Month: March 2017

CRL project awarded a second sustainability rating

Auckland’s City Rail Link (CRL) project was last night awarded a “Leading” Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) Design rating by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA), the highest possible achievement in the IS scheme and the emphasis on cultural value was among the reasons given. CRL has been recognised for a “world first” – embedding cultural values into its sustainability approach.

The rating is for the design of Contract 1 – the work through and under Britomart Station and Lower Queen Street to the former Downtown Shopping Centre site. A Downer/Soletanche Bachy joint venture is the delivery partner for this contract.  The designers are Aurecon, Mott MacDonald, Grimshaw, Jasmax and Arup.

Previously, the project also achieved a “Leading” design rating from ISCA for the design (with Connectus) of Contract 2 – the Albert Street tunnels and the use of a 2m-wide tunnel boring machine, named Valerie to simultaneously excavate and install a new stormwater pipe under Albert Street.

In awarding the Contract 1 IS Design rating, ISCA considered project performance across six themes: Management & Governance; Using Resources; Emissions, Pollution & Waste; Ecology; People & Place; and Innovation.

ISCA noted several highlights for Contract 1:

• The CRL’s initiative to collaborate with Mana Whenua to embed Māori cultural values across the IS framework: a first globally
• Water-efficient fittings specified for the refurbished Britomart station are projected to reduce water usage over the life of the asset by more than 50%, with associated reductions in utility bills
• A projected reduction in life cycle energy-related Greenhouse Gas emissions by over 25% through efficient construction techniques, including replacing diesel generators with grid electricity, and specifying energy efficient equipment for the refurbished station
• Reducing waste by recycling items such as the uPVC piping from the station plaza water feature, and carefully removing the bluestone feature wall tiles for reinstatement once the tunnels are completed
• Detailed attention to the protection and enhancement of the Category 1 heritage-listed station building.

CRL Project Director Chris Meale says the project is committed to setting the benchmark for sustainable design, construction and operation of infrastructure in New Zealand and the latest recognition shows it is on the right track to achieving the sustainability goals.

CRL construction is well underway and reporting to date shows the project is on track to deliver.

About ISCA

The Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) is a member-based not-for-profit public and private industry council. ISCA is the peak industry body for advancing sustainability outcomes in infrastructure. ISCA specialise in the facilitation and development of industry led performance based integrated triple-bottom-line governance and reporting frameworks, decision tools and rating tools; generating communities of practice throughout the lifecycle from funding, planning, procurement, design and delivery to operations and maintenance.

About IS rating scheme

The IS rating scheme is a voluntary standard that measures performance and rewards beyond compliance sustainability in infrastructure. IS enables comparative analysis, drives continuous improvement, promotes change receptivity, and enhances collaboration.

The IS rating scheme is the only comprehensive rating scheme for evaluating sustainability across planning, design, construction and operation of all infrastructure asset classes. IS is an industry-compiled sustainability rating scheme linking industry, communities and commerce beyond regulatory standards.

Since launching in 2012, over $82 billion in infrastructure and civil works projects or assets across Australia and New Zealand have either been certified or registered for an IS rating.

The IS rating scheme comprises of 44 credits, nested in 15 categories and 6 themes. Projects or assets are able to register for Design, As Built or Operations ratings. Projects or assets are also able to register for planning phase support. The highest level achievable in the IS rating scheme is a ‘Leading’ rating (scores >75), followed by ‘Excellent’ (scores between 50-74) and ‘Commended’ (scores 25-49). Scores below 25 are not eligible for an IS rating.

Infrastructure Priority List 2017

Infrastructure Australia, the nation’s independent infrastructure advisor, has identified 100 projects and initiatives as national priorities in a newly revised Infrastructure Priority List.

The Infrastructure Priority List is the authoritative list of nationally-significant infrastructure investments Australia needs over the next 15 years. Based on data from the Australian Infrastructure Audit and extensive consultation with State and Territory Governments, the Priority List provides independent, evidence-based advice on the projects that will most benefit Australian communities.

“This is the infrastructure that Australia needs—to boost our quality of life and our economy. The Infrastructure Priority List identifies 100 major infrastructure proposals that have substantial strategic merit and national importance,” said Infrastructure Australia Chairman, Mark Birrell.

“The newly revised List features projects in urban centres and across the country that will improve connectivity and productivity. It now includes seven High Priority and 11 Priority Projects and the highest ever number of projects with approved business cases.

“A notable inclusion on the List is a proposal to renew central Hobart through the relocation of the University of Tasmania’s STEM Facilities to the CBD. It is the first education project to be approved by the independent Infrastructure Australia Board and identified as a Priority Project.

“This visionary proposal by the University has been assessed by Infrastructure Australia as nationally-significant because it would boost Australia’s STEM skills and research capability and further support the development of high-value science, technology, engineering and mathematics related industries in the Hobart CBD.

“We have also added another important project in the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area, the Northern Road Upgrade, to the Priority List. After the Infrastructure Australia Board’s recent approval of the business cases for Western Sydney Airport and Stage 2 of the Bringelly Road Upgrade, the addition of this project is another important step in harnessing the expected population and employment growth in Western Sydney.

“The progressive upgrade of the Bruce Highway in Queensland has long been recognised by Infrastructure Australia as a national priority. Following rigorous assessment by our Board, upgrades to the Cooroy to Curra and Mackay Ring Road sections of the Bruce Highway are now listed as Priority Projects. We look forward to receiving and assessing business cases for the remaining sections of the Highway,” Mr Birrell said.

The updated Priority List also includes 25 High Priority Initiatives and 57 Priority Initiatives. These are proposals that have been identified to potentially address a nationally-significant problem, but require further development.

New High Priority Initiatives on the List include mass transit options for Parramatta to Sydney CBD (NSW) and the remaining sections of Ipswich Motorway Rocklea-Darra (QLD). The redevelopment of Sydney’s Central Station (NSW), Brisbane to Gold Coast Transport Corridor Upgrades (QLD) and the Wellington Dam water infrastructure development (WA) are also listed as Priority Initiatives.

Infrastructure Australia advises on national infrastructure priorities and assesses the economic merits of projects with fully-developed business cases. All funding decisions are made by the governments or the private sector. The revised Infrastructure Priority List is now available at www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au.

• Infrastructure Priority List 2017—Project and Initiative summaries

It’s no secret that infrastructure decision making has often led to inefficiency and community distrust, and many communities have a lack of respect for the project selection and decision making process. For governments and developers, what’s the solution? Can citizens’ juries help ease the burden of decision making when it comes to infrastructure planning, and help to win back the trust of communities?

Most infrastructure decisions involve significant expenditures and have far reaching consequences. There are usually many externalities that aren’t necessarily well captured by the solutions, and there are impacts which the chosen solution doesn’t fully alleviate. These impacts become politicised because of their high-profile nature, and they often become the focus of a significant battle between “small p” and “big P” parties as people use selection to make a point

Take the East West Link in Melbourne. That was as much about a battle between opposing political parties as it was between alternative infrastructure solutions, or indeed between differently impacted communities

In any sort of open process, it becomes difficult to separate the conversation about the selection process from all of this noise, and for some time now, it’s been evident that the solutions involving the community which have been used over the last 20 to 40 years (such as public meetings and focus groups) have become increasingly less trusted and less effective.

So it’s reassuring that we are seeing a move towards a process that promises to involve community representatives in an objective way, and where they feel they know and own the process – the citizens’ jury.

A citizens’ jury is a specific technique within a broader framework of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy was developed in 1980 by Joseph Bessette as a way of overcoming imbalances of power and conflicts between citizens and government decision-makers.

In Australia, the approach has really started to take off in recent years. We are starting to see more examples of citizens’ juries in action and it’s interesting to consider whether they are successful – are we in fact seeing tangible, positive results from their use?

In late 2014 to 2015, the City of Melbourne used a citizens’ jury for the first time to develop a ten-year financial plan. It was hailed as a success by many, and led to the city looking at what other issues could be addressed with the method. The City of Melbourne then used the approach to deliberate on Melbourne’s future, using it to contribute to its Future Melbourne 2026 Plan.

In December 2016, Infrastructure Victoria tabled Victoria’s first ever state-wide, cross-sector infrastructure strategy for the next 30 years in parliament. Citizens’ juries played a major role in forming recommendations contained in this strategy.

“As part of Infrastructure Victoria’s consultation program we convened two citizen juries of around 40 people each – in Melbourne and regional Victoria between May and August 2016,” said Infrastructure Victoria’s CEO Michel Masson.

“We wanted our 30-year strategy to reflect a broad community view of what is important and infrastructure affects everybody, everyday, so it’s only right that people have a say in the decisions that will impact them over the next 30 years.

“Jury members were sought through a random selection process to ensure a representative, cross section of people were involved. We asked these juries to consider the question: What should we do to meet Victoria’s infrastructure needs?” added Mr Masson.

Each jury met for six full-day sessions over several months in order to build their understanding of the subject. In total, jurors spent around 50 hours together. The juries also interacted between sessions via online discussion forums open only to jurors. Like a court jury, they considered evidence and heard from experts before delivering a verdict.

The reports of both juries (written wholly by the jurors) were considered by Infrastructure Victoria as key inputs into the strategy. The unedited recommendations of both juries are published on the Infrastructure Victoria website (metropolitan report, regional report).

So, was the process successful? Or is it too early to tell?

“At the end of their six sessions these reports formed an invaluable input into the draft 30-year infrastructure strategy, which was released for consultation in October 2016. Our report back to the jurors demonstrates we agreed in part or in principle with 192 of their recommendations. We disagreed with just 13 jury recommendations,” said Mr Masson.

Mr Masson says success didn’t solely lie in the final output from the juries.

“The juries also helped overcome the risk and perception that only the usual voices and the loudest voices are heard and it helped reassure the community about the value of their input and how their input is used.”

Helping Infrastructure Victoria facilitate this process was the New Democracy Foundation, and Executive Director Iain Walker agrees that it was a successful jury, citing specific ideas conceived by the jury around public housing, mental health and green space.

“This was just one of many examples where the citizens’ jury process has been successful, coming up with new ideas, or finding new ways to address problems with new approaches.”

But while Mr Walker has seen many successful cases of citizens’ juries, what about the unsuccessful?

“There have been some unsuccessful ones, and we continually refine the methodology, even after the successful projects: we’re a research foundation so we capture what we learn and share that.

“So far we have found that allowing insufficient time for the process is the number one way to break the methodology.”

Despite a few blips on the radar in terms of unsuccessful juries, Mr Walker believes he can definitively say this process is – and has been – more successful than alternative ways of engaging the community.

“Simply replacing a self-selected group with a randomly selected group will get you a more representative decision. Simply allocating 40 hours instead of one hour (town hall meeting) or three minutes (survey) gets you a more considered decision. Allowing people access to a diversity of sources will always generate a better decision than a single – often skewed – source. Few contest this.

“Most importantly, our insistence that participating jurors write every word of their own recommendations has led to an immense sense of ownership and a visible public promise that it is not ‘fixed’. Every juror knows where the words in their report came from without shaping or input from government. There is no single ‘right’ decision: we are seeking to find decisions a given community trusts and can live with: that is the key strength of the methodology which is holding up even through quite extreme project tests.”

While there are many positives, citizen juries are not a cure-all for government dysfunction, according to Nicholas Reece, Principal at Melbourne University, and he says cost is a major consideration.

“Citizen juries are not cheap – the City of Melbourne’s jury cost $150,000 and a major time commitment by council officers and others.”

According to Mr Masson, “There is no question that running a citizens’ jury is a significant responsibility and takes a number of resources. One of the most important considerations is organisational buy-in at all levels. This is where our process worked – our Executive, as well as staff, were all committed to participating in the process and seeing this as a real opportunity to hear from the community. Without this commitment, the juries would not be as effective. The integration of the jury into the overall consultation process is important and setting the question is just as important.”

It is reassuring to see that citizens’ juries are already playing a major part in addressing the challenges around infrastructure decision making.

Ultimately, citizens’ juries are a useful consultation tool because they allow everyday people to deeply engage on complex topics, such as infrastructure planning. There is strong evidence that jurors make final recommendations that they would not have made without that deep dive into the content and the opportunity to hear from a range of people on the topic – they make informed decisions.

By allowing ordinary people to influence our politics at every level, we are seeing a multitude of cases where the community is actually influencing the decisions their governments make.

And this is good news for everyone.

Click below link for other related news

http://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/