engineering and avoid sensitive areas within the Project Area.
Reduce environmental impacts beyond NEPA requirements- coordination, cooperation and creativity among the Project Management Team to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts is a very cost effective sustainable action. Modifications to alignments, haul road configurations and staging area locations all need to be considered to reduce impacts and costs.
Design coordination with affected neighborhood- communication and involvement with the local neighborhood and municipality can lead to improved project acceptance and promotes a Context Sensitive Solutions approach endorsed by FHWA and many DOTs. Local community outreach and education can be accomplished via periodic public meetings in addition to web-sites, newsletters, newspaper articles and radio or television coverage.

There are challenges for incorporating sustainability into design build projects that are based upon the Prime Contractor’s attitude and level of understanding and acceptance to a new way of managing, designing and constructing transportation systems.

Prime Contractor constraints- on design build projects the Prime Contractor is very concerned about managing project costs and maintaining or exceeding schedule expectations and many times does not see the larger cost effective picture that sustainability can provide a project. Prime contractors need to have a better understanding and vision of sustainable actions to be competitive in the future design build market.
Frequent permit modifications- as design build projects are fast paced and dynamic. It is very likely that during the project design phase impacted areas requiring permits will increase, decrease or change in location. It is important that early and frequent coordination meetings with the regulatory agencies occur to streamline the permit modification process. This action will save the project significant financial costs that can result from schedule delays waiting for permit modification approvals.
Subcontractors and contract language- if a design build project decides to incorporate sustainable elements either by client request or by the Prime Contractor’s own internal strategic decision, sustainability coordination must occur very early in the process. Specific sustainable actions must be identified and detailed early, as part of the subcontractors’ contracting process such as requiring metal recycling, waste separation, reduced landfilling, reuse of concrete or asphalt, a fuel conservation-idling reduction plan, pollution prevention actions, etc.

Contractors need to change their past way of doing business and develop their own internal sustainability programs in anticipation of more sustainability requirements in bid packages. Many states are in the process of developing internal sustainability programs that require transportation designs to incorporate specific sustainable actions. Some states and municipalities are requiring contractors to develop and implement project specific sustainability plans. To be competitive and save costs, Prime Contractors now need to take a much broader look at design build projects and other types of construction projects. They must now better integrate environmental, community and long term economics into their project strategy.

TerraLogic Sustainable Transportation

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:05:00 GMT

TerraLogic is a unique type of consulting service that focuses upon sustainable transportation. We develop environmental engineering and science approaches towards transportation planning, NEPA (environmental impact assessments), design, construction and operation and maintenance.

This is the first blog developed by TerraLogic. It is my intent to use this blog as a vehicle to educate, inform and update environmental professionals and the interested public on the pragmatic integration of sustainability into the transportation and environmental management process. I will provide my thoughts, observations and lessons learned in this endeavor. I will also provide you information about TerraLogic and how we are able to support your sustainability needs. I am also interested in hearing from you about your thoughts and ideas about promoting sustainability into our business and everyday lives.

I have been in the environmental business for over 30 years in the areas of industrial compliance, surface water management, hazardous waste investigations and remediation and transportation. Several years ago I identified an upcoming need for transportation entities to start addressing social and environmental issues at the same level as economic considerations. Although these areas are supposed to be addressed in the NEPA process, they are often lacking in the final decision making process. As a consultant, I felt this was the future niche for my company TerraLogic. Sustainable transportation consulting allows my clients and me to make a positive impact upon the local community and the overall environment.

This is a time of change and we need to be wiser on how we use our finite resources. Resources are not just fossil fuels, minerals and lumber, etc. but are also the water we drink, the air we breathe and the entire biotic system on the planet. Sustainability can be thought of as wise management of resources. Us as Americans can no longer find and consume resources without paying the real environmental price. Recycling and reuse of materials will become more critical as the cost of raw materials skyrocket due to competition and rising energy costs. New regulations and guidance are on the horizon that will influence and change how transportation entities do business and make decisions.

Thanks for reading my first blog. I hope you will get a sense of my interest and passion in the area of sustainability as it relates to transportation, environmental management and our quality of life.

Art Hirsch
Owner, TerraLogic