Sustainable Performance of Public Infrastructure Mike Benson, MIT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Measuring the Sustainable Performance of Public Infrastructure Mike Benson, MIT University of New Brunswick, Masters Candidate Jeff Rankin, P.Eng. University of New Brunswick, Chair in Construction Engineering and Management

Overview • Sustainability • Measuring Sustainable Performance • Sustainable Efficiency Model (SEM) • Case Study • Lessons Learned 2

Sustainability Economic Social Development Development Environmental Sustainable Protection Development 3

Sustainability So what does this include? It depends on who you ask… 4

Sustainability 5

Sustainability ISO/TS 21929-2:2015 Sustainability in building construction -- Sustainability indicators -- Part 2: Framework for the development of indicators for civil engineering works Not perfect but it can provide owners with a starting point 6

Sustainability ISO/TS 21929-2:2015 Economic Environmental Social Life-Cycle Costs GHG Emissions Health and Safety Other External Costs Material Use Job Creation Water Use Cultural Heritage Energy Use Access to Nature Waste Production Urban Sprawl Eutrophication Potential Public Acceptability Acidification Potential Aesthetic Value Ozone Depletion Potential Land Use Changes Tells us what to measure, not how to measure 7

PROBLEM STATEMENT: How can we measure the sustainable performance of public infrastructure? 8

Measuring Performance 1. Monetary 2. Non-Monetary • Impacts are given a dollar • Impacts are given points value to determine their to determine their relative relative impact. impact. e.g. Value of a Fatality = $9.6 e.g. Reducing 1 fatality per million (US DOT 2016) year = 20 points 9

Measuring Performance 1. Monetary $2,500,000 Advantages • Common unit (dollar) $2,000,000 Social Benefit ($C 2016) • Life-cycle analysis • Easily include uncertainty $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Disadvantages • Cannot include all criteria $500,000 $0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year 10

Measuring Performance 2. Non-Monetary Multi-Criteria Analysis Advantages • Can include any criteria • Flexible methodologies • Simple and easy to use Disadvantages • Subjective weighting factors • What metrics do we use? 11

Measuring Performance 2. Non-Monetary Rating Schemes These are essentially MCAs that have been built by a credentialing organization 12

Why not both? 13

Sustainable Efficiency Model “Stochastic decision support system which combines economic, environmental, and social criteria into a single quantitative indicator using monetary and non- monetary methods” 𝐽 𝐾 𝐿 𝑇𝐹𝑇 𝑏 = ෍ 𝑥 𝑗 𝑛𝐶𝐷𝑆 𝑗𝑏 + ෍ 𝑥 𝑘 𝑅𝑈𝐹𝐽 𝑘𝑏 + ෍ 𝑥 𝑙 𝑅𝑀𝐹𝐽 𝑙𝑏 𝑗=1 𝑘=1 𝑙=1 Monetary Non-Monetary 14

Sustainable Efficiency Model Emphasis is on the use of efficiency indicators… Measuring how effectively an infrastructure project achieves an objective. All criteria are then on a common scale (between -1.00 and 1.00). 3 Types of Indicators: 1. Monetary 2. Non-Monetary Quantitative 3. Non-Monetary Qualitative 15

Applications of the SEM 1. Project Prioritization 2. Compare Design Alternatives 3. Network/Systems Decision Making 16

Case Study – Project Prioritization City of Fredericton Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier Which one has the higher sustainable performance? 17

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades 18

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades Project highlights: • Intersection re-design to improve safety • Reconstruction of existing concrete intersection • Replacement of underground services • Increased lighting and visibility. 19

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades Indicator SES i x Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency Indicator Result W i Type 100 Life-Cycle Costs = PV LCC /C a M 0.13 10.9% 1.45 Economic (18.9%) Travel Time = PV TT /C a M 0.15 6.8% 1.00 GHG Emissions = PV GHG /C a M 0.00 6.0% 0.02 Land Use Changes None n/a 0.00 3.6% 0.00 Material Use = RM i /RM max NMQT 0.05 2.4% 0.12 = ∆EU/ EU o Energy Use NMQT 0.59 1.9% 1.12 Environmental = ∆WU/ WU o Water Use NMQT 0.91 3.5% 3.16 (29%) Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.00 4.0% 0.00 Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.00 2.6% 0.00 Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00 Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00 Health and Safety = PV H&S /C a M 0.55 37.1% 20.44 Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.20 2.1% 0.43 Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL -0.20 2.4% -0.49 Social Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL 0.40 1.9% 0.75 (53.1%) Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.40 1.8% 0.71 Job Creation = LR i /LR I NMQT 0.57 4.5% 2.57 Cultural Heritage None n/a 0.00 4.2% 0.00 20 Total 31.27

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier 21

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier Project highlights: • Significant capacity upgrade • Redundancy to allow for maintenance • Avoid primary bypass during wet season 22

Case Study – Project Prioritization Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades Indicator SES i x Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency Indicator Result W i Type 100 -0.10 10.9% -1.12 Life-Cycle Costs = PV LCC /C a M Economic (18.9%) 0.00 6.8% 0.00 Travel Time = PV TT /C a M 0.00 6.0% 0.00 GHG Emissions = PV GHG /C a M -0.04 3.6% -0.14 Land Use Changes None n/a 0.00 2.4% 0.00 Material Use = RM i /RM max NMQT = ∆EU/ EU o -0.02 1.9% -0.04 Energy Use NMQT Environmental 0.92 3.5% 3.22 = ∆WU/ WU o Water Use NMQT (29%) 0.00 4.0% 0.00 Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.94 2.6% 2.49 Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00 Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00 Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 37.1% 0.05 Health and Safety = PV H&S /C a M 0.00 2.1% 0.00 Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.20 2.4% 0.49 Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL Social 0.60 1.9% 1.12 Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL (53.1%) 0.00 1.8% 0.00 Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.21 4.5% 0.96 Job Creation = LR i /LR I NMQT 0.00 4.2% 0.00 Cultural Heritage None n/a 23 Total 7.02

Case Study – Project Prioritization Comparing the two… 25% 20% Relative Frequency 15% 10% @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version @RISK Course Version University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick 5% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Sustainable Efficiency Score (SES) Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrades Regent and Prospect Street Intersection Upgrades 24

Case Study – Project Prioritization Lessons Learned 1. Inclusion of regulatory requirements and legal commitments • Wastewater treatment (mandated) vs. transportation upgrades (discretionary) 2. Need for a collaborative and integrated evaluation team 3. Criteria should be flexible – every jurisdiction has challenges that are unique to them… 25

Something to think about… 1. What economic, environmental, or social impacts are important to your organization? 2. How will you evaluate these criteria? 3. How will they be included in the larger decision making process? 26

Questions? Contact Me: Mike Benson R.V. Anderson Associates Limited mbenson@rvanderson.com