Review of Sustainability Rating Systems for Transportation and Neighborhood-Level Developments

Brodie, Stefanie; Ingles, Amy; Colville, Zachary; Amekudzi, Adjo; Peters, Robert W.; Sisiopikou, Virginia

doi:10.1061/9780784413197.027

Cited by 9 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Restorative level does not apply to all objectives/credits (ISI, 2015). (Brodie et al, 2013;Simpson, 2013). The INVEST rating tool consist of sustainability best practices known as criteria and it covers the entire lifecycle of transportation projects made up of planning, design, construction and the operations and maintenance phases (FHWA, 2017a).…”

Section: Credit Levels Of Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…economic, social and environmental; to achieve transportation sustainability goals (Brodie et al, 2013). The INVEST rating tool can be used to evaluate the sustainability best practices implemented by a project currently under construction (Brodie et al, 2013). It also provides guidance on sustainability best practices that can be applied to a transportation project as well as help the project team set realistic sustainability goals (Brodie et al, 2013).…”

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The INVEST rating tool can be used to evaluate the sustainability best practices implemented by a project currently under construction (Brodie et al, 2013). It also provides guidance on sustainability best practices that can be applied to a transportation project as well as help the project team set realistic sustainability goals (Brodie et al, 2013). The INVEST rating tool can be used to measure the sustainability of completed transportation projects (Brodie et al, 2013).…”

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparative Assessment of Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems

Oluwalaiye¹,

Ozbek²

2018

Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry contributes a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment. This highlights the need for this industry to implement sustainable practices to mitigate its negative effects. Sustainability in the construction industry involves considering project development in terms of economic, social, and environmental aspects (triple bottom line). In the transportation sector of the construction industry, several transportation sustainability rating systems (TSRS) have been developed to measure and promote sustainability. However, studies show that these TSRS have not been developed within a consistent “sustainability scope”. This raises the question of the consistency of these TSRS in measuring sustainability of transportation projects. This study assesses three prominent TSRS to determine how each measures sustainability with respect to the triple bottom line. The TSRS that are in the scope of this study are: (i) Envision-a third-party rating system, (ii) INVEST-a self-assessed rating and, (iii) GreenLITES-an in-house developed self-assessed rating system for the New York State DOT. Results show that while these three rating systems provide different levels of credits/points with respect to the triple bottom line, they all place the highest focus on the environmental aspect.

show abstract

Section: Credit Levels Of Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Invest -Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Assessment of Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems

Oluwalaiye¹,

Ozbek²

2018

Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…169 Therefore, the points earned in this case are predicated on the idea that rigid pavements have lower 170 life cycle energy consumption and emissions values than comparable flexible or composite 171 pavements; however, this assumption does not hold true in many cases (Xu et al, 2015). 172 balancing social, environmental and economic criteria (Brodie et al, 2013). Scoring with INVEST is 177 completed within specific modules: System Planning, Project Development, and Operations and 178…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic assessment of road pavement sustainability through a review of rating tools

Bryce

Brodie

Parry

et al. 2017

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2017) A systematic assessment of road pavement sustainability through a review of rating tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/40239/1/Systematic%20Assessment%20of%20Road %20Pavement%20Sustainability%20-%20FINAL_v6.pdf The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

show abstract