Turning Gray into Green - Emphasizing the Sustainable Benefits of Tunnel Projects

"INTRODUCTION The public understanding of green solutions today is based on the definition of sustainability adopted by the Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development) in 1987: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Over time this initial definition evolved to identify three distinct factors impacting sustainability that are often referred to as the “Triple Bottom Line”: Economic, Environmental and Social. The triple bottom line approach seeks to drive outcomes that create maximum value for all stakeholders. In the last ten years purveyors of water and wastewater tunnel solutions have found themselves on the wrong side of a politically polarizing issue in the crosshairs of politicians, environmental activists and community groups branding tunnels as expensive, “gray” and not-sustainable. Tunnels under design were stopped and large planned tunnel programs were delayed or canceled. Therefore being sustainable and “green” is not simply using natural vegetation, but creating an asset that meets current and future needs and will not become a future liability. As this paper will discuss, tunnel projects embody a sustainable triple bottom line project well, are equally sustainable as green infrastructure, and have begun to gain awareness for their sustainability. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES TUNNELING LANDSCAPE The green movement quickly swept across the nation in the mid to late 2000’s and was a hot topic in the media and at all the local, regional and national industry conferences. Politicians espoused the benefit of green infrastructure including job creation, urban renewal, aesthetics, property values economics and sustainability. The political microscope was focused the closest on stormwater and wastewater management, particularly in communities responding to combined sewer overflow (CSO) consent decrees from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As communities with CSO problems evaluated their long term control program (LTCP), local government officials and planners began to balk at the huge price tag required for compliance and began looking for alternatives. “Green” infrastructure was proposed as lower cost solution that could be used to offset capital-intensive “gray” infrastructure like new sewers, storage tanks, tunnels, and treatment facilities. In addition, including green infrastructure in a previously negotiated LTCP required a reset on the entire planning process, additional studies and more planning which would push capital investment further off into the future, subsequently delaying unpopular user rate increases. As a result, tunnel projects as well as trenched conveyance and treatment plant projects that had not yet started construction were stopped, delayed or substantially changed."