stations are solar powered and hub generators power bike lights. In the future it is planned to use bicycle trailers to redistribute bikes between stations rather than vehicles. NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields — Conserving: 100 percent of the sites were located on previously developed areas (greyfields), with no con- crete pads needing to be constructed. One of the difficulties in rating unique infrastructure projects like a bike share program is deciding what is applicable versus not applicable. As with any project, while some criteria are obviously not applicable, some are more difficult to determine. With the bike share project, the applicability of credits came into question much more often. Most of the time, deciding which credits are applicable is rather easy to determine. For example, in this situation it was easy to decide that Divert Waste from Landfills (RA1.5) and Preserve Prime Farmland (NW1.7) were not applicable. Since the bike share stations were lo- cated on existing built locations such as wide sidewalks, plazas, and parks, there was no grading, demolition, or removal of obstructions; therefore, there was no waste to divert. There was also no farmland in the vicinity of the stations.
Some of the more difficult credits to determine applicability included Use Regional Materials (RA1.4) and Manage Stormwater (NW2.1). As mentioned above, there was no grading, no new concrete, etc. How- ever, the bicycles and stations came out of Chicago. There are very few suppliers for bike share infrastructure and Chicago was the closest sup- plier to the project. We elected to select not applicable for this credit. Another example would be NW2.1, Manage Stormwater, which deals with improving water storage capacity. The team selected “not appli- cable” since existing infrastructure was not modified and stormwater improvements would have been outside the scope of the project. How- ever, the credit discusses increasing storage capacity. Should we have taken a “no level of achievement” instead of selecting not applicable? Overall, the Envision rating system performed admirably in assessing the sustainability of non-traditional infrastructure like a bike share pro- gram. I would encourage review of projects using the Envision rating system, especially if the project is unique. There will likely be aspects of the project that can be easily improved and it will build a knowledge base for future endeavors.
KEVIN T. THORNTON, P.E., ENV SP, STP, is director of sustainability/associate with Psomas (www.psomas.com).
Design features will include a combination of floodwalls, raised corridors, embankments, interior drainage improvements, and green infrastructure. Image: courtesy Waggonner & Ball
Multidisciplinary team selected to design coastal resilience for Bridgeport, Conn. Reducing flood risk
initiative to help communities recover from disasters and safeguard against future hazards. The Connecticut Department of Housing hired this multidisciplinary team to design climate change and flood resilience plans to reduce risk from future impacts resulting from rising sea levels. Recent storms have left streets flooded for days, forcing residents to leave Bridgeport for necessities such as food and clothing. Storm impacts have also weakened the community’s infrastructure while hindering economic growth. The coalition will plan and design resilience strategies to reconnect communities to the water, create new uses for the city’s waterfront,
WSP, Arcadis, Waggonner & Ball, and Yale Urban Design Workshop were selected to design resilience measures to minimize flood risk and account for sea level rise affecting Bridgeport, Conn.’s South End businesses and residents. The project, one of 13 awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is part of the $1 billion National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC), an
50
csengineermag.com
may 2018
Made with FlippingBook Annual report