ssee srra paper wissing griffith 2011

7/31/2019 SSEE SRRA Paper Wissing Griffith 2011

1/25

1

SpringvaleRoadRailAllianceSustainabilityReportingFramework

1.Introduction

1.1 Sustainability in Victoria

Australias ecological footprint is estimated to be approximately 7.5 global hectares per

capita1, or three times larger than the world average and over four times larger than

the worlds biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares available per person2. Major causes of

Australias high ecological footprint include a very low urban density, the high

percentage of private transport trips and substantial road congestion.

Transport is the second largest contributor to Victorias ecological footprint at 17%, of

which vehicles account for 90% of emissions3.

1.2 State of Victor ian Transport

The latest Engineers Australia State of Victorian Infrastructure report rates Victorias

transport infrastructure as poor and likely to decline further4

.

This is in contrast to before the Second World War when Victoria had one of the most

extensive and effective public transport systems in the world. Since 1950, there has

been a 30 fold increase in the use of private vehicles as the main mode of mobility

through the city5. Today they represent roughly 90% of passenger transport5.

In 2005, road congestion in Victoria was estimated to cost $3 billion per year and is

expected to increase by 103% to $6.1 billion by 2020 4. The Victorian rail network is

projected to be over capacity by 2014 and the road network over capacity by 2020.

Road congestion is one area where efficiency of infrastructure affects productivity in

Australian cities5.

A significant cause of congestion in Melbournes road network occurs because of road

and rail infrastructure interaction with each other through level crossings. Today,

Melbourne has 182 railway level crossings in comparison to Sydney, which has about a


2/25

2

dozen6. Melbourne stopped its program of replacing level crossings in the early 1970s,

to divert money to construction of the Eastern Freeway7.

1.3 The Victori an Transport PlanThe Victorian Transport Plan was released by the Labor Victorian Government in 2007.

On the back of learnings from Melbourne 2030 and its subsequent update into the

Melbourne @ 5 Million report, the Victorian Transport Plan aimed to continue the

integration of landuse and transport infrastructure and to encourage much greater

utilisation of public transport. A significant focus was placed on sustainability.

The removal of the most notorious railway level crossings was identified as a key

component of Linking Victorian Communities, one of the six strategic priorities in theVictorian Transport Plan.

1.4 Springvale Road, Nunaw ading

Springvale Road is an important north south link in Melbournes eastern suburbs and an

important access route to the Eastern Freeway and EastLink.

In RACV surveys in 2006 and 2008, Springvale Road was rated as Victoria's mostdangerous level crossing with more than 125,000 cars crossing each day, and the "the

worst congestion point in the state"8.

Springvale Road is intersected by the Belgrave-Lilydale rail line in the form of a level

crossing in Nunawading. Approximately 220 trains cross Springvale Road each day.

Although figures for the Springvale Road level crossing are not available, the level

crossing at Murrumbeena station which was rated the worst by RACV in 2010, has 20

trains crossing the road between 8 and 9am each day6. The boom gates can remain

down for as long as 38 minutes in the hour 6,9.

The Federal and State Governments together with the City of Whitehorse undertook the

Springvale Road / Whitehorse Road Detailed Improvement Study to assess the options

for a solution to this area. The Study recommended a grade separation by lowering the

railway crossing under Springvale Road and other minor improvement works.


3/25

3

The Springvale Road Rail Separation project was announced on 29th April 2009 with

commitment to funding jointly by the Federal Government ($80M) and State

Government ($60M).

2. Springvale Road Rail Alliance2.1 The Alli ance

The Springvale Road Rail Alliance (SRRA) was formed in June 2009. The main partners

of SRRA were VicRoads, John Holland, Arup, KBR Pty Ltd, Department of Transport

(DoT) and the current rail operator, Metro.

2.2 The Scope of t he Proj ect

The scope was to provide an integrated transport solution that will reduce road

congestion and improve safety for road and rail by removing the current level crossing.

There were three main components of the SRRA project:

1. Train Station

2. Rail track works

3. Springvale Road Grade Separation

2.3 Key Resul t Areas (KRA)

Four headline Key Result Areas were established for SRRA:

Sustainability Cost Stakeholders Function and Quality.


4/25

4

2.4 What is sustainabi lit y for SRRA

For the SRRA, Sustainability was defined as optimising the economic performance of theproject while enhancing the societal, environmental and natural resource benefits.

2.5 Sustainability Objectives

The key sustainability objectives of the SRRA Project were to ensure:

the provision of a consistent and uniform approach to the project which assuresthat the required standards for sustainability are attained and maintained for theworks;

that client's standards, specifications and anticipated sustainability requirementsare consistently and uniformly achieved and that the client is provided with

verification that the required sustainability requirements have been achieved.


5/25

5

2.6 Sustainability Key Perform ance I ndicators (KPI )

Three KPIs were established for the Sustainability KRA of the SRRA Project. The KPIs

are summarised in Table 1.1 (below).

KPI MCOS St ret ch Gamebreak ing

Energy Building design

achieves between 5

and 10% reduction

in annual energy

consumption when

compared to Section

J of the BCA

(kWh/m2).

Building design

achieves between

10 and 20%

reduction in annual

energy consumption

when compared to

Section J of the BCA

(kWh/m2).

Building design

achieves greater

than 20% reduction

in annual energy

consumption when

compared to Section

J of the BCA

(kWh/m2).

Water Rainwater or grey

water harvesting

and 2 star building

water fixtures (WCs,

urinal flush controls,

taps and

showerheads)

installed.

Rainwater or grey

water harvesting

and 4 star building


urinal flush controls,

taps and

showerheads)

installed.

Rainwater or grey

water harvesting

and 6 star building


flush controls, taps

and showerheads

(subject to vandal

proof availability))and water less

urinals installed.

Materials Sustainability of one

of; concrete, steel,

timber, PVC and

paint is considered

during project

development and

construction.

1 point achieved

applying GreenStar

for Offices v3,

Materials criteria for

any of; concrete,

steel, sustainable

timber or PVCduring project

development and

construction.

2 points achieved

applying GreenStar

for Offices v3,

Materials criteria

for; concrete, steel,

sustainable timber

and PVC duringproject development

and construction.


6/25

6

Green Star provided benchmarks to assess the sustainability credentials and

performance of materials, energy and water used in the new train station building. The

targets established are outlined in Table 1.1.

However, unlike rail buildings, at the time of design and construction, there was no

nationally or state agreed framework for what is considered to be sustainable railinfrastructure in design, construction or operation.

Despite the lack of understanding on what constituted sustainable rail infrastructure,

both government and private alliance partners were required to report on their

sustainability credentials and performance of rail infrastructure.

2.7 Sustainability in rail infr ast ructur e

The Alliance developed a Sustainability Management Plan prior to the commencement

of works. It outlined context, objectives, roles, responsibilities and how sustainability

would be considered in the design and construction phases.

2.8 Sustainability Reporting Requirements

The commencement of the SRRA project coincided with the requirement for largeconstruction companies to report on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use in

accordance with the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (the NGER

Act).

Although neither the SRRA project, or the John Holland Group (JHG) as project

contractor, triggered individual NGER reporting requirements, both were required to

report on greenhouse gas and energy use because the JHG was a subsidiary of

Leighton Holdings, which did trigger the reporting threshold.

The Department of Transport (DoT) and VicRoads, as Victorian government bodies,were required to provide reports back to the Victorian Government on their

Environmental Management System (EMS) and Sustainability. The Victorian

Government made a commitment in its 2006 strategy `Our Environment, Our Future to

use the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines for the public sector.


7/25

7

The John Holland Group also had corporate sustainability reporting requirements and

had identified that although they were not yet in a position to report against the full

GRI Reporting Framework, we have used it to inform the issues covered in this report10.

2.9 The Springvale Road Rail Alliance Sustainabil it y Report ingFramework

The Springvale Road Rail Alliance (SRRA) Sustainability Reporting Framework was

designed to be a one stop shop for sustainability reporting across the project. It was

designed to be used at all levels, from reporting on KRA and KPI progress, to assisting

in the design and construction process, to ensuring contractor compliance with KPIs

and assessing construction performance and compliance with environmental legislation

and regulations. It sought to enable both horizontal and vertical integration ofsustainability reporting.

The Global Reporting Initiative framework was chosen because it was identified by

Government, the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development and the constructer

as their preferred mechanism to report on sustainability performance.

2.10 Adoption of t he Springvale Road Rail Alliance Sustainabil it yReporting Framew ork

The development of the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework was a significant

success in bringing together the various sustainability reporting requirements into one

mechanism.

However, adoption of the SRRA framework was piecemeal. Some components, such as

environment emissions, amount of recycled water used in the construction process and

amount of materials taken off site to be recycled were relatively easy to capture and

report. Others such as lifecycle impacts in design and operation, staff engagement,health and well being and societal benefits were not.

Due to severe time constraints during the project, qualitative and quantitative

assessment of why adoption of the framework was adhoc was not able to be

undertaken during construction. Anecdotally however, there were a number of reasons


8/25

8

identified by the Construction Environment Manager why the adoption of the SRRA

framework was limited. These include:

The project timeline was always tight, right from the inception. The project wasannounced in April 2009, was awarded to the Alliance in June 2009, early works

started in July 2009, full construction commenced in August 2009 and wasessentially completed in early January 2010. The extraordinarily tight timelines

meant that sustainability requirements could not be fully considered and/or

translated into the construction process and the operation phase.

New reporting requirements had just come into play at the beginning of theconstruction process (NGER), the implications of which had not been fully

identified for organizations within the Alliance

Not enough resources to develop, coordinate and implement sustainabilityrequirements in rail infrastructure design and construction, largely because rail

infrastructure sustainability considerations and requirements were not known The SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework was long and complex, which it

needed to be to capture all relevant social, economic and environmental

requirements

Alliance staff were working very long hours and sustainability reporting wasadding another task to an already busy schedule

Construction industry is typically conservative and focused on economicefficiencies and productivity. Significant resistance from site supervisors to

meeting environmental and sustainability requirements- not seen as necessary

and as an impediment to them doing their job The construction sector is typically a late adopter of innovations. The alliance

model for SRRA was a new and dramatically different approach to the one

typically used in infrastructure projects

While sustainability KPIs had been established, they were essentially restrictedto areas of the project where there were some known benchmarks i.e. buildings.

Sustainability benchmarks for rail infrastructure were virtually non existent

Not all KRAs and KPIs are equal- pain share/gain share favors economic aspectsThe next section looks retrospectively at some of the reasons for success and failure of

the SRRA Sustainability Framework by undertaking a literature review of benefits and

barriers to adopting sustainable infrastructure actions.


9/25

9

3.AliteraturereviewofwhatmakessustainabilityworkinprojectsThe natural resource management, health and education sectors have been dealing

with integrated, messy, complex scenarios that exist across private and publicpartnership programs for many decades.

In the presence of the unknown, conceptual frameworks, including program logic have

been used to identify what program managers think will happen. During and after

implementation, management will be adapted as knowledge becomes known. This

approach is known as adaptive management.

Prior to working in the construction environment management field, I spent a decade

and a half managing community environmental education programs such as

Waterwatch and Landcare. The following conceptual framework is based on myexperience in managing these programs.

3.1 Corporate aw areness and understanding

Environment engagement programs typically run off the premise that first you need to

be aware, then you need to understand, then you need to act and then review.

In Australia, awareness of the significance of environmental issues is at an all time high.

For the first time, in February 2010, Australians considered environmental issues to be

the most important issue facing the world today 11.

However, there is often little or no relationship between attitudes and/or knowledge

and behavior12.

While Australians believe that environmental issues are the biggest issues facing the

world, only 14% of small to medium enterprises have introduced an environmental or

sustainability policy and only 5% have measured the environmental impact13. Most

businesses have not capitalized on sustainability issues because they say that there isnt

the consumer demand or the regulatory requirements.

The Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) and the Alliance Management Team (AMT)

recognized that addressing sustainability issues were a critical component, which was

why it was identified as one of the four key result areas.


10/25

10

3.2 St rategic buy in

An important point highlighted in sustainability studies relates to the need for new

sustainability technologies and initiatives to be supported by strategic programs that

focus on embedding them within the social and institutional context to improve theirchances of becoming mainstream practice14.

Socio-technological systems, such as urban water or transport systems comprise a host

of interconnected components such as technology, science, regulation and policy, user

practices and markets, cultural memory, infrastructure, construction and maintenance

networks, manufacturing and supply networks and industry associations14.

Given the complexity of rail infrastructure projects, obtaining senior management

endorsement for sustainable development is vital. The most effective way to do this is

through the establishment of a Corporate Sustainability Strategy which defines thevision, objectives and strategy to enable firms to position themselves for competitive

advantage by being environmentally and sustainably proactive. This is something that

SRRA did well.

3.3 Corporate governance

Governance is increasingly about the coordination of actions, and interactions betweenpublic and private actors, across multiple layers and structures of governing15. The

promotion of sustainable development requires the governance of change, in particular

changes in both production patterns and consumption levels15. It is undertaken in the

context of inherent uncertainty, and across different temporal and spatial scales.

This is an apt description of the Springvale Road Rail Separation alliance.

Alliance contracting is a collaborative arrangement which integrates the client,

engineering consultancy and contractor into the same team16. The key features of

alliances include commercial incentives for the development of a high performanceteam in a no-blame culture where the focus is on breakthrough project performance16.

However, institutional development is a complex, messy, risky and experimental area,

with tangible results emerging only over a long period of time17. It therefore calls for

an approach with a long-term perspective, paying full attention to the endogenous

dynamics, energies and stakeholders involved in change processes17. Accordingly, the


11/25

11

real skills in corporate governance are trust-building, identifying appropriate

intervention moments, working out ways to find win-win solutions, building on internal

momentum and change agents17.

The Alliance governance framework was suitable for such a complex transport

infrastructure project. However the short term nature of alliances means that allemployees need to be supportive of key project objectives such as sustainability before

starting on the project as there is insufficient time to educate, raising awareness and

buy in during the project.

3.4 Behaviour change

The cornerstone of sustainability is delivering programs that are effective in changingpeoples behavior, in particular understanding what leads individuals to engage in

behavior that collectively is sustainable, and design programs accordingly12. The major

influence on our attitudes and behavior is our contact with other people12.

Experience suggests that significant changes in social and economic organisation

require experimentation and innovation, usually outside or at the edges of the dominant

regime and associated mainstream structures18.

However, it is hard to make change happen; its even harder to stop things, which

always seems to involve killing somebodys pet project19

. Or changing the way theyhave always done something.

An individual decides to make a change so that he or she will improve their life in some

way and that it is an uphill task to motivate people to adopt changes for reasons that

are not important to them20. The important lesson is that cultural and social values are

deeply held, that challenging these in voluntary behavior change programs is unlikely to

be useful and that program managers need to take these cultural and social values into

account when developing a program and actually use them as a basis for bringing

about change20.

In addition, people are most motivated to achieve goal states which are clearly defined

and not too challenging or long haul, and that most goals in sustainability do not take

this form21.

Different individuals, organizations and socio-economic groups have different appetites

for change. Rogers (1983) classifies individuals as innovators, early adopters, early


12/25

12

majority, late majority, late adopters and laggards, dependent upon when during the

overall diffusion process they adopt a new idea or behavior22.

a. Innovators- the first individuals to adopt an innovation, they are willing totake risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great

financial lucidity, very social and have closest contact to scientific sourcesand interaction with other innovators.

b. Early adopters - the second fastest category of individuals who adopt aninnovation, they have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the

other adopter categories. Typically younger in age, they have a higher

social status, more financial lucidity, advanced education and are more

socially forward than late adopters

c. Early Majority - these individuals adopt an innovation after a varyingdegree of time that is significantly longer than innovators and earlyadopters. They tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above

average social status, and contact with early adopters and show some

opinion leadership.

d. Late Majority - these individuals adopt an innovation after the averagemember of society. They approach innovation with a high degree of

skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted an innovation.

They have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in

contact with others in the late majority and early majority, but very littleopinion leadership

e. Laggards - the last to adopt an innovation, these individuals approachinnovation with a high degree of skepticism. These individuals typically

have an aversion to change agents and tend to be advanced in age.

Laggards typically tend to be focused on `traditions, have the lowest

social status, lowest financial lucidity, oldest of all adopters and very little

or no opinion leadership.

Knowing how to match the design of an intervention with the cultural background of atarget population is a critical factor of success22.

The SRRA had two main groups with different cultural backgrounds. Colloquially, these

groups are known as white collar workers and blue collar workers. This distinction is

important because research shows that these two groups think and act differently.


13/25

13

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) defines a white collar worker as including

Managers, Professionals, Community and Personal Service Workers, Clerical and

Administrative Workers, and Sales Workers as defined in the Australian and New

Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) major occupation groups.

Most occupations in this sub-major group have a level of skill commensurate with abachelor degree or higher qualification. In some instances relevant experience and/or

on-the-job training may be required in addition to the formal qualification (ANZSCO Skill

Level 1).

Blue collar workers are those categorized in ANZSCO as Technicians and Trades

Workers, Machinery Operators and Drivers, and Labourers.

The typical demographic of the construction workforce is predominantly male (87.9%),

aged between 24 and 44 years, with approximately 45% of construction workers work

with more than 40 hours per week, and nearly a quarter working 50 hours or more

23

.Nearly two thirds of construction workers are skilled (57.5% have Certificate III and IV

qualifications and 5% have university qualifications) and around two fifths (37.7 per

cent) of the construction workforce are without a non-school qualification23.

Blue-collar workers are under-represented in social service groups, cultural groups and

school groups24.

The characteristics of blue collar construction worker demographic described above

places the construction industry profile as typically being a late adopter or laggard to

change in terms of innovation adoption. This aligns with Carmichael and Balatbats

(2009) observation that many construction firms, particularly at the small to medium

end of the business spectrum, are still slow in addressing social and environmental

concerns25. They state that construction contractors have historically and quite

naturally been motivated by profit and that environmental and social issues, when

considered, are a secondary priority or something that is obligatory, and generally being

viewed as being counter to profit; that is their inclusion either reduced revenue or

increased costs25.

In contrast, white collar workers were the main constituents of the Alliance LeadershipTeam (ALT) and Alliance Management Team (AMT). Both demonstrated a high

awareness of the need to incorporate sustainability into SRRA, and backed this intent

up by allocating sustainability as one of four Key Result Areas. They showed innovator

and early adopter characteristics.


14/25

14

The difference in responses to innovation is one of the major reasons why there was

poor uptake of the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework. Those largely responsible

for its implementation were less likely to value sustainability, identify it as a priority and

have time to implement it.

3.5 Stakeholder engagement

The key attribute preventing the mainstream adoption of sustainability technologies is

the lack of acceptance across the broader range of stakeholders and institutions14. The

broader stakeholder and institutional environment needs to view the proposed change

as necessary, feasible and advantageous in order for sustainable technologies to

reach full diffusion14.

SRRA had a number of internal and external stakeholders. Engagement with external

stakeholders was excellent and was recognized as such through the SRRA project

recently winning a national award for the community engagement process undertaken

(2010 Asia Pacific Public Relations Award Issues and Crisis Management).

Engagement with internal stakeholders on sustainability issues was less successful.

Engaging employees in sustainability is a learn-as-you-go process, in which employee

ideas and insights and sustainability strategy develop together26. Starting the

conversation is the first step26.

Beyond treating its people properly, obtaining the engagement of employees means

demonstrating to them that sustainability is embraced at the core of the enterprise 27.

Demonstrating such commitment entails embedding sustainability deep into the

company culture27. That company culture begins with each new hiring decision,

extends to training, performance management and the values that bind the company

together as a community27.

On SRRA, there were three main issues regarding internal engagement:

a) Limited time to run and be involved in engagementb) Recognition that alliances are short term in nature, comprise a

number of organizations with different cultures, not just one

c) People have to be receptive to engagement and have thecapacity to engage.


15/25

15

3.6 Capacity

Capacity is the ability of individuals, organization or broader social system to performappropriate functions and address issues and concerns effectively, efficiently and

sustainably28. Capacities can be hard such as personal skills, functions, structures,

infrastructure and resources, and soft such as motivations, beliefs and demands of a

material, cultural or social nature28.

Capacity building is a process that enhances the ability of the individual, entity or a

broader social system to perform effectively in the functions for which they exist,

identify and address new challenges or improve control over their practices in a

sustainable manner within dynamic contexts28.

While, capacity building has been used in the natural resource management, health and

education sectors as a key approach for over two decades, it is relatively new in the

construction industry.

Capacity building has 5 components, and the maintenance of all is essential for the

sustainability of economic development29:

1. Financial capital -Financial capital facilitates economic production, though it isnot itself productive, referring rather to a system of ownership or control of

physical capital.

2. Natural capital- the resources and ecosystem services of the natural world.3. Built/produced capital- the physical assets generated by applying human

productive activities to natural capital and capable of providing a flow of goods

or services.

4. Human capital - the productive capacities of an individual, both inherited andacquired through education and training.

5. Social capital - Social capital, the most controversial and the hardest to measure,consists of a stock of trust, mutual understanding, shared values and socially

held knowledge.

Up to now, compared to the research efforts on sustainable building development,

infrastructure has received scarce attention30. The promotion of a sustainability agenda

in infrastructure development has been difficult since there is no settled definition or


16/25

16

operational guide, and thus no settled body of existing practice or knowledge30. There

are a number of reasons why there is no settled body of existing practice or knowledge.

These include the difference and complexity of infrastructure systems, the one off

nature of each infrastructure project, and the long time span of delivery, it is hard to

deal with the comprehensive but hazy body of knowledge

30

.Sustainability goals can only be achieved if construction activities and development

processes are informed and guided by new resources of knowledge and expertise, with

the reassurance of proper application of the knowledge at project levels30. Knowledge

management (KM) -the body of knowledge that deals with the management of both

personal and organizational knowledge - may provide a suitable solution to the capture,

storage and communication of information and knowledge involved in such an

endeavor30. However, the application of knowledge management techniques of

sustainability aspects in infrastructure projects has largely been absent30.

Developing a low-carbon economy will not only require significant investment in new

technologies and infrastructure, but also investment in worker training and skills

development27.

While knowledge is important, so too is the understanding that there are different types

of knowledge. Alavi summarized the existing taxonomies of knowledge, such as tacit

knowledge vs. explicit knowledge, individual knowledge vs. social knowledge,

declarative knowledge (know about), procedural knowledge (know-how), casual

knowledge (know why), conditional knowledge (know when) relational knowledge

(know with) etc30.

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been or can be articulated, codified, and

stored in certain media (e.g. documents, guideline) while tacit knowledge is knowledge

that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, difficult to access30. Many

researchers argue that in the construction industry, tacit knowledge which is embodied

in experts minds is a more important factor affecting an organizations ability to remain

competitive30.

The sort of knowledge typically used in engineering and other sorts of design is explicit

knowledge, while knowledge used by construction staff is tacit. This disconnect is oneof the reasons for the limited uptake of the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework.

SRRA had sufficient financial, natural and built capital, but limited human and social

capital to implement the Sustainability Reporting Framework.


17/25

17

3.7 Lifecycle analysis

True sustainability means judging solutions on a lifecycle basis and considering the

complete set of inputs, costs and externalities27. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a

cradle-to-grave analysis of total resource use needed for a particular product orservice31.

The product lifecycle starts with the extraction, processing and supply of the raw

materials and energy needed for the product. It then covers the production of the

product, its distribution, use (and possible reuse and recycling), and its ultimate

disposal32.

Rails energy consumption and GHG emissions are more strongly influenced by non-

operational components than on road and air33.

For SRRA, while information on the station building LCA was good, information for rail

infrastructure LCA was virtually nonexistent. The soon to be released AGIC rating tool

should go a long way to remedying this problem.

3.8 Design

Infrastructure, buildings, cars and appliances all have long design lives, in most cases

20 to 50 years34. For example in 2029, over 90% of infrastructure of Australian cities

would have been built prior to 201035.

By the time the design for most human artifacts is completed but before they have

actually been built, about 80-90 % of their lifecycle economic and ecological costs have

already been made inevitable34. Hence getting the design right, which typically costs in

the vicinity of 5% of total cost is critical.

Product innovation is directly linked to sustainability: both are oriented towards change

and the future32. Sustainability is concerned with the well-being of the future. Product

innovation is concerned with creating new products and services that generate value

only if they fit in this future32.

Innovation is the commercial or industrial application of something new- a new

product, process or method of production, a new market or source of supply, a new

form of commercial, business or financial organization32.


18/25

18

While the intention of SRRA design was to be innovative, the lack of knowledge on what

sustainable rail infrastructure is and how to achieve it combined with time constraints,

significantly limited the adoption of the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework in the

design phase.

3.9 Procurement

Good procurement practice is crucially important to reduce the overall cost of projects,

to improve the economic efficiency of the construction industry and to ensure that

projects, when complete are fit for purpose, thereby securing whole life value36.

True procurement looks at the entire lifecycle of a product, from manufacture to

disposal37

.

One significant issue was that sustainability requirements were only partially able to be

included in SRRA sub contractor contracts, partly because of time constraints and partly

because VicRoads specifications stated that recycled material not to be used for OH&S

reasons.

3.10 Construction

Because infrastructures profoundly condition user consumption patterns, choosing

which ones are made and how they are designed will have a significant effect on

energy consumption and the level of carbon emissions over the coming decades38.

Taking a broad view of a transportation infrastructure that includes not only its fixed

physical components but also what it is used for, a low carbon transportation

infrastructure is one that minimizes the carbon emissions associated with providing and

operating it38.

The manufacturing of materials (15.24%) and construction (59.65%) account for nearly75% of rail infrastructures lifecycle emissions38. Operation of rail infrastructure

accounts for 22.69% of rail infrastructure lifecycle emissions38.

Rail modes have the smallest fraction of operational to total energy due to their low

electricity requirements per kilometer travelled (PKT) relative to their large supporting

infrastructures33.


19/25

19

In particular, the reduction in concrete use or switching to lower energy input and GHG

intensity materials would improve infrastructure construction performance while

reduced electricity consumption and cleaner fuels for electricity generation would

improve infrastructure operation33.

The legislative and regulatory requirements around emission management is strongthanks to the Environment Protection Act 1970and associated State environment

protection policies. These requirements were well represented in the construction

environment management plan and were generally well implemented in the project.

One of the most significant issues why the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework

was poorly implemented was that there was very little information on what constitutes

sustainable rail infrastructure and what is required provide sustainable rail

infrastructure. This meant that design and construction staff reverted back to what was

known.

3.11 Monitor ing, evaluation and report ing

What gets measured gets managed, and what gets disclosed gets done27. Companies

should benchmark their performance against the performance of their sector (where

possible against peer compared dates) and publish the results in their report27.

Unfortunately, the practice of sustainability reporting is not as well established in theConstruction and Real Estate sector compared to other sectors, such as the financial

services or electric utilities sector39.

A major barrier in sustainability reporting in infrastructure is the lack of practical tools

for measuring and enhancing the sustainability of infrastructure over its life cycle30.

Measuring, or monitoring, is important in providing input for learning and adaptive

management, which is a management style based on flexible regulations, continuous

probing, observation and the adaptation of policy and programming frameworks17.

While the SRRA Sustainability Reporting Framework provided a one stop shop for

identifying and recording this information, a lack of time, resources and information

meant that capturing and populating this information was lower than desired.


20/25

20

4. LessonslearntfromtheSpringvaleRoadRailAllianceSustainabilityReportingFramework

The combination of anecdotal evidence and the literature review has provided a range

of key lessons learnt. These include:

1. Time needs to be set aside before the commencement of the project to definewhat sustainability means, to identify the legal and voluntary sustainability

reporting requirements for each alliance partner

2. Most of the sustainability impacts in rail infrastructure occur in the design andconstruction phase, not in the operation phase. This is different to most other

forms of infrastructure.

3.

KPIs need to be based on known benchmarks, or if these are not available,identify and record the assumptions used to determine benchmarks. Knowledge

management is critical.

4. More emphasis needs to be placed on integrating sustainability requirements andbenchmarks in all lifecycle stages at the beginning of the project i.e. what are

the relative sustainability risks and opportunities at the concept stage, the design

stage, the construction stage, the operation stage and the decommissioning

stage.

5.Appropriate resources need to be made available to set up and reportsustainability performance at the beginning and during the project

6. Construction staff are typically late adopters of innovations. Either constructionstaff should only be employed on the project if they understand and support

sustainability requirements, or significant effort is required at the beginning of

the project to raise awareness and understanding of construction staff of the

need to implement sustainability practices before construction begins.

7.As people are most influenced by their peers to adopt sustainable behaviours,employing construction site supervisors who have innovator or early adaptor

attitudes to innovation is a key factor to better adoption of sustainability

infrastructure.

8. Different engagement and capacity building approaches need to be used with`blue collar and `white collar workers, based around their knowledge and

appetites for change.


21/25

21

5. References1Pollard, D. et al (Eds.) 2010, Living Planet Report 2010, World Wildlife Fund, GlandSwitzerland www.wwf.org.au/publications/wwflpr2010 accessed 20 August 2011.

2Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability (CES) (2008) State of EnvironmentVictoria 2008. State of Victoria, Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability

Melbourne Victoria 2008.

3Committee for Melbourne (2008) WaterMap: Melbourne 2030. Committee forMelbourne.

4Yates, A. (2010) Victorian Infrastructure Report Card 2010. Engineers Australia.

5Infrastructure Australia (2010) State of Australian Cities 2010. Commonwealth ofAustralia.

6Lucas, C. (2010) Level crossings choking city traffic flow. The Age, 21 September2010.

7Davidson, K. (2004) Perverting Melbourne Planning. The Age, 19 August 2004.

8Lucas, C. (2008) Notorious crossing to be removed. The Age, 16 September 2008.

9Gardiner, A. (2011) Plan to axe all of Melbournes 172 level crossings in 20 years. TheHerald Sun, 11 August 2011.


22/25

22

10John Holland Group (2009) Corporate Sustainability Report 2008. John Holland GroupPty. Ltd.

11Roy Morgan Research (2010) Environmental and Economic Issues are the MostImportant Issues for Australians. http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4468/

Accessed 23 August 2011.

12McKenzie-Mohr, D. & Smith, W. (1999) Fostering Sustainable Behaviour. AnIntroduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers.

13Net Balance (2010) What Australias SMEs say and do about Sustainability and ClimateChange. Net balance.

14Brown, R. & Clarke, J. (2007) Transition to water sensitive urban design: The story ofMelbourne, Australia., Report No. 07/01. Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration,

Monash University, June 2007.

15Baker, S. (2009) In Pursuit of Sustainable Development: A Governance Perspective.8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics

16McCormick, I.A. (2009) Alliance Coaching: Psychology and sustainable infrastructuredevelopment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Sydney, June

2009.

17ECDPM (2004) Institutional Development: Learning by Doing and Sharing. EuropeanCentre for Development Policy Management, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Poverty Policy and Institutional Development Division.


23/25

23

18Hatfield-Dodds, S., Turner., Schandl, H. & Doss, T. (2008) Growing the Green CollarEconomy: Skills and labour challenges in reducing our greenhouse emissions and

national environmental footprint. Report to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. CSIRO.

19Daly, J. (2009). The 10 numbers Australian governments need to change. AdelaideFestival of Ideas, 11 July 2009.

20Ampt, E. (2003) Understanding Voluntary Travel Behaviour Change. 26thAustralasian Research Forum, Wellington New Zealand, 1-3 October 2003.

21Oakley, I; Chen, M and Nisi, V. (2008) Motivating Sustainable Behaviour. University ofMadeiras MUSE 2008

22TravelSMART (undated) Theories and Models of Behaviour Change. Department ofInfrastructure

23SkillsInfo (2010) Employment Outlook for Construction. Australian Government.www.skillsinfo.gov.au/NR/.../RTFEmploymentOutlookforConstruction.rtf. Accessed 24

August 2011.

24Profiling Australia (2003) Blue-collar workers.http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2290. Accessed 23 August 2011.

25Carmichael, D.G. and Balatbat, M.C. (2009) Sustainability on Construction Projects asa Business Opportunity. Society for Sustainability & Environmental Engineering,

Melbourne, Victoria, Australian 22-24 November 2009.


24/25

24

26World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2004) Facts andTrends to 2050 Energy and Climate Change. World Business Council for Sustainable

Development.

27Moffat, A. & Newton, A. (2010) The 21st Century Corporation: The CERES roadmapfor sustainability. CERES

28VicHealth (2004) Capacity Building: For Whom, in What Circumstances and How?State of Victoria, Department of Health.

29Goodwin, N.R. (2003) Five Kinds of Capital: Useful Concepts for SustainableDevelopment. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 03-

07. Tufts University, Medford MA 02155, USA

30Yuan, M. and Yang, J. (2008) The promotion of sustainability agenda forinfrastructure development through knowledge management. In Naaranoja, Marja and

Otter, adden and Prins, Matthijs and Karvonen, Anu and Raasakka, Ville. Eds.

Proceedings Joint CIB 2008 Conference for Performance and Knowledge Management,pages 167-178, Helsinki, Finland.

31Cross, R. & Spencer, R (2009) Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing.

32UNEP & Delft (2006) Design for Sustainability: a practical approach for developingeconomies. United Nations Environment Program and Delft University of Technology

33Chester, M. and Horvath, A. (2010), Comparison of Life-cycle Energy and EmissionsFootprints of Passenger Transportation in Metropolitan Regions. Atmospheric

Environment, 44(8), pp. 1071-1079.


25/25

25

34Natural Edge Project (2007) Whole System Design Suite- taking a whole systemdesign approach to achieving sustainable design outcomes. Australian Government.

35City of Melbourne & Department of Transport (2009) Transforming Australian Citiesfor a More Financially Viable and Sustainable Future. Government of Victoria.

36Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (DBERR) (2008) Strategyfor Sustainable Construction. Crown.

37Schmidt, L. (2007) Go green or risk fading to black.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/manufacturing/go-green-or-risk-fading-toblack.

Accessed 17/02/2010.

38Infrastructure Services Unit (ISU) (2010) Towards low-carbon transportationinfrastructures. Facilitation of Transport and Trade in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Issue No. 286- Number 6/2010.

39Global Reporting Initiative (2008) A Snapshot of Sustainability Reporting in theConstruction and Real Estate Sector. Global Reporting Initiative.

ssee srra paper wissing griffith 2011

Documents