GR: General Information

BarbaraM
Aug 28th, 2011

This rating system currently focuses more on the construction of the roadway than on its use. This is important to note because the LEED system for buildings has much more to do with the operation of the building after it is built, and the expectation among the general public for a road-based rating system will be the same.

As I’m sure you are aware, the environmental impact of roads after they are built is considerable. Roads that preclude travel by any method other than a private automobile will be host to a high level of emissions that contribute to air pollution and global warming. Roads that carry more people via lower-emission modes, such as public transportation, walking, and bicycling will have a significantly lower environmental footprint. This is such a fundamental environmental principle, and one that I think is clearly understood by the general public, that I would suggest you elevate it in your ratings system in two ways:

1. Include as a project requirement that the project has been as inclusive as possible in providing for travel via all modes and by people of all ages and abilities. This is the basic screen used by communities and states that have Complete Streets policies. An easy way to do this would be to only accept projects from places that have such policies. The National Complete Streets Coalition would be happy to work with you to provide this information.
2. Dramatically increase the weighting and points received in the Access and Equity category, which accounts for most of the post-construction operation of the roadway. Pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation access now merit less than one quarter of the total points available in this category of Access and Equity. Since transportation mode is so significant for the ‘green’ quality of a road after it is built, they deserve far more consideration.
a. This category would benefit from a more nuanced understanding of what encourages access by non-motorized and public transportation users. Points could be awarded for traffic calming measures in certain circumstances; pedestrian-friendly signal timing, and more.
b. Context-Sensitive Solutions, which now only receives 5 points, also deserves more weight and perhaps a division of its many requirements into more separate points.

You may want to divide your rating system into two parts, construction and operation. The Access and Equity and Environment and Water categories could be combined to provide a clearer picture of the long-term environmental impact of the roadway. If you keep a single rating system, you should clarify that this is primarily about construction, making a clear distinction that Greenroads is a system for ranking road construction. I’m afraid that if you don’t, your system will be ridiculed if it awards Greenroad status to roads that are built solely for automobiles.

Greenroads
Jun 11th, 2011

Hi TarekE- Greenroads Foundation is working with several folks internationally to help see how the rating system fits their standards and culture on projects. Additionally, there is more research being done at the UW. You can contact us for more information if interested.

TarekE
Apr 18th, 2011

Comming from an international background,I don't think there is a need for a special international manual. It is just about having the Greenroads manual applicable to international projects rather than being just US focused.

Greenroads
Apr 16th, 2011

Hi HelderB, thanks for your detailed comments. Here are some responses to them.

-Currently, we do not have an "international manual" but will definitely consider this in the future. Good idea.
-Thanks for your comments about the photos we have put in the Manual. We're sorry you don't like them, but we wouldn't have included them if we didn't think they demonstrated something important. We will consider adding some additional context to some of the captions - for example, the photo on Page 8 that you think is awful is actually a deliberate attempt by the National Park Service to enhance visual quality and the context of the project. The fallen trees are placed there according to detailed plans and specifications. Additionally, while there may not be a silt fence in place, the project shown in Page 9 definitely had a Pollution Prevention Plan in place and perhaps what you are looking for may not have been required. For the Pilot Project sign image, the sign is exactly what you are supposed to see - even though this project did use permeable pavement. You can find out more information about all of these projects on our Pilot Project page by clicking on the blue "Projects" tab.
-As for your bottom comment, I'm not sure what you are implying. You are correct, not all credits apply to all projects.

HelderB
Mar 18th, 2011

At least in the international manual - put examples in the International System of units of measure, such as AASHTO does

HelderB
Mar 18th, 2011

The photo on page 9 (Figure 1.3): is also not suitable for the manual. The cut made by the backhoe seems to have no protection against silting of the land next door. The same apply to figures MR and MR-3.4-3.5.

HelderB
Mar 18th, 2011

The photo on page 8 (Figure 1.2): it is awful! A road in a national park with trees cut down, fallen in a landfill without protective vegetation. There are still some trees in the photo that appear to be dry, as if they were drowned or buried by landfill

HelderB
Mar 18th, 2011

The photo on page 7 (figure 1.1): besides the board Greenroads, we do not notice anything different that qualifies as a work of environmental performance beyond the common practice. Perhaps a legend evidencing any credit earned in the location of the photo could better explain the intent of the photo

HelderB
Mar 18th, 2011

The same feature should not score on two criteria (AE-8 and AE-9, for example) while in another work it does not apply.