16.05.2014 Views

June 2011 - Parsons Brinckerhoff

June 2011 - Parsons Brinckerhoff

June 2011 - Parsons Brinckerhoff

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Roundtable<br />

“PB’s approach to<br />

engaging many<br />

perspectives in<br />

developing solutions<br />

is a key aspect<br />

to promoting<br />

sustainability.”<br />

“It is my sense<br />

that most people<br />

simply don’t really<br />

understand what<br />

sustainability is.”<br />

Peter Halsall<br />

Michael Meyer<br />

Peter Halsall<br />

Evaluating the tradeoffs is tough to do without some common metric, especially<br />

when you’ve got different experts all talking different languages. Layer that on<br />

top of a citizenry, which is growing ever more skeptical of their government and it<br />

makes it tough to get things built. So PB’s approach to engaging many perspectives in<br />

developing solutions is a key aspect to promoting sustainability.<br />

Gary McVoy: PB is currently developing a tool called PRISM that will provide<br />

common, measurable metrics to better understand a project’s economic,<br />

environmental, and societal value.<br />

Moderator<br />

It would appear that designing construction infrastructure to meet sustainable guidelines<br />

would only be in society’s best interest. However, sustainable design remains a tough sell.<br />

Why?<br />

Michael Meyer<br />

It is my sense that most people simply don’t really understand what sustainability is;<br />

that there is a large percentage of the population who are viewing sustainability as<br />

a component of a liberal or “environmental” agenda; and finally many professionals<br />

have the perception that whenever you talk about sustainability, you are talking about<br />

adding expense to a project. Many professional groups and transportation officials<br />

balk at considering sustainability because they believe that sustainability means you<br />

are going to use scarce dollars to “sugar coat” existing projects to the detriment of<br />

project functionality. These are the reasons why the sustainability bandwagon is not<br />

one that a lot of people have jumped on.<br />

Peter Halsall<br />

There is serious skepticism about anything promoted as being in “society’s interest.”<br />

The whole environmental movement was basically a negative reaction to things that<br />

engineers have been linked with over time, like interstates going directly through<br />

communities, rivers that caught fire, etc. Who wants to spend very scarce money on<br />

more projects that lead to failure? So we need to get more people to believe what we<br />

have to say about costs and benefits of a project which analysis can show.<br />

Gary McVoy<br />

I should add that it would be wise for professionals to integrate asset management<br />

into the sustainability discussion.<br />

Peter Halsall<br />

I agree. And we should use language that connects to the politicians. In Canada,<br />

the politicians had made “deficit” a dirty word. So we started talking about the<br />

“infrastructure deficit.” That has led to the asset management kind of thinking that’s<br />

going on.<br />

Moderator<br />

I’m hearing that there is the need to build a belief in the predictions presented by the PBs of the<br />

world. There’s a need for contributing to the education in a rational, pragmatic or unbiased<br />

way. How do you build trust that the predictions made by a PB represent an unbiased<br />

presentation of facts in a fractured, agenda-driven society?<br />

Peter Halsall<br />

A lot of infrastructure is fundamental to the society as we know it and yet it’s hidden;<br />

people don’t realize its benefits and they take it for granted. I would say that people<br />

EFR Discourse on the Global Sustainability Initiative | 3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!