Building a subway or metro system is no easy feat. It can involve huge distances tunneling beneath intricate infrastructure — often below some of the world’s most expensive real estate. High costs of tunneling and risks of cost over-runs abound.

Yet, surprisingly, it’s often not the most complex or riskiest aspect of metro projects. Instead, systems and their integration have increasingly become some of the most complicated aspects of delivering urban railways.

Delivering a metro is always greater than the sum of its parts. It requires massive coordination across construction, rail systems (signalling, communications), station systems, operations and maintenance systems, all adhering to safety, sustainability, building, and environmental standards.

Moreover, the local community and local authorities demand seamless integration and community advantages spanning multiple decades. ��In summary, it’s the effective intersection of all the systems and elements that determine a true project’s cost and timeline.

As the complexity and cost of metros and, indeed, nearly all rail megaprojects continue to increase, a systems approach has become more critical than ever. By considering a whole rail project and its many relationships — rather than just its component parts — systems thinking enables more cost-effective, timely and sustainable delivery. But what does it take to implement?

Starting with relationships

Successful infrastructure projects depend on successful relationships. With dozens of contractors (and even more subcontractors) operating on behalf of the infrastructure owner and operator, it’s essential for these many parties to create a culture of collaboration.

But while effective collaboration arises from a project’s culture, it’s also a consequence of something far more fundamental: contract structures. ��Traditional contract models, based on tried and trusted norms for building generic infrastructure, slice and dice scope into manageable construction chunks.�� Fixed price Design and Build contracts and their variants can work quite well for most infrastructure, but these contracts tend to create siloed thinking around just the part of the whole being delivered.

To deliver an entire railway, however, a much stronger culture of collaboration and delivering “the whole” is needed.�� The intelligent consolidation of contracts among partners is essential to strong collaboration, while keeping contact and communication streamlined for a safe, effective delivery. ��And yet, it’s still common to see contracting arrangements that silo responsibilities, incorrectly apportion risk, and overlook the systems nature of a rail project.

Such a siloed approach has become unworkable: contracting structures — and the collaboration they foster — have never been more important.

On Melbourne’s Metro Tunnel Project (MTP), for instance, �����Ƶ’s teams are helping accomplish two objectives at once: delivering a brand-new metro rail tunnel through the city centre while integrating that tunnel into brownfield metropolitan rail routes. While the Metro Tunnel will be state of the art, the railways that feed into it date back to the 19th century.

Despite the MTP’s integration demands, its — so successful that it’s a year ahead of schedule. A key enabler for success has been the systems-focused, alliancing contract model, used by our teams with our project partners and client — facilitating integration of the MTP’s many components for rapid delivery.

An alliancing model isn’t the only way to support strong contract structures. Other Progressive Delivery Models, including an Integration Delivery Partner approach and Progressive Design-Build can prove just as effective — chiefly because they embed systems perspectives and cross-team collaboration into the heart of the project.

Digital integration

While the nature and scale of new transit projects have necessitated a systems approach to contracting structures and collaborative mechanisms, technology has only accelerated this trend.

The introduction of automated transit services and digital signaling systems such as communications-based train control (CBTC) has increasingly digitized transit — even as considerable portions of existing signaling and communications infrastructure remain ‘analog.’

This poses a fundamental systems integration problem. While most metros run CBTC and are segregated from the rest of the rail network, it is not always the case, for example London’s Crossrail and Metro Tunnel Melbourne. As transit operators mesh state-of-the-art CBTC with the century-old, fixed block signaling, what once required purely steel and concrete infrastructure now involves software-centric products to be safely integrated and deployed in a robust environment where they must cope with the huge demands of on-time performance, at all times.

During the delivery phase of a railway, measuring progress on software integration can pose challenges — and generate considerable cost risks — as projects are frequently surprised to find themselves spending far longer on systems integration than they thought they’d need to.

As complex inter-operable rail systems undergo technological advances, user experience demands have also increased.

Today, riders expect ever-greater access to transit data for smartphone applications to navigate rail networks and plan trips.�� Riders also want to know where to stand on the platform to get an uncrowded carriage. As a result, data management of live feeds during operation as well as software integration during project delivery have now fallen within the domain of transit delivery.

Looking ahead, as project stakeholders embrace new technologies such as AI, we must remember that new technologies and the systems integration challenges they bring mustn’t remain siloed.

Outcome Oriented Systems Thinking

Perhaps the most dramatic — and long overdue — shift in transit delivery relates to environmental, sustainability and social benefits, where systems approaches can prove critical.

With U.S. infrastructure funding like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act increasingly tied to sustainability, resiliency and social value outcomes, transit projects must deliver far more than just transportation. Community and environmental benefits now directly determine a project’s selection — changing the nature of project delivery.

Transit, by its nature, provides community and societal benefits by providing access through enhanced mobility. As such a new array of equity objectives, such the in the U.S., now factor social outcomes into project selection. The participation of minority- and women-owned enterprises, local employment opportunities, workforce development and social infrastructure today stand alongside technical innovation when weighing project excellence. As a result, whole communities now fall within a project’s scope, presenting project teams with even broader systems thinking aspects to manage.

Another example of systems thinking is Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG). For decades, designers and builders have focused on minimizing construction impacts on the local environment. But today, they must also minimize climate impacts by reducing emissions and carbon footprint via innovations in low-carbon materials and deliver net biodiversity gains. This has required teams to investigate supply chains and lifecycle impacts, vastly extending a project’s system.

To understand what such ESG outcomes look like in action, we can again turn to Metro Tunnel Melbourne.

In partnership with the client and alliance partners, we helped reduce carbon across the project thanks to several innovations. We cut the emissions from concrete by around 40% through a reduction in Portland cement; saved 988 tCO2-e of embodied emissions through smart design and sustainable materials; and cut water usage by 27% by optimizing dust suppression, reusing water for construction activities, and installing rainwater tanks and sediment ponds.

Social considerations also played a central role in the project. The team actively engaged the community for input on urban design as well as enhancing local cultural, historical and social heritage. The results of this engagement have led to the prioritization of active travel options and f0r public safety measures to be incorporated.

These achievements speak not just to growing interest in driving positive local outcomes on megaprojects — but to the new array of skills needed to simultaneously innovate across both infrastructural, societal and environmental systems.

From part to whole

Today’s urban rail projects have become increasingly holistic: What was once a collection of component parts has become a complex physical, social and environmental system. Delivery teams therefore must solve more technical integration challenges, incorporate digital advances, and deliver a wide array of equity and sustainability benefits.

As we meet this challenge with our clients and partners, our approach is to integrate a systems thinking, outcome oriented mindset from the outset with the aim of delivering positive impacts from day one. With a focus on foresight, agility and predictability, our teams have the scale and expertise to deliver on each key systems integration challenge — from collaboration and digital transformation to sustainability and social value.

Through our partnerships with clients, we’ve witnessed — and shaped — the rise of this new era in infrastructure delivery. It’s one in which a tunnel is no longer the paramount focus of a subway or metro project. Instead, it’s people, partners, and the planet, that must take equal priority.

The post Beyond the tunnel: why a systems approach is critical to metro delivery appeared first on Without Limits.

The concept of 15-minute city has gripped public and political debate with opinions ranging from the simple and compelling views that locating most essential services and amenities within walking or cycling distance from our homes supports the shaping of sustainable communities, to the more extreme view that the concept infringes personal liberty.��

Despite the strength of the concept, there isn’t yet a real-life example of a 15-minute city that has been built. Instead, the concept’s application in recent years has been mainly associated with the construction of cycling lanes, the planning longer-term low-traffic arrangements or sometimes with adding a bit more amenity in local neighbourhoods. So, with few meaningful reference points, the concept is highly malleable by media. If it is to be supported, it matters that the concept is used appropriately, maximising its full potential and not just focus on singular, mostly traffic-related applications.��

As planners, to keep support for the concept, we need to ensure that our profession is aligned on the wider benefits of a 15-minute city and what it might look like, so that we can help reframe the narrative. ��

It’s about balancing the mobility network, not a battle against the car

Cities have an obligation to reduce transport emissions. It’s a complex task and reducing car use can only be achieved meaningfully when other low carbon, and as attractive, means of transport are provided.����

People have the right to use a car, particularly in places where there are no relevant alternatives. The main question is when do we use the car, and what for? Better planning of local neighbourhoods will create choice, with more attractive, healthier, and safer options to move around. The car (hopefully a zero emission one, or a shared one) can then be used when needed but not as first choice.��

The challenge is transition, as people are asked to change their behaviours and adapt to a new normal which impacts their daily routines. Whilst new developments such as King’s Cross, for example, prioritise walking and embed low traffic principles very successfully, residents and businesses that choose to locate there mostly buy into this from day one.����

So, what can we learn from great places like King’s Cross? I believe its success is not just because of how well it has been planned but also because of the quality of place delivered (as well as how it is maintained and ran). Quality delivery is key to stimulating behavioural change.����

Create and communicate the ripple effects of infrastructure

Cities must ensure that they can maximise the value of the investment in infrastructure, to create truly sustainable places. The 15-minute city concept can bring more benefits to local communities from infrastructure development, for example using the investment to spur regeneration around stations. Designing and delivering integrated developments around transport nodes helps maximise the value of the investment in infrastructure, delivering wider services than transport, such as housing and other mix of uses, within walking distance of the station – there are some great examples of this, particularly across Asia, such as West Kowloon Station in Hong Kong.����

Looking beyond transport, larger developments present opportunities to rethink green and blue infrastructure including better and greener streets, a more attractive network of public open spaces and parks including spaces in buildings such as sky gardens and green facades, delivering comfort, microclimate protection, biodiversity, and other sustainability and place making benefits. ��

Stratford and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London is a great example where planners��leveraged the value of the park and concentrating high-density development around transport nodes, shaped a range of places that are highly walkable, vibrant and safe for local communities, workers and visitors.��

If embraced by local communities and when making economic sense, integrated sustainable infrastructure can become one of the most positive catalysts for shaping the future of our cities.��

Settling the challenge of business district vs suburb

One of the challenges about the 15-minute city concept is the negative impact its local focus – and supporting more working from home – might have on central business districts (CBD) which thrive on an ecosystem of people coming in to work by public transport, going out for lunch, and socialising in the evening. ��

However, this isn’t the case of one against the other. Good cities are planned as a holistic network, where central urban areas and suburban neighbourhoods complement each other.����

In Sydney, Australia, there is now a strong push to make the CBD relevant again, not by attracting 9-5 workers back, but by diversifying the offer as a mixed-use piece of city, attracting a much wider range of businesses as well as residents, around a 24/7 environment.������

In Melbourne, the city’s largest infrastructure project in decades – the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) –��presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revive suburban environments by making new stations focal points for new ‘centres’. This supports the city’s long-term plan which promotes ‘living locally’, providing people more services and opportunities closer to home.��

Delivering much needed change to the city’s building stock

With most of the decarbonisation efforts now focused on retrofitting existing stock, the 15-minute city offers an opportunity to do a ‘deep dive’ into local areas.����

Following the coronavirus pandemic, many employees have seen their offices getting a much-needed facelift with more collaboration space and a friendlier, more relaxed environment – attracting workers to come back to the office, for at least part of the week. Local high streets and town centres, which have struggled to adapt to the change in the retail landscape following the rise in online shopping, have seen new uses like wellness, shared workplaces, galleries and local artisans take up vacant retail units. ��

These new uses encompassing retrofits are a fantastic opportunity for cities, enabling significant gains from a carbon perspective but also enhancing place quality and experience. For urban environments, which usually take years to adapt and evolve, there are opportunities to increase the pace of change.��

Conclusion

The 15-minute city concept isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ plan. It is not meant to be a perfect model for new city living, simply because there isn’t one. It is there to present and guide to a different future – shaping more liveable places, healthier and more sustainable communities.����

There is much more to the 15-minute city than how we move around. If considered holistically, it gives us useful tools to balance global challenges of climate change, economic instability or health and to balance those with the needs and aspirations of local communities. As urban planners, we should align behind these wider benefits so that the narrative moves on from the concept simply being about car use or working from home.����

This article was originally published in .��

The post How can urban planners influence the 15-minute city narrative? appeared first on Without Limits.

Across the world, cities are aiming to build advanced road transportation systems that can achieve a faster, safer and greener mobility experience for all citizens. City planners and developers are ramping up efforts to reduce traffic congestion and road accidents by utilizing data-driven solutions for enhanced traffic and incident management.

Hong Kong is no exception, and �����Ƶ works closely with various government departments to apply technology and data analytics to monitor traffic conditions and help minimize congestion, while also detecting traffic incidents and improving conditions for pedestrians.

At the same time, we are also seeing the huge potential the city has to future proof its road networks and create a safer, more efficient and smoother road transportation experience.
In particular, the development of the Northern Metropolis and other large-scale new town developments provide Hong Kong with an ideal opportunity to build a flexible, smart and sustainable road network, driven by Big Data and working for the benefit of both drivers and pedestrians.

Using data to monitor and manage road incidents

Hong Kong’s road network is among the most dense and heavily used in the world. According to the Highways Department, there are currently over 810,000 registered vehicles making use of just 2,238 kilometers of public roads. Complementing this network are 20 major road tunnels, 1,459 flyovers and bridges, and 1,599 footbridges and subways — all to support the smooth flow of people and goods.

Accommodating this small but densely packed road system is a challenge that cannot be solved simply by building new roads. Alongside new infrastructure, we also need the adoption of state-of-the-art traffic management systems, such as electronic toll collection and real-time traffic monitoring, that will play a key role in alleviating road traffic congestion and reducing traffic incidents in the city.

Great progress has already been made over the past two decades. In 2000, the Emergency Transport Coordination Centre (ETCC) was established by the Transport Department (TD) to monitor and handle traffic and transport incidents on public roads. However, due to the manual operation of incident management procedures, a lack of integration to the existing Traffic Control and Surveillance Systems (TCSSs) and the absence of a data sharing platform, ETCC’s capability in incident management and the dissemination of real-time traffic and transport information was greatly restricted.

In response, �����Ƶ was commissioned by TD in 2011 to plan, design and develop a Traffic Incident and Management System (TIMS). Our response was a multi-functional digital system, capable of fusing all available real-time traffic information to perform automatic incident detection and to assess and recommend contingency plans to provide a better and faster response to incidents.

Data from the system can be shared with relevant stakeholders such as the Hong Kong Police Force, Fire Services Department, Highways Department and public transport operators, as well as with the media and general public.

Enhancing real-time traffic management through video technology

In 2016, �����Ƶ again partnered with TD to further enhance traffic efficiency, this time through the installation of technologically advanced traffic detectors for real-time traffic detection.

Our teams installed video detectors that automatically detect traffic incidents and obtain data such as traffic speed and volume. Automatic License Plate Recognition detectors enable the identification of vehicle license plates which match with TD’s licensing system to collect traffic flow data of various vehicle classes. The resulting data is integrated in a single platform that processes information from many different sources, including TIMS, supplementary traffic data from all Traffic Control and Surveillance Systems, weather data and public transport arrival times.

At the time of the commission, only about 45 percent of strategic routes in Hong Kong were equipped with traffic detectors, which meant a complete picture of traffic conditions was not available. Working closely with TD, �����Ƶ increased the total road coverage on strategic routes and major roads to 90 percent.

The city-wide coverage has enabled Hong Kong to establish a more comprehensive and effective traffic monitoring system, capable of managing the intensive traffic volume across its road network. It has also led to improved accuracy and efficiency of incident detection, whether these are traffic accidents, roadside loading and unloading, illegal parking and more.

Creating smart transport systems for new cities

Looking to the future and the aforementioned opportunity presented by the Northern Metropolis and other developments, we are excited to envisage how the application of similar technology across traffic surveillance, incident detection and transport management can be implemented directly into new city planning.

The Northern Metropolis, with its adjacency to Shenzhen, makes it an ideal place to pioneer these smart, data-driven traffic solutions not just for Hong Kong but also for the fast-emerging Greater Bay Area (GBA). Indeed, the adoption of these and other mobility innovations such as AV-ready roads and roadside infrastructure, on-demand transit services, automated parking systems and more, will go a long way to accelerate the transformation of the GBA by enhancing territory-wide transport efficiency and travel experiences.

As Hong Kong continues to grow, so will its road networks, necessitating the need for more efficient and sustainable traffic systems, powered by technology and data. �����Ƶ’s local area knowledge and our experience in designing and operating integrated smart transport solutions across the globe will benefit the Hong Kong SAR Government’s transport roadmap for the Northern Metropolis and beyond.

The post Future proofing Hong Kong’s traffic networks appeared first on Without Limits.

The demand for new buildings by floor area is expected to double or increase by 240 billion square meters by 2060. This entails a significant demand for new building materials and construction activities in the coming years. Currently operational carbon emissions account for 72 percent of emissions from the built environment sector; embodied carbon which comes from the energy put in to produce and transport materials makes up the rest. By 2060, this ratio will change with embodied carbon dominating the emissions related to the built environment sector at 57 percent and operational carbon (from heating, cooling, lighting and other activities) at 43 percent. With better energy efficiency and automation, operational emissions may well come down further — but because of the new building demand, embodied carbon is only going to go up as raw material usage is predicted to double compared to today.

What does this mean for the built environment sector?

In rapidly urbanizing cities like Hong Kong, we must strive to design out carbon before the project gets to site. While the pressing demand for new housing and infrastructure threatens to overshadow climate considerations, we, as carbon practitioners, must look at the life-cycle of a project to identify the opportunities for carbon reduction — and savings — at the different stages.

The updated PAS 2080 standard for whole life carbon assessment (LCA) provides a framework which covers not just operational and embodied carbon but also upfront, use stage and end of life carbon, thereby enabling followers of the standard to identify the relevant stages for reduction interventions.

PAS 2080 places great emphasis on data and evidence, particularly with reference to BS EN 15804, the standard for sustainability of construction works and services. This standard harmonizes the structure for environmental product declarations (EPD) in the construction sector, making the information transparent and comparable.

Case studies

1. Easing Sydney’s Congestion – Pavement design guide
   �����Ƶ was designer for the Easing Sydney’s Congestion (ESC) project — a A$16 billion program to ease congestion across Sydney, addressing pinch points and public transport upgrades. Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) requested a design guide providing an overview of pavement technologies utilized on ESC and recommendations for successful implementation. This included comparisons of environmental impacts (including carbon) between the selected designs against alternate and available business-as-usual technologies in like-for-like applications, quantified using LCA.
   

   

   Among other key findings, �����Ƶ’s research shows that substitution of hot mix asphalt with warm mix, together with use of recycled concrete, can reduce embodied carbon by 30 percent. Further findings showed that in-situ stabilization has poor carbon performance and binder impacts (lime, bitumen) dominate over aggregate impacts. The ESC pavement design guide is a leading example for the implementation of sustainable pavement technologies.

2. Tackling Carbon on HS2
   High Speed 2 (HS2) is a new high speed rail line being built to better connect people across Britain. It is the largest infrastructure project in Europe and the most important economic and social regeneration project in decades.

   

   �����Ƶ is assisting HS2 across various work packages, including whole-life carbon assessments of early-stage optioneering, quantitative and qualitative carbon assessments, whole-life impacts of design, and broader sustainability and environmental management.

   HS2 has committed and been certified against PAS 2080 (Carbon Management in Buildings and Infrastructure), and with this, within their Net Zero Carbon Plan, have several targets for cutting carbon emissions from construction, maintenance and operation, much of which are driven by design through “build nothing, build less, build clever and building efficiently.”

   

   HS2’s Net Zero Plan not only underlines the progress of the project thus far but presents the project’s carbon mitigation ambitions in areas like concrete and steel (reduced by 50 percent), HGV transport (reduced by 11 percent), and the elimination of diesel on HS2 construction sites. Collaboration with HS2 on these and others are key in enabling HS2 to reach its net zero goals.

3. Hong Kong’s Northern Metropolis
   �����Ƶ is working on the Northern Metropolis development, a 300 km2 designated space where 2.5 million people will find homes, work and living facilities, serving as a strategic link to the Greater Bay Area on the mainland. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a city from the ground up while prioritizing its decarbonization.

   

   Implementing better design planning and integrating sustainable solutions from the very beginning are key in ensuring that we future proof our cities. �����Ƶ is playing a key role to be part of this ambitious goal. The �����Ƶ Hong Kong team is transforming the Northern Metropolis into an eco-conscious development through planning, engineering and design works with sustainability, resilience and environmental, social, and governance as pillars in the development areas of the New Territories North New Town and Man Kam To, San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node, and the widening of the Yuen Long Highway.

   The array of smart, green and resilient initiatives developed by �����Ƶ aligns with Hong Kong’s avowed target of carbon neutrality by 2050.

What have we learned from these lessons?

• The path to net zero is essential for future proofing the built environment. As engineers and planners, we must take ownership for not taking “no” for an answer when it comes to embedding both operational and whole life cycle.
• There are tools and frameworks like PAS 2080 to guide us towards making the right choices for decarbonization at different stages of a project.
• Carbon management planning is important for creating a clear roadmap towards net zero projects and prioritizing opportunities with realistic carbon savings. Incremental action is crucial, rather than waiting for a perfect solution.
• Collaboration is vital across the spectrum of stakeholders involved in the built environment because it will take everyone across the entire supply chain, working in tandem, to solve the net zero challenge.

Read related content

We’re committed to accelerating decarbonization efforts for both ourselves and our clients. Discover more about our ScopeX approach and the global journey to net zero in our article:

‘’

The post Becoming net zero heroes: decarbonizing the entire asset lifecycle appeared first on Without Limits.

By 2050 people will live in urban areas, an increase from today. While cities are the engines of global economic growth, this continued urban migration brings considerable challenges including overcrowding, pollution, and stress on vital resources such as water.����

Climate change adds an extra layer of complexity for cities planning the as-yet-unbuilt infrastructure needed to cope with this continued mass migration. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued the starkest of warnings: if global warming is to be contained within manageable parameters, more must be done urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.����

In the context of urbanisation, this demands climate-resilient development that allows cities to build infrastructure now that will be sufficiently adaptable to the changing environment to serve their communities for decades to come.������

Financial resources to support cities’ ambitions are available from agencies such as The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), World Bank and African Development Bank.����

The trick is accessing and deploying them – at pace.����

From vision to implementation

Cities need to understand – what is needed, where, and how to maximise the impact – and they need to be able to articulate those priorities in a way that resonates with available funding. In addition, they need to keep their stakeholders and communities with them on that journey.��

Building a clear picture of city requirements and priorities requires capacity, time and specialist expertise. Many mayors and city officials are interested in creating climate action plans but struggle to create the time, drive the process, and access the data to develop practical and evidence-based climate action plans.����

Having supported cities across the world in driving urban development on more sustainable pathways, �����Ƶ has the tools and capabilities to work with cities to help them achieve their goals across three broad stages of the process and to deploy key lessons learned elsewhere.����

1/ In the first instance, each city needs to develop a clear vision of what is critical and essential for its development. For some this could be as broad as achieving net zero carbon emissions as new infrastructure is built for a growing population. For others, it might include addressing certain pollution issues or building resilience against a particular vulnerability such as flood, fire or drought. Bringing citizens and stakeholders along on this visioning process is critical.������

2/ With that vision articulated, cities need to have a clear understanding of the financing environment that can support and build a case for investment.����

��

3/ The last phase of this process is the development of an action plan that can move a city towards funding and implementation.����

��

Developing capacity and planning action

Financing institutions (such as the EBRD, World Bank and Asian Development Bank) have their own frameworks and methodologies to assess and prioritise investment. They often support the action planning process using evidence-based tools to help institutions and cities to work together to mutual advantage. Those tools enable cities to apply a laser focus to what’s critical in their programmes while making it easier for international financial institutions to lend their support by developing an understanding of climate risks and how to prioritise projects.

The EBRD, for example, employs two key tools, Green City Action Plans and Green Financing Roadmaps, in its €2 billion Green Cities Program, which aims to improve the physical environment, mitigate climate change and improve residents’ well-being. �����Ƶ has worked with the EBRD across eastern European and central Asian cities where the climate threat is acute.

Green City Action Plans assess and prioritise environmental challenges and develop a for tackling them through policy and sustainable infrastructure investments. Within this process, �����Ƶ and its partners provide expertise and tools to develop the plan and help to build the resources and capabilities a city needs to address its climate priorities, particularly as it moves towards the implementation of these actions.

The Green Financing Roadmap is an additional tool, aimed at mobilising a more diverse set of finance options for projects in cities that have completed action plans. �����Ƶ worked, for example, with Albania’s capital Tirana to improve the green finance readiness of the city government and prepare nine high-priority green investment projects.

In countries that are poorly served by resources needed to plan and execute climate-resilient infrastructure, such as a lack of data or enough expertise on the ground, a different approach may be required. �����Ƶ has recently worked with the African Development Bank, for example, to design a methodology that enables cities to accelerate the information gathering and analysis phase to allow them to move quickly to action.

Speed is critical

Time is of the essence in the battle against climate change, and so the development and sharing of best practice and expertise across continents and projects is important. What works in one city might not be the best response to the challenges of the next, but the application of a shared methodology or experience could be critical in accelerating action.��

With cities responsible for more than 70 per cent of global emissions, they are on the front line of the need to find sustainable development solutions. Moving swiftly from planning to action to implementation is critical, and �����Ƶ is ready to support each step.����

The post Accelerating climate action in global cities appeared first on Without Limits.

Reducing the carbon impact of existing building stock is a time-critical task for the industry, as the consequences of human-induced climate change are now tangible. In 2022 alone, the UK experienced its warmest year on record, according to Met Office data. The past year has also seen heavy rainfall, flooding, urban wildfires, and other extreme weather conditions in the UK and on a global scale – all of which are being experienced with increasing frequency.

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge cannot be underestimated. Existing building stock accounts for approximately 23% of UK carbon emissions, according to a 2019 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors report. In the housing sector alone, the UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK’s 29 million homes must be retrofitted at a rate of 1.8 every minute to achieve net zero by 2050.

The public sector

Despite immense funding pressure, the UK public sector has in many cases led the way in estate decarbonisation investment. Initiatives such as the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS), launched by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, are injecting cash into improving public buildings by stripping out carbon and energy inefficiencies.

The PSDS has to date provided around £1.6 billion in grant funding to help public sector organisations improve the energy use of existing buildings, and to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Additionally, the Public Sector Low Carbon Skills Fund provides grants for public sector bodies to engage specialist advice to develop decarbonisation plans for their estate.

The private sector

For private estate owners, the investment case for decarbonising their buildings centres around both highlighting their ESG credentials and preventing assets from becoming stranded. Assets become stranded when their value is vulnerable to external factors such as changing regulation, technological innovation or evolving social norms.

In real estate, legislation preventing assets with poor energy efficiency from being occupied is a growing risk. There is also rising pressure from fellow asset owners: initiatives such as the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance requires members to reduce emissions across global property portfolios.

To mitigate this risk, tools are emerging to help estate owners assess the likelihood of their assets becoming stranded. The European Union (EU)-funded Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM)��is a tool that allows investors and property owners to assess the exposure of their assets to stranding risks based on energy and emission data and the analysis of regulatory requirements.

Factoring energy efficiency into design

Cutting carbon by increasing energy efficiency typically involves improving the thermal efficiency and air tightness of the building fabric, along with the installation of energy-efficient plant and smart building control technology. Energy assessments will provide guidance on what is possible at each site.

A fabric-first approach is important. Improving mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering (MEP) systems in a building with a poorly performing external envelope has limited value. In contrast, upgrading facades, adding insulation, and increasing air tightness are all effective interventions and are often the first point of focus when taking on a retrofit challenge.

That said, improving the heat efficiency of the building fabric can often create an increase in whole-life carbon. Given their carbon intensity, is only advisable to undertake full cladding replacement if the existing system is damaged, performing poorly or nearing the end of its useful life. A holistic approach should be taken to considering the impact of building fabric changes – overheating and condensation, for example, can be consequences of failing to consider how a replacement building fabric will interact with existing building components.

Once decisions about the external fabric and structure have been made, it is important to understand how a building is used. Heating, cooling and lighting unoccupied space is costly in both monetary and carbon terms, yet if building occupier patterns are fully understood, this is a relatively easy way to quickly cut carbon output and energy costs.

This can be done through installing building-level controls to enable efficient building management. Controls are key to ensuring energy use is minimised and the benefits of natural ventilation are explored and incorporated where feasible. Incentivising efficient occupier behaviour is another important way to reduce energy demand.

Introducing onsite renewable energy generation capability is something developers are often keen to explore, as it is typically a highly visible example of a building’s efforts to be more sustainable and can help achieve higher EPC ratings. However, it should be noted that as electricity sourced from the national grid decarbonises, the operational carbon benefit of onsite production lessens.

Full grid decarbonisation is still decades away, but we are swiftly moving towards renewables becoming the dominant source of on-grid power. Onsite generation has other valuable benefits, such as energy security and the potential to sell energy to the grid, but electrification of existing plant has the biggest impact on carbon reduction.

Creating holistic decarbonisation plans

For real estate owners that are yet to consider these issues, thinking ahead of time and having a plan in place for estate decarbonisation will enable them to be nimble and take full advantage when new funding streams or supportive initiatives are announced. Tax policy is one area in clear need of greater government support. That UK policy currently favours new build developments over refurbishment is bewildering in the face of our climate goals, and needs to change.

Public sector support – directly through grant funding, targeted initiatives, and regulatory change – is key, but is only one part of the solution. Private sector action on estate decarbonisation is crucial and is an important part of the jigsaw which cannot be ignored. More instruments are needed to accelerate this market, whether in the form of a carbon tax, or a shift in the relative prices of gas and electricity or other solutions.

The construction industry, the financial community, and asset owners must all pick up the pace on estate decarbonisation if both the UK’s and other international carbon targets are to be achieved. In the face of soaring inflation, a recession, labour and materials shortages and a lack of knowledge in the sector on the topic, it is an indisputably difficult task. Success in these conditions may be about trade-offs and compromises – and collectively creating holistic decarbonisation plans to break the decarbonisation challenge down into achievable steps, one project or estate at a time.

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. .

The post Decarbonising real estate starts with intelligent planning and design appeared first on Without Limits.

Below are just a few of the highlights from the report which shows how we are providing truly sustainable solutions for our clients informed by decades of experience, industry-leading ESG expertise and, above all, a drive to do good and be good.

—

Progressed toward our goal of science-based net zero by 2040, a target validated by the Science Based��Targets initiative (SBTi)

We reached operational net zero in fiscal 2021, while reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions which cover fleet and office energy, respectively, by 47 percent from our full year 2018 baseline year, using key travel and real estate initiatives. In accordance with the new and even more rigorous SBTi net zero standard, we have also s which emphasizes decarbonization over offsets. This ambitious target places us among the forefront of companies globally.

Launched our ESG Advisory Services, supported by decades of expertise

One of our signature milestones this year has been the launch of our ESG Advisory practice, which deploys our depth of expertise to navigate our clients through this rapidly evolving space and realize their ambitious visions. Working with organizations at the forefront of the green transition globally, including the United Kingdom’s and , our Advisory Services are mitigating risk, building trust and improving long-term outcomes worldwide.

Advanced��ScopeX initiatives to accelerate our ESG offering for��clients and cut carbon in our work

is a core offering of our ESG services and will be one of our greatest contributions to tackling the climate crisis. By accounting for materials, site locations, logistics and construction methods, it will help reduce and eliminate the impact of projects on the natural environment. With ScopeX, we aim to reduce the carbon impact of major projects by at least 50 percent.

Acted on equity, diversity and inclusion (ED&I) by addressing equity challenges globally and regionally

We continue to make progress . We’re nearing our target for women to compose 35 percent of our workforce, with women in 18 percent of leadership roles and making up 33 percent of our overall workforce. We have also fostered a culture of inclusivity that has been recognized by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign— which has named us a Best Place to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality in the United States. Our ED&I commitments efforts extend to the communities we serve, where we’ve implemented locally relevant workplace diversity and pay equity goals.

—

Beyond a commitment

In just one year, we’ve made objective progress on our targets and have set even more stringent ones so that we can lead for our clients and our people. But what can’t be quantified is our sense of purpose.

For us, ESG is so much more than a commitment—it’s something we see every day in our work, where its impact is truly felt. I invite you to see that impact for yourself in this year’s report and explore each of our accomplishments as we continue to deliver Sustainable Legacies worldwide.

Read the report

The post Our 2022 ESG Report: a year of Sustainable Legacies appeared first on Without Limits.

The UK government’s levelling up agenda will remain a key plank of policy for the new Conservative administration according to Michael Gove, speaking at a panel at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham. Experts on the panel warned, however, that only a more coordinated approach could ensure it achieved its full potential.

Gove, the former (and soon to be reappointed) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, said that while the approach might change under the then Prime Minister Liz Truss, the underlying policy direction was likely to remain.

“Some of the points that have been made about Investment Zones and business rates reflect a commitment to press ahead with levelling up,” he said, indicating that while it was natural to expect changes under a new Prime Minister, the underlying policy would be retained.

Gove was speaking on a – Placemaking, Pride and Productivity, How Places Can Unlock Levelling Up – alongside Councillor Abi Brown from Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Ben Derbyshire, former President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Ike Ijeh, Head of Housing, Architecture and Urban Space at Policy Exchange and Jonathan Moore, Head of Project, Programme and Cost Management, North of England at �����Ƶ.

The lively and wide-ranging discussion focused on the regeneration of post-industrial Northern and Midlands towns covering a broad range of topics from the future of the high street and the need for further local government funding and business rate reform to the necessity of ‘building back better’ with beauty.

Broad agenda requires strong and local leadership

Abi Brown said that Stoke-on-Trent was a “litmus test” for the national levelling up agenda, arguing that it had a critical role to play in improving the life chances of people in the city through improved access to services and infrastructure including housing, education and jobs.

“Scale is important, and the role of local government is incredibly important around places and productivity in particular, so while small is beautiful sometimes in the case of Stoke-on-Trent but also you need an element of scale to deliver these things,” she said.

Gove said that strong local leadership, such as Councillor Brown provided in Stoke, was needed to overcome a lack of coordination that often hindered development.

“That is a factor across the country where you can have organisations that are responsible for railways, to those responsible for highways to those responsible for urban regeneration not integrating successfully. That is why a strong civic leader with a power to convene and knock heads together is absolutely vital,” he said.

Integrated approach can yield results

Jonathan Moore said that the key to allowing “the impact of levelling up to happen quickly” was the integration of the activities of all stakeholders. He cited �����Ƶ’s successful experience in the UK’s major city regions as positive of what could be achieved with the right approach. He stressed �����Ƶ’s commitment to working as trusted partners with mayors and other leaders to deliver integrated planning and implementation.

“Without an integrator leading the delivery of these infrastructure areas these things won’t happen at pace, at scale and with a good investment model behind them. And the way successful economies have moved forward, like Greater Manchester, is by having a very joined-up approach to delivery,” he said.

Public buy-in essential to nurture sense of pride

Another key issue identified for success was winning local support for projects, with Ike Ijeh arguing that it could potentially “make or break” Investment Zones.

“The democratic consent idea is really important because you are not going to get placemaking or good places without a sense of civic and local pride.�� And you don’t get pride if people don’t like the places where they live, or if they don’t feel part of the process,” he said.

“Engage, engage, engage,” said Ben Derbyshire. “Make sure the propositions that come forward for regeneration and levelling up are rooted in the local community, so people recognise them as stemming from their voice.”

The post Levelling up still on the UK agenda but integrators key to delivery appeared first on Without Limits.

A stable and predictable long-term policy framework is key to the delivery of local economic development that can achieve the twin aims of levelling up and achieving net zero targets.

That was the conclusion of an expert panel, ´Going Green, Going Local: The Power of Local Leadership in Net Zero and Levelling Up´, convened by the Policy Exchange thinktank at the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool. The panel – sponsored by �����Ƶ – also pointed to investment in technology and innovation, as well as addressing skills shortages, as crucial elements for local government to target in its drive for sustainable and green economic growth.

The panel, chaired by Ruth Kelly, Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, explored the potential for local government to drive investment in partnership with the private sector in a rapidly changing policy environment, following the government’s recent announcement of low tax .

Jamie Driscoll, Mayor of the North of Tyne Combined Authority, argued that ensuring a reasonable return on investment rather than tax breaks was key to decision-making among investors keen to fund green projects and who typically had a horizon of ten to 30 years.

“What businesses want is stability. And if we want the large institutional investors to start investing hundreds of millions of pounds, they are going to want to be sure theyre going to get it back at the end,” he said.

Secure pipeline key to achieving net zero

Helena Rivers, Director for Estate Decarbonisation, Buildings and Places at �����Ƶ, agreed, saying that developing constructive public-private partnerships is critical to decarbonising our urban areas.

“It´s all about those long-term local policies. One of the key advantages of the mayoral system is that you can build real momentum around a particular region and work with the private sector to attract that finance because there´s a clear pathway and solid pipeline,” she said, drawing on �����Ƶ’s heat zoning work for Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

Infrastructure as a catalyst for green growth

The reinstating in 2023 of passenger services on the Northumberland railway line – an �����Ƶ project – was cited as an example of infrastructure as a catalyst for local green growth. Running from rural Ashington to Newcastle, it will bring green economic activity and much better connectivity to deprived former mining communities.

“We are redeveloping that economic corridor with a masterplan. We´re putting £10m in that will lever another £130m. And that´s about factory sites and housing and the green infrastructure that is a railway line,” said Driscoll.

Long-term investment in innovation and technology

Across the Pennines, the GMCA is addressing levelling up and net zero in three of its most deprived areas – Rochdale, Bury and Oldham – with the creation of the Atom Valley Mayoral Development Zone, another strategic public-private partnership.

Paul Ormerod, economist, and Chair of the Atom Valley project, said technology and innovation underpinned this strategy to deliver success in both levelling up and net zero within Greater Manchester, and beyond.

“The green revolution will have to be delivered by technology and intelligent machines, not through the price mechanism. Net zero can only be delivered in that way.”

He warned, however, that skills shortages could restrict progress, a point echoed by all the guests.

Strategic planning and stability the way forward

Despite current economic uncertainty and volatile political environment, there remains optimism that funds are available for investment in projects that can deliver on the promises of levelling up and net zero. The clear view of the panel was that the best route to achieving this lies in establishing strong local partnerships based on a stable long-term policy framework.

The post Stability the key for levelling up and achieving net zero appeared first on Without Limits.

A decade after the London 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games and it’s a good time for reflection on the legacy for East London and the capital as a whole.

While it would be hard to deny that the and its surrounding development has failed to clear certain hurdles that often stand in the way of success on large regeneration schemes, it is clear that the overall improvement and transformation of East London is still anchored in the original premise for the Games: the delivery of the Park; rewilding of the Lea River; extended public transport networks; new social infrastructure; new housing (although the low levels of truly affordable housing is a disappointment given the original vision) and job creation in innovative and creative industries.

specialists for the entire scheme including games-time mode and planning for legacy build-out.

Here are five key things we learned along the way.

1/ Flexibility for the future

In masterplanning the QEOP and its legacy – as in any major project – planning for an unknown future is about creating a framework of possibilities. Flexibility has been key to the ongoing evolution from a post-industrial river valley to the setting for a global event and now the QEOP and its developments.

At this scale of development, flexibility comes in many guises. Our job was to create the opportunities for change to take place, for example designing games venues and facilities with a different future use in mind or enabling the planned Stratford Waterfront residential neighbourhood to be reimagined as the new cultural quarter.

Ultimately, we learned about the critical importance of seeking and finding the balance of delivering just the right amount of permanent framework development within a robust masterplan, flexible planning permissions and environmental assessments, which offer the opportunity for existing and future communities to own, evolve and grow the place for themselves.

2/Greenest games

The sustainability and environmental story of the games and park can be read at different scales.

At a micro level, the innovative biodiversity action plan ensured that detailed attention was paid to protecting and enhancing the habitats of the smallest animals and plants, while at the macro level, the legacy for London was a brand new, large-scale, accessible, high-quality public park.

A valuable part of the green and blue infrastructure of the city, the public park certainly demonstrated its value during the coronavirus pandemic.

Knowing that sustainability considerations can get lost in some large projects, we learned that sustainability had to be factored into every piece of design and every decision from the specification of building materials; the careful planning of bridges and roads; utilities; flood management; and the fact that all spectators (and most future residents and visitors) arrived on foot, by bicycle or by public transport.

��

3/Power to the people

The best lesson learned here was in listening widely and listening well. This was enabled by embedding a stakeholder engagement team with the planning and design teams, a fully integrated approach that today would be called co-creation. There was a culture of engagement and listening that became everyone’s responsibility.

In listening widely, we engaged with the broadest stakeholder groups from local residents and businesses, school children, sporting bodies and to local and city authority councillors. We heard about people’s concerns, but also their hopes, and tried to incorporate as many of their ideas as possible. The process and conversations meant we were able to develop a mutual understanding of what was possible.

Engagement is as important now as it was at the time of the Games as longstanding – and new -residents begin to own this new part of London. Efforts to embed QEOP in the local area so that benefits are more widely spread must continue.

��

4/Joined-up places

Connections within, across and around the park, and its integration into the fabric of the broader capital and beyond, have been critical to its success. The planning process sought to embed a network of movement, providing multiple ways for people to explore and evolve new routes, connecting people to employment and leisure opportunities. This has also stimulated organic development particularly in those areas which fringe the QEOP which have transformed into thriving new districts.

We have learned about the power of connectivity whether it’s by path or cycle way, bus routes or rail services. We are already seeing how opportunities in places like Hackney Wick or Fish Island can be opened up by a bridge in the right place, or an interesting intersection created by connections that facilitate access and movement, and that, in turn, sparks investment.

��

��

5/Stronger together

Our work was about making a place for people, so it was critical that the process had a very human dimension. This included fostering the collaboration of four host boroughs, transport agencies, local and regional government and the mayor, communities and latterly the London Legacy Development Corporation.

Collaboration also included co-locating planning and design teams from many practices, sharing offices and sharing ideas for the best solutions, enjoying the discussions and visits… all working together for the same purpose, to the same deadline for a great sense of shared endeavour.

We learned that collaboration is all when it comes to creating the conditions for a new, culturally rich and flourishing part of the city.

The post Five key things London 2012 taught us about successful placemaking appeared first on Without Limits.

In the UK, climate change and the levelling up agenda are forcing a rethink on infrastructure investment. That is certainly the case in Scotland, where legislative framework for emissions reduction is underpinned by a legal commitment to deliver a ‘just transition’.

The as ‘both the outcome – a fairer, greener future for all – and the process that must be undertaken in partnership with those impacted by the transition to net zero’. To deliver on its policy commitments, the Scottish government has set up a dedicated Commission who will be tasked with undertaking ‘meaningful engagement’ with local communities as well engaging and collaborating with ‘with other sources of expertise’, including relevant Scottish government advisory bodies on climate change and inequality amongst many others.

As Colin Wood, �����Ƶ CEO for Europe and India said recently at the launch of the : “Efforts to tackle climate change will have limited success without the involvement of local citizens; leveraging that local knowledge will be key to achieving a resilient, net-zero future.” As infrastructure and built environment consultants, we are committed to delivering sustainable legacies. Listening to community voices to achieve a deeper understanding at a local level helps our multidisciplinary teams gather evidence to find the best solutions to our clients’ most complex challenges.

In this article we explore three different approaches that can be used to create equitable infrastructure needed to meet wider levelling up and net zero ambitions. We take Glasgow as our starting point, then draw on strategically-important transport planning, active travel and flood management projects across other major UK cities including Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham.

Enhancing engineering-led schemes through nature-based solutions

Managing flood risk is a priority for Glasgow. Climate Ready Clyde estimates .

Several schemes of strategic importance that manage excess surface water have been initiated in the city region under the and through the collaborative Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP).�� One of these projects is in Drumchapel, an area of deprivation identified as needing further support to tackle complicated socio-economic issues. As well as protecting areas downstream from flooding, the project needed to deliver additional social value for the people of Drumchapel.

Embedding the landscape team (which included our in-house ecologists and arborists) with the planning and engineering team from the outset enabled us to deliver additional benefits, as having a multidisciplinary capability meant that we were able to use natural restorative processes to cost-effectively enhance traditional engineering solutions.

For example, we knew that local people had difficultly traversing the site, so we installed robust bridges to make accessible crossing points over the Garscadden Burn, ensuring that the footpath gradients were suitable for wheelchair users. In some cases, a light design touch was all that was needed: boulders were retained to provide simple, natural play opportunities.

Any design solution must work for the local community in the longer term. Looking at flood management schemes through an environmental lens builds this resilience. We reshaped some of the retained soil to create naturally contoured berms so that they would act as an emergency reservoir in times of extreme rainfall. In addition, we chose native species to replicate the natural habitat, and planted an understory of native ground cover, a wetland meadow mix and trees that will need minimal intervention over the five-year implementation period. To be successful however, this approach requires hard evidence and a very firm understanding of existing soil, hydrology, weather and climate conditions.

These environmental interventions are communicated in a highly pictorial and visual way by new interpretation panels on The Drumchapel Way, which have been developed in conjunction with Glasgow City Council’s access and biodiversity officers with input from Forestry and Land Scotland.

Placing a higher weighting on socio-demographic factors

During the stakeholder consultation for the recently-conducted , the climate emergency was cited ‘as an opportunity to make transport investment decisions that encourage people out of private vehicles through better active travel provision and better public transport’. To make this a reality, active travel across Scotland has just received a huge injection of funding. By 2024-5, will be allocated to active travel, taking the proportion of total spend from 3.5 per cent to ten per cent.

Historically, transport investment has been targeted using traditional factors, such as economic growth, congestion and road safety. By placing a higher weighting on socio-demographic objectives, active travel and public transport accessibility indicators however, transport planners have an opportunity to identify schemes in many new locations that meet levelling up and environmental agendas. This offers potential to create a more balanced infrastructure delivery plan.

In England, we used this novel approach during a macro study of the Key Route Network (KRN) in Birmingham and the wider region undertaken on behalf of Transport for West Midlands (TfWM). By linking our evidence-led assessment process with the emerging environmental and socially inclusive agenda, we were able to deliver 44 conceptual scheme plans that clearly indicate sites where investment would enhance local conditions for active travel, improve the immediate environment and improve residents’ health and wellbeing. The approach also ensured areas of low long-term investment were brought to the fore. Early business case style-documents were developed for each scheme to discuss the key connectivity challenges identified and suggest indicative costing and high-level delivery timescales for targeted measures. The study also included the development of five area-wide, thematic propositions on the subjects of 15-minute neighbourhoods and mobility hubs, electric vehicle charging and digital connectivity.

The process was designed to demonstrate alignment with a broader set of strategic objectives, to inform short, medium and long-term delivery plans, and to enable best use of future funding opportunities. We are now assisting TfWM in the development of a KRN delivery plan and monitoring framework.

An evidence-led approach to low traffic neighbourhoods

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) create safer and more comfortable street environments to walk, cycle, wheel and spend time in by reducing the volume and speed of traffic.�� They are key elements within wider city net zero transport strategies that encourage and increase the use of sustainable and active modes of transport, and are fundamental to Glasgow’s .

However, the coronavirus pandemic has taught us that LTNs can be challenging to implement successfully. By their nature, an LTN encourages and enables fundamental modal shift away from a reliance on private car use. Despite many of the benefits including encouraging ‘active travel’, air quality and safer community-focussed streets, they have been seen to be contentious and divisive as they can fundamentally change how local residents are able to move around their neighbourhoods.

To give local authorities the confidence to make robust decisions on LTNs and to communicate effectively with communities, planning and designs should be evidence-led. Gathering comprehensive data, such as traffic levels, speed, school travel plans as well as sat-nav origin destination analysis for example, provides a clear documentation trail that can be referenced easily. Furthermore, the presentation of data should be simple and legible to allow communities to understand it to build trust in the process.

Increasing conduits into communities directly affected helps gather better information and understand local issues and aspirations. Digital engagement tools are now so advanced that they can include 3D visualisations and map-based feedback. We have been using these tools on proposed active travel schemes across the UK including in East Lothian and in to increase the demographic range involved in the consultation process.

Steering groups are another effective route into the community. is an LTN in Edinburgh that has just been approved by Edinburgh Council. As part of a six-month period of intense community engagement, we founded a Community Reference Group (CRG) during ��the early stages to help set the objectives and provide an additional way for the community to express their views. The CRG included members from community groups, parent councils, businesses, housing associations, bus user groups, the Living Streets group and the council’s Access Panel. ��Members gave us valuable insight and local knowledge that we fed into the designs.

Initially, the Corstorphine LTN will be delivered under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO). During the trial period, the CRG will continue to meet and feedback on the scheme. We are currently developing a detailed monitoring and evaluation programme that involves a variety of metrics including air quality, traffic impacts, noise and how people feel about and use the new community spaces. In this way, data and evidence will continue to inform the decision-making process while the scheme is in its trial period.

Leveraging local knowledge to achieve a just transition

To achieve a just transition to a low carbon urban economy, new infrastructure must have a positive impact on the communities it serves. Within the public and political environment of delivering transformational net-zero strategies, it is essential that decisions regarding new infrastructure must be transparent, robust, and backed by well-researched hard evidence, of which local knowledge and community feedback must be a huge part.

The importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation of schemes, and listening to those affected, will only improve how projects are delivered in future by building confidence and strengthening the case for change.

The post COP26 in Glasgow: tools for creating a just transition in the UK’s major cities appeared first on Without Limits.

The much anticipated publication in October of the comes as the NHS embarks on a long-term programme of investment in health infrastructure. With £3.7 billon funding to build 40 new hospitals, delivering on the net zero commitment is going to require a new approach.

Net zero means reducing the carbon emissions associated with a building’s usage and construction to zero or below. ��Thanks to the huge and varied demands required of them, hospitals have a large carbon footprint from both construction and operation, although modern design and a decarbonised grid look set to radically reduce operational emissions in future. To achieve the NHS objective, hospital trusts should look closely at the building structure, which our analysis shows has the potential to be most impactful when it comes to reducing embodied carbon demands.

As NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens , the climate emergency is also a health emergency. Leading by example, the NHS – which is responsible for around 4 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions – has set out a clear objective of reaching carbon neutrality by 2040.

Official targets for embodied carbon have not yet been set for new hospitals, but we have compiled what we think those targets might look like by using targets for Greater London Authority office buildings, those put forward by the , combined with �����Ƶ benchmark studies of both office buildings and recent completed hospitals. Figure 1 demonstrates the range of ‘do minimum’ and ‘aspirational’ targets for both GLA and �����Ƶ benchmark studies. This has enabled us to set our own targets as shown.

To inform net zero strategies, the �� and LETI have compiled a set of building guidelines, to which �����Ƶ has contributed. In addition to these considerations, hospitals have specific requirements that deserve careful consideration.

On an individual scale, hospitals contain a variety of departments ranging from administration through to theatres and imaging. Each space has different structural design requirements which need to be addressed: from space requirements influencing grid spacing, to floor loading requirements and vibration limits. The buildings also need to accommodate complex equipment and mechanical, electrical and public health (MEP) routing requirements, with high space demands for services. Medical equipment such as MRI scanners are heavy and have stringent vibration criteria.

To address the specific and changing nature of healthcare provision, hospitals require adaptable and flexible solutions – as the rapid re-purposing of spaces during the coronavirus crisis highlighted. In the future, hospital buildings and facilities must be designed to respond to multiple and fast changing health situations, with space for new technologies.

From operational energy efficiency to the question of whether to build new or refurbish, there are many considerations for hospital trusts to consider. In this article, we are going to focus on what our own analysis has shown to have the most impact on reducing embodied carbon emissions: the building structure.

Thanks to experience delivering carbon efficient buildings such the , the world’s first carbon neutral lab, and the LEED Platinum facility at in California, �����Ƶ has been building up a library of carbon data relating to a building’s structure. Figure 2 shows that half of the embodied carbon of a typical office building is due to the structure. When it comes to hospitals, the percentages are similar, despite the unique challenges placed on such buildings.

Three considerations for net zero hospital design

To reduce the carbon footprint of a building structure, three considerations are key: design, materials choice and offsite manufacture and assembly.

1/ Design

Three broad principles will help achieve the best energy efficient outcomes from design:

a) A pragmatic approach

To rationalise material use and reduce carbon content throughout the building, the following lean engineering practices will help:

• providing regular grids,
• maximising the repeatability of structural elements,
• designing to standard component size as much as possible,
• maximising pre-fabrication potential,
• limiting the structural spans,
• avoiding irregular shapes and structural complexities such as transfers.

Reducing the use of basements can also have significant savings. �����Ƶ benchmark studies have shown that 20 per cent of embodied carbon can be found within the substructure. This figure rises exponentially with the inclusion of basements.

b) Avoid over-specification

Like the human body, the different elements of a building are inter-connected, and prescribing a specific outcome for one variable can put pressure on other variables. The key is achieving a balance between flexibility requirements, which require additional functionality, and efficient design. This requires input from NHS estate managers, clinical planners and the design team as a whole to first establish flexible criteria and the strategies to implement these.

c) Applying circular economy principles

Design focused on eliminating waste and re-using resources can increase building life span as well as incorporating flexible structural arrangements. From the outset, consideration should be given to what happens at the end of a building’s life, designing for dismantle and re-use.

2/ Materials choice

The choice of materials used in construction has the potential to impact embodied carbon significantly, and exploring the most appropriate material should be considered from the outset. As Figure 3 shows, using sustainable materials such as timber, and reducing high carbon content materials such as swapping cement with replacement materials can make a huge impact.

Developing designs around the chosen material will maximise carbon savings.�������Ƶ has developed bespoke tools to define materials choice by enabling rapid prototyping of early stage options and reporting against performance criteria including carbon content. Along with our carbon calculators and advanced analysis tools we can then maximise carbon savings throughout the design development of the building.

3/ Design for offsite manufacture (Modern Methods of Construction/MMC)

To support the modernisation of the construction sector, off-site production is being actively encouraged by the government, whose five central departments have adopted a for public buildings. The NHS looks to be following suit with a requirement to explain how , when applying for funding from government.

Through efficient energy usage in manufacturing techniques and the reduction in material usage and waste,�� offsite production. Evidence collected so far suggests that construction waste and site CO2 emissions can be more than halved through a DfMA approach compared with traditional practices.�� It can take many forms, from constructing individual structural elements (steel, concrete or timber) through to full building modules. Taking full advantage of these benefits requires structural engineers to adopt the design principles stated above from the outset.

The world’s first ‘net zero’ national health service

With NHS net zero carbon hospital standards due to be set in Spring 2021, the business case for the planned new hospitals will need to demonstrate the energy strategies to meet them. The challenge is to not only meet these emerging requirements, but to pre-empt them. To be sustainable, the new projects should be built to serve current and future generations.

Tools and processes to deliver on these aspirations include rapid prototyping and optimisation software used from inception, through to advanced bespoke carbon calculators giving BIM linked real time carbon assessments through the detailed design phases. The planned 40 hospitals should be net zero heroes, carbon exemplars that set the trend for future NHS buildings and infrastructure.

The post Net zero heroes: helping the NHS achieve its carbon reduction goals appeared first on Without Limits.

Governing bodies and decision-makers are often tied to specific jurisdictional boundaries; yet, our environmental, economic, public health, and equity challenges are rarely confined by these boundaries. There is an increasing need to work at the regional and mega-regional scale to effectively address and overcome these challenges. Non-government organizations (NGOs) and research organizations are bridging the gap by thinking and acting regionally.

Urban planning and research NGOs in the U.S. and globally are developing regional growth strategies, convening public and private sector stakeholders, establishing policy frameworks for growth, and addressing social equity concerns such as land use and infrastructure issues.

During the Urban Land Institute’s Fall 2020 meeting, �����Ƶ’s Stephen Engblom had the opportunity to speak with the leaders of three key regional planning organizations, Alicia John-Baptiste, President and CEO of San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR); Tom Wright, President of New York’s Regional Plan Association (RPA), and MarySue Barrett, President of the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) in Chicago, to discuss their efforts to prepare and plan for a future that better meets the needs of everyone.

Each of these organizations were formed at a time of crisis and evolved as key conveners across jurisdictions, sectors and political divides. Therefore, as our cities face unprecedented challenges, their ability to think and act regionally and across mega-regions is critical to scale solutions that address the most pressing urban crises of our time. These NGOs bring together and align thinking across the government, public stakeholders, and people, and across sectors and timeframes, through independent analysis and recommendations.

Engblom: Tell us about your NGO, its work at the regional scale and the value of politically independent regional planning organizations in guiding cities/regions to equitable and resilient futures.

John-Baptiste: SPUR is an urban policy organization founded after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco to advocate for quality, affordable housing construction. We are in unprecedented times as a region and a nation: experiencing a global pandemic, waking up to the need for racial justice, and recently in the Bay Area, seeing the Northern California fires associated with climate change.

Organizations like SPUR tackle long-term systemic challenges as a country and region. We knew even before the pandemic that we needed change and the importance of surfacing solutions to effect the changes. Inspired by RPA, we are preparing a regional strategy that addresses regional needs, and measures to move policies in different directions across issues of housing, transportation and the economy.

We recently published , in collaboration with �����Ƶ, to ensure the Bay Area’s sustainable and equitable future for those already here, and those who want to come here. Our organization benefits the region through its multi-disciplinary approach to policy. We are independent of the system so we can approach the work through both practical and aspirational lenses.

Wright:�� RPA has been in existence for 98 years when the Russell Sage Foundation funded the Committee on the Plan of New York and its Environs to guide the development of the region and enhance the quality of life of residents, without regard to political boundaries. RPA has created a new regional plan for each generation: 1929, 1968, 1996 and the , published in 2017. Each plan establishes a generational regional and metropolitan blueprint.

As an NGO, we are an independent voice outside the government sector so we can stand up against the status quo. In the New York metropolitan region where RPA works, there are 31 counties and 782 cities/municipalities (one of which is New York City with 8.5 million people). There are also three states, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, that make up the tristate area. We work across silos so when we discuss a transportation project, we can connect it to economic development, resilience, and social equity across these states.

The pandemic is challenging urbanity, social justice, and climate change. Our planning capabilities provide the larger context to address these pandemic-related challenges to urbanity, social justice and climate change. We work with civic organizations across a region with a strong civic structure. Our work on congestion pricing, for example, was made possible by collaborating with local grassroots organizations in addition to other transit advocates and business groups.

Barrett: The Metropolitan Planning Council was founded in 1934 during the Great Depression. We were initially founded to advocate for affordable housing. Our range of issues have expanded to drive progress in delivering a better, bolder and more equitable future for everyone. In recent months, the coronavirus pandemic and racial injustices have shown that the current system doesn’t work for everyone. Our organization is rededicated to the research, advocacy and partnerships needed to fuel solutions at this high-stakes time.

MPC understands the equitable importance of working collaboratively with innovative civic and community groups. As an independent organization, MPC acknowledges the tremendous pressures on the public, corporate and philanthropic sectors, and the need to center community voice in forging transformative solutions. We are trusted intermediaries who can help solve complex problems.

Our , completed in conjunction with the Urban Institute and published in 2017, is a seminal organizational product. We quantified the price of systemic racism for the top 100 metropolitan areas, measuring it in residents’ lost income, lives and, potential. Chicago’s hyper-segregation means that a Black adult earns $3,000 less annually and the region as a whole loses an average of $8 billion annually.

These quantifications led to a regional reckoning. In 2018, MPC followed up with a Roadmap for Our Equitable Future that prompted introspection within our organization. We are also asking every Chicago institution to adopt a racial equity framework and recommended two dozen specific near-term actions. Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who took office in 2019, is committed to tackling poverty and inequity and has challenged the corporate community to join with others to create an equitable recovery. These two phases of work armed us with the tools to create a more equitable society.

Engblom: Each of you touched on collaboration. Can you cite examples where regional planning entities have collaborated for better results, either amongst your peer organizations, or with public or private entities?

Wright:�� RPA is very interested in preparing a comparable Cost of Segregation study for our region and hopes to announce such a collaboration soon.

In the Fourth Regional Plan, we made health one of the key pillars and looked at how we could reconnect urban planning, metropolitan planning, and public health. We researched a regional health index at the metropolitan scale (comparing health indices at different counties and understanding it at the regional scale). We then analyzed the built environment’s impact on public health and quality of life. Congestion pricing, for example, has potentially enormous benefits for public health.

With the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies among others, we created the Healthy Regions Planning Exchange. This new group, which encompasses SPUR, MPC, and eight other organizations, including indigenous peoples, met in February to develop the current framework.

John-Baptiste: I worked for local government for 16 years. That background helps me understand what is feasible, but also where SPUR has a role to push for solutions that are more aspirational. Public transportation plays a major role in regional sustainability. We are focused on measures to make our transportation system work better across the region. Currently we have 9 counties and 27 transit agencies. Working with the relevant transit agencies and the Bay Area’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO), we developed the Coordinated Network Planner concept, borrowing from programs in Germany and Switzerland.

With the San Francisco Estuary Institute, we also published a on climate adaptation and sea level rise in the bay focusing on nature’s boundaries rather than jurisdictional boundaries. We are now working with a cross-sector of government, community, and civic organizations to build the government’s capacity to implement these actions across jurisdictions.

Barrett: Collaboration is a daily practice. Jurisdictional boundaries and terms of office are irrelevant. Between 2008 and 2019, we issued a cost of “gridlock” study over the next decade, we methodically released the . We then collected best practices and models for financing and setting transportation priorities and followed up with a quantitative analysis of the gap, in 2016, $43 billion of state of disrepair. Then, MPC organized a #BustedCommute campaign to gather pictures and videos of commute barriers. In 2018, we issued a report called “Transit Means Business” which documented that those businesses near transit not only didn’t lose jobs during The Great Depression, they were the only ones to post job gains.

Years of effort culminated with the State of Illinois committing to a $43 billion, six-year capital program. We continue to prod on decision-makers on how to best deploy those resources. With the pandemic and social injustice, we must deploy those dollars differently.

Wright: Our organizations influence the government and public by doing these quantitative analyses. Over the past 20 years, our ability to do these analyses has been elevated by GIS and other technical tools. At the same time, we are supported by boards of directors and corporate partners who have areas of expertise that provide the bench for our small, nimble organizations. Many of our board members are also former public officials with expertise in the issues we work on. We rely on their insights to make our work effective.

Engblom: A common thread in this discussion is how we can improve inefficiencies in our existing processes that have resulted in poor outcomes or inequitable outcomes. Emerging from the pandemic, what does an equitable future look like and what will it require?

Barrett: We need to take advantage of this moment to have this collective conversation. The quintuple crises — public health, economic, racial, climate and political — underscores that cross-sector collaboration and coordinated policies and investments are the only path to reset and rebuild. Old power structures that limited decision-making to a select few have blocked too many residents of metropolitan Chicago from a brighter future. Shared performance metrics and data-driven decisions can guide dollar reallocation at the state and local levels. We can change the harsh reality of Chicago neighborhoods stuck in a never-ending cycle of gun violence, coronavirus contraction, and unemployment. Only with systemic change will we close our racial wealth and health disparity gaps.

Our three grounding questions are: Who is at the table? How are we measuring? And how are we re-prioritizing resources? If we apply these, Chicago has a chance to be a model for other cities and regions.

Wright: We need integrated approaches. In the New York City metropolitan region, we have one short-term existential threat, the mass transit system which relies on farebox revenues. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) needs federal investment. The agency is losing $200 million weekly and by the years’ end could see a 50-percent commuter rail service reduction and 40-percent subway and bus reduction along with 10,000 staff furloughs. This has a ripple effect on the region, its recovery speed and longer-term MTA financial health relative to capital plans. We are working with other advocates to stave off these cuts.

John-Baptiste: We are striving to create regions where everyone can thrive. For that to happen, we need to create just conditions and baseline needs must be met. Getting to a Better Normal requires us to 1) confront the truth of systemic racism; 2) remember how interdependent we are; and 3) act in our spheres of influence. For SPUR, that means analyzing data and evaluating policies to correct harms of the past – and address today’s inequities.

The post Scaling up: working beyond borders to overcome the challenges of today and tomorrow appeared first on Without Limits.

In response to the unprecedented impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on public transportation ridership and operations, �����Ƶ teamed with Seamless Bay Area to envision how transit services could adapt. After consulting with regional transit decision makers, the team has developed modeling tools that enable scenarios to forecast the potential impacts of the length of the coronavirus crisis and mode shifts through an equity lens. These scenarios forecast potential steps towards recovery with the goal of improving accessibility, connectivity and ridership.

Like many regions around the world, public transit in the Bay Area has been challenged immensely by the impacts of coronavirus. Six months after Bay Area counties first issued a shelter-at-home order, ridership remains over 75 percent below pre-pandemic levels[1], creating a fiscal crisis and forcing difficult service-provision decisions. The Bay Area’s 27 transit agencies are each grappling with these changing conditions. Recognizing their shared challenges, they have also begun to collaborate in unprecedented ways (Figure 1).

Figure 1.�� Summary of key Bay Area transit challenges, successes, and uncertainties that influenced the �����Ƶ and Seamless Bay Area’s recovery vision analysis.

To support regional recovery efforts, including the recently established Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force, �����Ƶ and Seamless Bay Area sought to better understand what a reimagined transit network could look like in the Bay Area, and what benefits it could provide. A vision for an integrated and optimized network was defined for this initiative by building upon existing transit agency long-term vision statements as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The network plan vision defined for this initiative builds upon and complements existing transit agency long-term vision statements.

The team developed three potential scenarios for analysis, based on varying combinations of network optimization and investment levels, and compared these to the pre-coronavirus baseline representing the “status quo” as well as to one another. These scenarios, shown in Figure 3, were then modeled with multiple factors to forecast likely future conditions, and to help forecast the effects of network optimization and investment.

Figure 3.�� Scenarios B and C developed as part of the recovery vision sought to improve the extent of the frequent all-day, 10-minute network through targeted service changes. The goal was to provide greater transit accessibility to more people across the region.

The first of these scenarios (Scenario A) is based on service patterns as of June 2020 and assumes continued low investment in transit. For the alternate scenarios, the team identified a set of guiding principles for service changes with a particular focus on the preservation of service to Communities of Concern, as identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which include communities with concentrations of both minority and low-income residents, or that have a concentration of low-income residents and other disadvantage factors.[2]

Network changes were made to maintain a frequent network of trunk lines, provide greater regularity of service throughout the day, and build off of past efforts such as the megaregional rail vision developed by the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) and �����Ƶ, Seamless Bay Area’s Vision Map, TransForm’s ReX Vision, and the core service plans of the region’s transit operators. The result was an “optimized core network” service concept that corresponds to existing transit investment levels (Scenario B). The optimized core network is not intended to be a fully developed network plan, but rather a forecasting tool that supports collaboration and engagement among transit agencies and stakeholders at a greater scale. The team also identified how that network could be enhanced if major new sources of transit investment were approved (Scenario C).

The team estimated the potential impacts of these network permutations on accessibility to local and regional destinations, employment, and housing using geographic information systems (GIS). Additionally, �����Ƶ’s Mobilitics^TM[3] scenario planning tool was used to forecast how each network could perform under various possible economic recovery scenarios ranging from a quick 12-month coronavirus economic recovery (Economic Scenario Y), versus a more cautious 24-month economic recovery (Economic Scenario Z).

The result was a set of six future scenarios, as shown in Figure 4. The analysis yielded some significant forecast outputs for regional decision makers to consider as they chart a path towards a “better normal.”

Figure 4.�� Summary of the three transit scenarios (A, B, and C) and two economic scenarios (Y and Z) developed as part of the Transit Recovery Vision, and the six resulting scenarios that were tested using �����Ƶ’s scenario planning tool, Mobilitics.

As shown in Figure 5, the team developed a dashboard, in which variables can be toggled easily, to compare different scenarios, examine estimated outputs such as peak versus off-peak trips, isolate counties/districts/and degrees of Communities of Concern, and evaluate estimated accessibility by employment or household. View our video to see a preview of this dashboard.

Figure 5. �����Ƶ developed a dashboard to present estimated outputs and how accessibility to both housing and jobs could be affected by service changes, enabling isolation of specific geographies, income levels, and transit trip durations.

Forecast Outputs and Considerations:

1. The next two years are critical to regional transit success.

The Mobilitics tool forecasted that whether a quick or cautious economic recovery is assumed, the pandemic could have a long-term dampening impact on transit ridership across all scenarios that were forecasted. However, if riders do not come back to transit in pre-pandemic numbers within the next two to three years, the economic and environmental costs could be significant. The differential between Scenario A (current network, low investment) and Scenario C (optimized core network, growing investment) could be significant: the combined cost of additional roadway traffic delays (Figure 6) and added congestion could amount to approximately $860 million to $1 trillion of lost economic productivity, and approximately 155,000 to 170,000 metric tons of additional carbon dioxide equivalent/vehicle/year.

Figure 6. Mobilitics scenario planning outputs forecast that the impact of increased congestion could be most severe in the next two to three years if riders shift away from using transit, due to insufficient service or perceived lack of safety.

These forecasted outcomes based on our assumptions and possible transit scenarios underscore the importance of funding transit service throughout the pandemic to maintain service levels, alongside robust safety and customer communications programs to increase rider trust in transit and to promote faster recovery of ridership levels. Further detailed analysis will be required to fully quantify the impacts of COVID-19 on transit systems in the Bay Area in the near-, medium-, and long-term.

2. Overall accessibility can be expanded – to local and regional destinations – while keeping total service hours the same.

Our approach to network optimization deliberately held the region’s total transit operating service hours constant between Transit Scenarios A and B. This was done to forecast the potential gains that could be achieved without substantial additional funding for capital improvements or expansions, although this could require changes in agency coordination and operation cost management. For Transit Scenario B, the team modified service across the region without being restricted by existing agency boundaries or modes, to forecast what a regionwide approach to service optimization driven by regional, rider-focused goals could look like.

The forecast outputs demonstrated that net improvements to accessibility may be possible with network redesigns. Under Scenario B, the optimized network, approximately 60 percent of lower-income households could experience improved accessibility to destinations within 60 minutes compared to Scenario A, the current network. By contrast, only 10 percent of lower-income households were forecasted to have worse accessibility under Scenario B than Scenario A, while approximately 30 percent could experience no change.

3. Equitable accessibility to local and regional destinations should be a lens for making decisions on how to provide service.

The team was specifically interested in how the scenarios could impact Communities of Concern. While Scenario B was forecasted to have a net positive impact on accessibility for trips originating in the region’s Communities of Concern, some communities were forecasted to have worse accessibility due to the network optimization service changes, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. The GIS estimated outputs suggested that while approximately 30,000 households in Communities of Concern, or approximately 10%, (left) could have accessibility to fewer destinations within 90 minutes under Transit Scenario B (Optimized Network) compared to Transit Scenario A (June 2020 network), a much greater number – approximately 280,000 households or approximately 75%�� – could have accessibility to more destinations within 90 minutes in Scenario B than in Scenario A (right).

While the forecasts focused on regional impacts, a more detailed analysis of the local impacts of service changes on equity, including additional input from transit agencies and communities served, is recommended to be included in any significant network redesign. Service changes should consider not only accessibility for Communities of Concern, but also the destinations to which it is most important to maintain accessibility (e.g., hospitals, schools), and which job types should be prioritized for core network accessibility.

4. To realize the accessibility benefits of an optimized network, reduce disincentives to transfers.

The GIS and Mobilitics estimate and forecast outputs highlight the importance of streamlined transfers between transit services to maximize the accessibility benefits of the overall regional network and to make transit more appealing to elective riders. The current friction inherent in transfers among the 27 transit agencies (some with multiple transit services) could be reduced through the application of multi-agency strategies, such as more frequent service, aligned schedules at transfer points to reduce wait times, stops and stations designed to facilitate rider movement from one transit vehicle to another, and integrated fare policies to eliminate different fare structures and payment points.

Image source: Hiroko Koike, �����Ƶ

5. Long-term funding sources need to do better than pre-coronavirus.

While the GIS estimated outputs showed that an optimized core network could provide near-term accessibility benefits, Mobilitics showed that long-term ridership recovery is forecasted to be strongly associated with overall service levels, underscoring the importance of increased funding ��– see Quick Recovery (Scenario C) and Cautious Recovery (Scenario C) scenarios in Figure 8. Scenario C (optimized core network + growing investment) was developed to forecast what a transformational influx of new funding – such as a new Bay Area tax measure – could mean for our transit future. Network optimization on a regional scale could make more efficient use of transit dollars, winning taxpayer confidence to maintain existing funding sources and support new tax measures.

Figure 8. Over the longer term, increased investment is likely a primary determinant of increasing ridership above pre-coronavirus levels. Scenario C, assuming 135% of pre-coronavirus transit investment levels by 2030, is forecasted to result in significantly higher ridership than the other two scenarios tested (A and B), whether a quick or cautious economic recovery is assumed.

Next steps

The �����Ƶ and Seamless Bay Area Transit Recovery Vision forecasts that a regionwide approach to service optimization and application of data analysis tools can generate forecast outputs that can help transit agencies and stakeholders make the difficult decisions that could guide Bay Area transit to recovery. On this basis, agencies, stakeholders, and decision makers can forecast possible impacts of additional scenarios and assumptions easily, as part of a comprehensive process, to work out the many details of redeploying service and regaining riders – and ultimately achieve their near-term recovery goals and long-term visions, and to realize the world-class transit system the Bay Area deserves.

To find out more, click .

Disclaimer:
The scenario planning data in this article is intended for forecasting purposes only to demonstrate potential outcomes of proposed transit scenarios. This information should not be used to make funding decisions.

[1]

[2] Disadvantage factors include persons with limited English proficiency, zero-vehicle households, seniors aged 75 years and over, persons with one or more disability, single-parent families, and renters paying more than 50 percent of their household income on housing. Source:

[3] Mobilitics is an �����Ƶ trademark

The post Re-imagining transit service in California’s Bay Area post-coronavirus appeared first on Without Limits.

While Hong Kong has a long history of using underground space for commercial and public facilities, many of these projects were simply an extension of the building on top of them, with limited connection to the city around them. As urbanization continues its upward trend and our perceptions of space — personal and public — are constantly evolving, this use of layered technologies to explore the underground holds the potential to revolutionize urban liveability and create synergies with the surrounding urban context.

�����Ƶ, commissioned by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government to undertake a study of underground development in an urban space, has explored ways of integrating the latest innovative technologies, including Virtual Reality (VR) and photogrammetry technologies with more widely used techniques in the industry, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and 3D spatial data to improve communication among the different parties involved in the planning and design process of underground space.

This novel combination of technologies has resulted in time savings, increased efficiency and cost benefits as well as greatly enhanced cooperation and the ability to virtually collaborate without the need for travel to a project site. On one project, outlined below, the use of photogrammetry technology to create a 3D model of the existing site saved three weeks time from the site survey, while sharing the site reality model with the designer for performing the parametric design saved another two weeks. Integrating various feature models into a visualization model for the Virtual Reality simulation saved another two weeks by amalgamating information to form a holistic review with different parties. Further, it saved client comment time as 3D visualizations facilitate the design detail and constraints of the project. Since the design team did not need to travel to Hong Kong, this saved around $100K HKD.

Particularly in high density cities, where land value is high and greenfield developments are hard to come by, the ability to map the underground more effectively and efficiently may open a world of possibilities.

This combination of technologies was first used to see how an urban park in Honk Kong that is close to a railway station could be better integrated to its surrounding area. The park is surrounded by densely developed multi-story buildings of mixed residential, commercial and retail use. For initial planning, �����Ƶ and CEDD wanted to capture the existing environment in a 3D model to study how the park related to a wide range of facilities at ground level. But while there was 3D data on the buildings surrounding the park, there wasn’t any available 3D data on the park itself. That’s when we started going underground.

To build a more complete picture, we used Hong Kong government 3D spatial data[1] from the Lands Department to create that 3D model of the park then combined it with aerial photogrammetry technology. We shared the resulting model – complete with hard and soft landscaping and areas of interest within the park – with our partnering architecture design company based in Japan who had enough detail to be able to do many things that would usually have required travel to Hong Kong. This included measuring the space, seeing the topographic setting and the detail of the proposed site, as well as gaining an understanding of how the underground project would relate to the existing environment.

In the early stages of the design, a BIM model was created using the architectural design model which allowed all parties involved to communicate effectively and with a great level of detail. The BIM model was then combined with the site reality model (3D + photogrammetry) to create a Virtual Reality (VR) model that could be experienced on a computer screen. This virtual environment gave designers, planners, engineers, consultants and client representatives a realistic and life-sized place to walk and talk through the various aspects of the project.

After we layered on the virtual reality component, the resulting 1:1 representation of the project site also enabled 360-degree panoramas suitable for mobile VR devices used at in-person public consultations, as several mobile devices can be deployed at one venue. Panoramas can also be hosted on a website to reach a wider audience. The next level we’re exploring is a computer-connected VR device which would allow for more detailed design review and for users to interact with the virtual underground space design at a real-world scale. These representations could also be used in a virtual consultation room using �����Ƶ’s interactive web-based tool.

Another benefit to this layering of technologies is that visualization models are not limited to the illustration of design details; data can be converted to other software to view shadow, noise and traffic impact assessments; 4D (BIM) simulation can also help to visualize the construction process.

This approach is unique because the novel integration of these innovative technologies has rarely been investigated within the framework of a single project and never-before used to explore underground space. Stakeholders often think only of BIM, but with an open mind this concept can be (and has been) replicated with different combinations of the various available technologies to suit the needs of other clients and projects.

Our study demonstrates the clear benefits for all parties involved in the planning and design of the conceptual scheme for underground space development in densely populated urban areas. Designers, planners, clients and consultants can visualize the components of a design at a 1:1 scale in ways that cannot be matched by 2D or 3D software alone. For the public, the realistic nature of the VR-based model brings the project and its full potential to life.

Learn more about this and other explorations of the potential of subterranean space to revolutionize the future urban experience in��the new book Underground Cities: New Frontiers in Urban Living, introduced��here.

�����Ƶ would like to acknowledge the Head of Geotechnical Engineering Office and the Director of the Civil Engineering and Development Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, for the permission to publish.�� The usage of material was authorized by ACUUS, the Associated Research Centers for the Urban Underground Space. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not accept responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of any reproduced versions of the material concern.

Unless otherwise indicated, the photographs found in this article are subject to copyright owned by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). ��Prior written consent is required for a third party who intends to reproduce, distribute, display or otherwise use such photographs in any way or for any purpose. ��Such request for consent shall be addressed to the CEDD via email at enquiry@cedd.gov.hk

[1] 3D Spatial Data is a set of territory-wide digital 3D model data created to represent the shape, appearance and position of various types of ground features including building, infrastructure and terrain.

The post Going underground: untapped land uses beneath our feet appeared first on Without Limits.

�����Ƶ’s planners agree that the creaking planning system, weakened and complicated by repeated tweaks, does need a reboot. But we argue that the English system needs to be joined-up and visionary rather than continuing to rely on a piecemeal approach.

Much of the media commentary has been about changes to development management to underpin recovery and as stimulus to the development industry. The main thrust of which is to make it easier – or no longer necessary – to secure planning permission. On its own, such deregulation will not create the future places and communities we need, nor will it enable well-rounded decisions to be made on where to build, regenerate or protect.

As a starter for 10, here are some of the changes we believe should be included in the forthcoming reforms:

1.Effective strategic regional plans

Unlike the devolved nations of the UK, England (with the exception of London) does not have full statutory planning above the local level. Indeed, England is the only country in Europe lacking a regional or national vision. This means big decisions on growth must be made at the sub-regional scale – a big ask for local authorities with different ways of doing things, limited capacity and competing priorities.

Development corridors such as the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge arc, focussed around common economic, infrastructure or community priorities are already going some way to address this gap by bringing together stakeholders to achieve shared outcomes. Similar approaches are needed across areas where transformative infrastructure is to be targeted – the Northern Powerhouse Rail/Trans-Pennine corridor, perhaps?

If government is serious about place-based solutions to balance development pressures in over-heated areas and levelling-up the under-performing parts of the country, it must ensure that regional or corridor spatial and economic plans are considered at the national level. A new devolution white paper is promised for the autumn and regional planning must form part of the toolkit.

Under the current system, there are significant barriers to sub-regional and corridor-scale growth. If this can’t be done at an England-wide level, we recommend replacing the shambolic Duty to Cooperate – introduced in 2011 to require local authorities to work together on strategic planning issues – with a more effective strategic planning mechanism. A requirement to produce joint plans is needed, underpinned by a “Duty to Agree”. A developed regional spatial planning structure will provide the context for this shift of emphasis.

2. A new role for Local Plans: Support for building new homes in the right places

With regional spatial plans in place, Local Plans will be able to focus better on local issues. The new regime needs to give local authorities more teeth to ensure that plans for new homes are built in the right places – i.e. where the infrastructure is or can be provided and at a scale that means local facilities and services are viable and accessible to all. This could mean that housing demand is met by development in adjacent authority areas if this is the more sustainable location, aligning to transport infrastructure and avoiding environmental or flood risk areas.

This approach would support genuinely sustainable development rather than the current developer-led process which can result in piecemeal growth in areas which aren’t necessarily well served by public transport. In such areas, developers or government investment should provide the infrastructure upfront – which includes education, medical and social provision to build cohesive communities.

To meet the government’s target of building 300,000 new homes a year and to deliver on the levelling up agenda, a national system is required to ensure development happens around the country in places which make sense. Decisions should be based on sound economic, demographic and environmental data – a departure from planning based on market signals, which has focussed development in the places where land values are highest rather than lower demand places where investment is needed. This will need to be underpinned by public sector infrastructure investment and direct delivery to de-risk and incentivise the market.

3. Make garden communities a reality

Garden communities are large-scale strategic new developments of at least 1,500 dwellings – usually urban extensions or stand-alone new communities. These new community developments need bespoke planning approaches which can accelerate growth but maintain quality and flexibility over 10-20 years of delivery. The current system fails local authorities who think big on strategic growth, so alternative approaches are needed. Local Development Orders, already on the statute books, which provide permitted development rights for specific types of development in defined locations, should be used to promote and consent Garden Communities rather than Development Consent Orders, which are required for large developments deemed nationally significant infrastructure projects but are not flexible to the changing needs of a community development as it grows and matures.
Using LDOs means garden communities can be promoted along with the Local Plans, resulting in a more evidence-based examination. If granted alongside the Local Plan, there will be no need for a subsequent outline planning application, saving time and money.

4. Enhanced use of Development Corporations

Promoting the larger Garden Community programmes (potentially for 20,000 or more homes) is beyond the capacity of many local authority planning departments and, indeed, the planning system itself. Similarly, major regeneration projects which bring urban land back to economic or environmental purpose require the mediation of so many stakeholders that their development is often fraught with delay. In addition, if local authorities are resource constrained then there are only a handful of master developers and developer/investors able to work at the scale of the complex and transformative brownfield and greenfield projects we expect in the coming years.

The appropriate resources, including top-level political support and certainty of funding for infrastructure, should be provided to the promoters of new community and complex regeneration projects. Such resources may include enhanced roles and powers for Development Corporations, dedicated bodies set up to deliver large-scale and complex development, blending local leadership and the heft of government. Such delivery bodies have an excellent track record in delivering sustainable growth at this scale – particularly from the 20th century new town programme. Government is considering¹ a potential wider role for them to facilitate growth. The corporation model may also create the context and certainty of commitment that developers and investors need to engage in some of the most complex urban projects. Accelerating the use and powers of development corporations should form part of the planning system review.

5. A focus on the future of town centres

Much of the drive from government for planning reform has centred on the need to accelerate housing delivery. Recently, the decline of retail has pushed the challenge of supporting struggling town centres to the fore and significant resources are now being channelled into the Towns Fund schemes. However, the economic impacts of coronavirus have highlighted the structural fragility of town centres. At the same time, new value has been placed on local services and retailers who’ve been serving local communities during lockdown.

To flourish, town centres need to be at the heart of places of all scales, and a focus for a levelling-up and wellbeing agenda. This will not be achieved by flexible permitted development or changing the Use Classes Order to make it easier to change the function of a building or land. Town centres need special attention in the planning reform package requiring the thought through downsizing of protected retail-only frontage, promotion of new forms of local co-working space, encouragement of high-quality, mixed town centre living, and encouraging the move of public social infrastructure back into central areas.

6. Reform Strategic Environmental Assessment practice

Planning reform needs to add a new land use dimension – the enhancement of environmental and wildlife assets. The new Environment Act² formalises the concepts of Environmental and Biodiversity Net Gain from building and infrastructure developments. Consequently, it is essential that this requirement is reflected in new planning legislation.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations³ already require the potential environmental effects of development to be considered alongside social and economic issues⁴, embedding environmental assets in land use plans. However, to value environmental capital equally alongside economic and housing priorities, the SEA needs to be at the heart of policy creation. In particular, it should inform how the unbuilt environment can make a positive contribution to growth opportunities and to tackle climate change impacts. This work should include the comprehensive review of Green Belts so that they are no longer a passive constraint, but can contribute fully to housing needs, where appropriate, and to environmental and biodiversity capacity close to our metropolitan areas.

The SEA legislation aims are admirable and ensuring a systematic consideration of alternatives remains crucial. However, in reality such assessments have often been done badly and are sometimes undertaken to justify the strategic development decisions already made rather than to inform options and policy development. The legislation does not need reform. It needs boosting in importance as a tool to inform and justify, not just post-rationalise, land use planning decisions.

7. Ensure sites allocated for green infrastructure in Local Plans

Reserving space for natural or semi-natural features will ensure environment considerations are treated on a level playing field with housing and employment concerns. For many developments, this will involve a requirement for on-site provision. When large-scale developments or high-density urban schemes cannot provide suitable provision locally, they will also need to identify strategic off-site land resources. Funds from developers should be channelled into the restoration and long-term protection and management of these natural sites.

To realise the greatest benefits of the pooling land and financial resources, landowners and local authorities need to work together to identify and protect the identified areas. If environmental net gain is to be an enabler of growth and not a constraint, this is another area where local authorities may need to effectively co-operate with others in their city region. Planning reform should look to embed the identification of net gain locations, informed by the SEA process, in strategic and local plans.

8. Make the Manual for Streets mandatory

The anticipated planning reform legislation will focus on planning delivery in England, but the primary legislation should not overlook issues of quality. To bring to life the government’s ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful’⁵ agenda and to improve the attractiveness of active travel (walking and cycling), the reform package should address the long overdue need to improve the quality of streets and urban realm. The recent National Housing Design Audit came to the same conclusion as those of a decade ago: highway design is dragging quality down to unacceptable levels, designing in private car dependency.

Originally published in 2007, the Manual for Streets provides guidance for practitioners in England and Wales involved in the design and planning of new streets. The laudable aim of this national guidance is to make development more people-oriented and reduce dependence on private motor vehicles. An updated Manual for Streets is being prepared: it should be made mandatory as part of the wider reform package.

9. Establish a Design Quality Unit

We welcome the government’s increasing commitment to the importance of good design⁶ but this runs the risk of getting lost in the planning reform proposals. If the planning system is to be freed-up and sped-up there should at the same time be an emphasis on the quality of buildings and places. Indeed, quality should have a heightened role in informing design-making. To be effective, such ambitions need to be supercharged by a dedicated agency to support developers and local authorities in promoting good design practice.

10. Properly resource local planning authorities

Our final point concerns local authorities’ ability to respond. Whatever form planning reform legislation takes there will need to be well-resourced and skilled planning teams in local authorities and devolved bodies to enable effective implementation.

Cuts to local authority budgets over the past decade⁷ have resulted in very limited capacity to develop and implement policies and projects needed to advance levelling up. Developers have long called for the proper resourcing of planning authorities to enable efficient and high-quality processing of proposals. Even before the full impact of the coronavirus pandemic was felt, some were saying that it was “ambitious”⁸ for local authorities to meet the 2023 target for getting a Local Plan adopted, with two-thirds of councils lacking an up-to-date plan⁹.

Today, lost income related to the coronavirus lockdown has hurt the finances of many local authorities¹⁰, with planning departments particularly affected. Implementing and delivering a new planning system requires adequate resourcing, which should be part of the reform package.

Ready to respond

Planners have a significant role in helping to address the economic, societal and environment challenges post-coronavirus and deliver on the government’s levelling up agenda. When the government publishes its policy paper, �����Ƶ’s planning teams are poised to respond, arguing for the most effective framework for planners and the development industry to deliver.

The post Rethinking planning: 10 big changes the forthcoming English reforms should address appeared first on Without Limits.

As countries across the world begin to ease coronavirus restrictions, the concerns that caused the rapid reduction in urban public transport usage are likely to linger and many will seek alternate forms of transport that can support ongoing physical distancing. Melbourne, Australia, is one such city experiencing this shift, and it faces an all-too common challenge.

Historically, in the greater Melbourne area private vehicle usage has accounted for 73��percent of journeys to work. If transit users shift to private vehicle use post-pandemic, increasing this share, it would risk further congestion and may see existing infrastructure pushed beyond its capability. Melbourne must therefore provide real alternatives to car use for those avoiding public transport, and in doing so embrace the opportunity to encourage permanent mode shift away from private vehicles and towards cycling.

The City of Melbourne recently announced the roll out of 40 kilometres of permanent cycle lanes through the central business district and inner suburbs to support the recent increase in cycling demand, and to encourage even more commuters to take to two wheels. However, the onus is now on the State and Federal Governments to use infrastructure, legislation and technology mechanisms to deliver a comprehensive, city-wide network improvement program that promotes cycling as a key mode of transport.

Find out more about Melbourne’s post-pandemic transport opportunity in our ‘Rethinking Mobility’ paper.

The post Rethinking mobility: the role of cycling in the post-pandemic recovery appeared first on Without Limits.

Our expectations of water infrastructure are starting to change due to a confluence of two factors: Firstly, infrastructure constructed more than a hundred years ago is showing signs of age at a time when the true scale of the challenges presented by climate change are being realized. Secondly, demand for water is also increasing. Cities are racing to keep up with increasing urban populations, address social inequities, attract new businesses, and compete globally for economic investment. To avoid stretching water-related infrastructure to breaking point, new thinking is required.

Four areas are ripe for change

1/ We must plan for the need for ongoing investment in water infrastructure. While considerable uncertainty surrounds the exact extent and timing of sea level rise impacts and flooding from future storms, the question is not if but when. Generally, as the models improve, they are showing that impacts are occurring more quickly than previously predicted (in line with current observations). This means we need to constantly update our approach and reinvest in our water infrastructure, whether in our flood protection systems or in our clean water supply.

2/ Individual municipal budgets are stretched, so cities must collaborate across jurisdictions and agencies. Joint powers authorities and other cross-jurisdictional forms of governance can take the lead in solving water infrastructure problems that affect multiple cities and communities at once. After all, flooding does not respect physical, political, or socio-economic boundaries.

3/ New financing methods are needed. Traditionally, infrastructure projects have been funded by raising taxes or through insurance premiums, and utility fees. These sources are insufficient given the scale of investment needed. Initiatives like the Milken Institute’s Financial Innovations Labs series brings together key experts and decision makers to identify new ideas and develop proposed solutions for raising money and tapping into new combinations of financial sources to tackle our most pressing economic development challenges.

4/ The business case for infrastructure projects should take into account social and environmental benefits. Rallying support for these projects is easier if the community understands not only the dangers that these projects seek to prevent, but also the additional benefits from combining infrastructure enhancements with other benefits they can enjoy.

In this article, we provide examples of best practices in each of these areas.

Be vigilant and keep investing

Many of our major cities are located on the coast or on the banks of rivers, where the need to invest in infrastructure is acute. In 1982, London completed the Thames Barrier, steel gates that can close to protect most of Greater London’s floodplain from high tides and stormwater surges. However, rising sea levels and more powerful storms combined with population growth means the Thames Barrier cannot cope alone. The city’s combined sewer system, constructed in the mid-1800s, has reached capacity. On average, sewage into the river 50 times a year. Further investment is needed to manage overland flooding.

Part of the solution is the , a £4.2 billion (US$6.4 billion) project to build a 25-kilometer-long tunnel beneath London to prevent sewage overflows from reaching the Thames. It is slated for completion by 2024. The UK government recognized that the project was nationally significant, highlighting the government’s need to be constantly engaged in new efforts to mitigate and adapt to an unpredictable and changing climate.

Co-operate across administrative borders

��Municipal agencies have traditionally operated with siloed budgets with narrow performance indicators. They rarely have the mandate to work across agencies to solve present and looming challenges. However, when cross-departmental collaboration occurs successfully, tangible benefits can be realized, as the Resilient Corridor project in Chicago shows.

Managing Chicago’s stormwater flooding with resilient corridors

After a severe rainstorm in 2013, City staff from the Departments of Planning, Water Management, Transportation, Office of Emergency Management and Communications, the Mayor’s Office, and staff from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District convened to consider strategies to protect the city against stormwater damage. As a result of this , the city secured a Housing and Urban Development Block Grant for their Resilient Corridor Project, which develops landscapes to conserve water and lower runoff rates on city-owned land that is maintained by community volunteers. Work began in 2017, and now instead of floods, communities have new green and amenity space, enhanced public realm, and improved neighborhood resilience.

Chicago’s Humboldt Park Beach’s swimming area reborn

Chicago’s Park District and Department of Streets and Sanitation have also successfully collaborated to improve the efficiency of public spending and create attractive and safe community spaces at Humboldt Park Beach in Chicago’s West Side.

The Park District created the in 1973 by altering part of an existing lagoon, providing a popular swimming area for local residents. However, the swimming area depended on the municipal drinking supply for its water, an expensive way to operate a public amenity like this. Water quality issues often forced temporary closures, which finally caused the city to close the beach. The Park District and the Department of Streets and Sanitation came together to review their capital programs and their key performance indicators. Instead of creating new sewers at the park, they realized that if they both invested in a wetland treatment landscape, they could clean stormwater locally and use it to supply the swimming facility. This solution had the added benefit of decreasing the burden on the wastewater treatment network being built by the Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation in the area. As a result of these joint efforts, the beach reopened in August 2016.

The Resilient By Design Challenge’s Resilient Equity Hubs in Oakland

San Leandro Bay touches the Oakland Coliseum area, the main island of the City of Alameda, Bay Farm Island, Oakland International Airport, and the San Leandro watershed. Cross-jurisdictional coordination is therefore essential.

In 2017, the was launched, bringing together nine design teams to collaborate with communities and municipalities to improve resilience in the face of rising sea levels, storms, and flooding. �����Ƶ led one of these design teams, the , focusing on the San Leandro Bay Estuary to tackle sea level rise, groundwater flooding, and social equity.

After extensive interaction with various community groups and other stakeholders, the All Bay Collective developed several long-range proposals; among them a governance idea for —alliances among agencies, community advocates, and residents who commit to share resources across jurisdictions and boundaries.

Shared governance arrangements such as a joint powers authority and combined special districts, dedicated to topics such as geological hazard abatement or community benefits, can help communities implement their visions of resilience across city borders. These arrangements elevate acute social equity challenges, currently thought of as one community’s problem, to regional importance and enable issues like neighborhood flood protection to be addressed and integrated as part of large critical infrastructure improvements. Many of the lessons learned are now informing ��and also work with the San Francisco Planning for the .

��Apply innovative financing models

Even when there are technical solutions to known water infrastructure challenges, financing can still be a challenge. Innovative approaches to pay for these essential projects are still needed, and many communities, such as New York, have embarked on initiatives that can inspire and inform other cities and regions.

New York’s response to Hurricane Sandy

In 2012, when Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, it resulted in more than 40 deaths and cost the city $19 billion in both damages and lost economic activity. As climate change continues to supercharge storms and raise sea levels, the next storm could be even more damaging. The city’s own climate resilience estimates that properly protecting the Lower Manhattan Financial District from both sea level rise and inland flooding by expanding the East River shoreline could cost as much as $10 billion—far more than the city’s current capital plan budget. ��Possible federal funding can only provide so much support.

To identify possibilities for funding resiliency initiatives along the coast of Lower Manhattan, the Milken Institute, a nonprofit economic think tank, held a in April 2019. The lab workshop assembled municipal officials, academics and advocates, insurance industry representatives, investors and financial institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to discuss potential innovative models for funding climate resilience.

The result was a series of recommendations that could close the funding gap for the Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency program by improving data collection and risk quantification, expanding municipal bond options, creating an insurance surcharge that would feed into a state or regional trust fund, and exploring the possibility of raising funds by working with private developers, including perhaps selling air rights or development rights to newly created land or setting up tax increment financing.

Also discussed in the Financial Innovations Lab was Goldman Sach’s finding that in the state of New York, there were $47 billion worth of property, casualty, and title insurance premiums in 2017, and that applying a 2 percent surcharge to these policies could accelerate funding for the much-needed programs for Lower Manhattan as well as other resilience programs across the state.

Address inequity

In many of our cities, low-income neighborhoods and regional critical infrastructure are often co-located in lower-lying areas that are more vulnerable to flooding. As the Federal Emergency Management Agency redraws its flood maps, many of the most economically challenged populations are finding their home insurance rates skyrocketing, destabilizing many of our communities. At the same time, adjacent large-scale infrastructure critical to our regional mobility and economic development must be rebuilt to withstand climate challenges. If the economic benefits of stabilizing these challenged communities are considered when planning large-scale infrastructure programs, it could unlock new funding streams – enabling projects that might otherwise go unfunded.

Large catastrophes like hurricanes and flooding command media attention, but the day-to-day impacts from seasonal rains and high tides affect regional infrastructure and hurt mostly low-income communities by flooding basements, giving rise to mold problems, and backing up sewers. These everyday challenges of groundwater flooding should be given as much consideration as the long-term threats from storm events or sea level rise.

The analysis can also lead to opportunities to create new open spaces—sorely needed in many urban communities—to improve air quality and build affordable housing.

By demonstrating that well-made investments can have multiple benefits, cities can increase investment opportunities. Multiple-benefit approaches can guide infrastructure design, rally support from a broader range of community members, and widen the range of potential funding sources.

SFPUC realizes resilience through infrastructure and community benefits

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) launched a 20-year program to invest in upgrading the city’s aging combined sewer system, parts of which are more than 100 years old. Dubbed the Sewer System Improvement Program (), it will improve not only the gray infrastructure, which manages wastewater, but also green infrastructure, which manages stormwater. To convince the public, who must bear the impacts of such a massive construction effort in their neighborhoods, authorities are keen to communicate how this will improve resident’s lives. The SFPUC developed a Triple Bottom Line calculator with �����Ƶ to help articulate the economic, environmental, and equity performance of design alternatives to allow the public to decide which project to support.

One of the SSIP’s green infrastructure projects, the , improved stormwater management by creating rain gardens and installing permeable pavements. Rainwater can percolate through the soil before entering the sewer system, avoiding sudden surges that can lead to overflows. As part of the work, the SFPUC created a new corner plaza and improved the streetscape to enhance access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.

The post Water has no boundaries appeared first on Without Limits.

Local air quality is getting at lot of air time as awareness about the impacts of pollutants on our health, lives and planet increases.�� However, the tools and guidance we use to manage local air quality and tackle air quality issues derive from decades-old studies and incremental updates to legislation.

The result is rigid appraisal methods focused on legal compliance with sometimes semi-arbitrary thresholds and limits based on simplistic ideas of where people spend time.

As air quality professionals we should be challenging this irrational and discriminatory situation. We need to consider what level of pollution people are exposed to, irrespective of what activity they are involved in or whether they are at home, at work or at leisure in a public place. We also need to consider how to take better account of those who are more sensitive to the health effects of pollution.

Health and Legislation

Europe lacks a holistic view of the effect of air pollutants on the population due to a disconnect between ambient air quality legislation, public health responses, and workplace exposure to air pollutants. Exposure to air pollutants experienced at work, at home or in public places are treated differently. We also do little to consider air quality in conjunction with factors such as health, poverty, social mobility and education; and we do little to understand the implication of time spent in different locations.

For example, due to a disparity between environmental and occupational regulation the customer buying a coffee in a railway station concourse is subject to a far lower pollution threshold than the barista serving the coffee. So, we allow the barista to inhale a far higher dose of pollution during the course of a day than the customer.

Take another example: we are very careful when it comes to allowing new houses to be built alongside a polluted road, yet offices and shops can be built along the same road with no concern for the effect of the pollution on the office worker or shop assistant.

Health and Behaviour

Understanding of air pollution and our exposure to it is improving. For instance, we know that indoor air pollution can be exacerbated by energy-efficient building regulations that limit air changes, or by reliance on mechanical ventilation from polluted external locations that have been determined by construction and design needs rather than health or environmental concerns. We also understand the benefit of issuing alerts and advising people to alter their behaviour – this is particularly useful for asthma sufferers.

Our daily lives are so varied, but our understanding is limited about the difference in exposure between those who walk, cycle, drive or take the bus or train to work, for example. We don’t know how opening a window or altering car or bus ventilation affects our exposure to pollution. We do attempt to address air pollution in specific situations such as railway stations, but even this doesn’t look at the different ways people within the space could be affected.

The result is that we focus our efforts on rigidly defined locations based on static data sets such as address point data. We don’t look at the individuals who use that space and how they actually spend their time.

We need to understand how, where and when critical population groups move and behave in order to truly attribute health-response effects that recognise not only the level of exposure but also the sensitivity of individuals to air pollution.

Big Data Solutions

Big Data technology gives us the ability to analyse information from data sets that are too large or complex to work with using traditional techniques. For the purposes of this article, one key advantage of this technology is that it allows us to anonymously track individuals as part of larger populations. It is routinely used to inform transport policy, using journey origin, destination and travel mode, and can make links to qualities such as health, wealth, education.

In reality, these are not rigid and discrete indices but truly holistic values. Increased wealth tends towards higher car ownership, greater range of travel, and higher levels of education and social engagement, resulting in better overall health and lower sensitivity to pollution[1].

It must be recognised that those most sensitive to changes in air quality are also least able to respond to the measures required to improve it. For example, a societal shift to low-emission vehicles would benefit poorest individuals most – but they would be least likely to afford it[2].�� Sensitivity is therefore needed when designing interventions, with care taken to understand how they will affect behaviour and lifestyle, and not just focus on air quality in isolation.

Ultimately, a holistic approach that includes social and behavioural feedback would inevitably change how we appraise potential interventions. A holistic approach would use air quality improvement as a mechanism to promote change and blur the lines between specialist disciplines to deliver an informed consideration of the knock-on effects.

[1]

[2] Joanna H. Barnes⁎, Tim J. Chatterton, James W.S. Longhurst (2019) Emissions vs exposure: Increasing injustice from road traffic related air pollution in the United Kingdom, Air Quality Management Resource Centre, University of the West of England, UK, Transportation Research Part D 73 (2019) 56–66

The post Rethinking how we tackle air quality and health appeared first on Without Limits.

�����Ƶ forecasts an average 6.2 percent increase in tender prices over the five-year forecast period, with a peak in 2022 as the constraints surrounding resources will be at their greatest. That’s a marked increase from the average 4.5 percent as recorded by[1] over the past five years. Our forecast is based on a managed exit from the EU with minor disruption on the movements of people and materials.

Increased infrastructure output

One of the factors that can cause prices to increase is infrastructure spend. The government’s 2018 identifies more than £400 billion of planned investment in new infrastructure projects, around half from the private sector.�� Of this, £190 billion is scheduled to be spent by 2020/21.

Forecasts[2] for spending on new infrastructure this year point to an average increase of 8.9 percent. This is set to fall to an average of 6.2 percent in 2010 and 5.2 percent in 2021. Across the three years, average infrastructure spend is set to grow by seven percent per annum.

Historically in the construction sector, output tends to correlate to market conditions as measured by the BCIS market conditions factor indices. On this basis, the sustained increase in output we are expecting over the next three to five years should lead to higher contractor tender prices.

Resource constraints

The UK’s construction labour shortage is well known. A recent cross-industry research report entitled ‘Shortage occupations in construction’ surveyed 276 companies representing 160,000 workers. It highlighted severe shortages in key construction trades including construction and building trade supervisors, general labourers, quantity surveyors, construction project managers, civil engineers, bricklayers, carpenters, plant and machine operatives, production managers and directors in construction, and chartered surveyors.

Based on a seven percent increase in Infrastructure output per year over the next five years, �����Ƶ predicts the industry will need an additional 40,000 engineering professionals, 20,000 architects, planners and surveyors, and 70,000 tradespeople in construction and building.

Labour is not the only shortage. Increased infrastructure output will also place increased pressure on key materials and construction equipment. Our modelling forecasts the UK will need an additional 80,000 tonnes of structural steel and 1.2 million tonnes of cement to service the planned infrastructure requirements.

Suppliers and training providers are likely to struggle to meet these requirements. In the short term at least, it is probable that resource constraints will impact availability, pushing input costs higher as supply and demand economics takes hold and contractors pass on increased costs to clients.

Infrastructure contractor margins

The recent collapse of construction giant and the appointment of administrators to manage the insolvency of UK contractor highlight the impact of historically low profit margins, sustained over several years. This has reduced the financial buffer contractors could rely on when projects go awry, as some inevitably do.

The long-awaited normalisation of margins to two to three percent has not materialised. In fact, margins have actually decreased according to �����Ƶ research. We analysed the top ten Infrastructure companies’ average margins over the last five years, showing profit levels were reduced almost to zero in 2018 and 2019.

This situation is likely to change particularly when it comes to the sorts of complex infrastructure projects that are planned. Given the level of financial risk involved, contractors will need higher margins to participate.

Conclusion

To mitigate these increased costs, careful consideration will be needed on issues such as who is best-placed to carry the contractual risk of inflation on multi-year projects, and whether the forward-purchase of materials could limit costs. Another consideration is the fact that price rises in the infrastructure sector are likely to exceed the headline inflation figure (CPI), which some budget envelopes are indexed to.

[1] Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) – Civil Engineering Tender Price Index.

[2] 2019 forecasts range from 7.6 percent according to the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors/ Oxford Economics forecast, 10 percent from global information services company Experian, and 9.3 percent from the Construction Products Association (CPA).

The post Infrastructure prices rises to exceed inflation, peaking in 2022 appeared first on Without Limits.