sustainability and urban transportationmedia.planning.org/media/npc13/presentations/w404.pdf ·...

Sustainability and Urban Transportation Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest

Jeff Frkonja, RSG

Mike Coleman, Kittelson and Associates, Inc.

Jeff Tumlin, Nelson \ Nygaard

1

Overview of the Session

Syllabus and Agenda The logic Sustainability Overview.

A Framework for Transportation Decision-Making: Does Sustainability Change Anything?

Implications for Data.

Directions for sustainable transportation.

Tying it together.

Speaker backgrounds

Your backgrounds and interests

2

A Framework for Thinking about Sustainable Public Action

Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest

3

Public Policy: What are we trying to achieve?

4

The Big Picture: Level 1

Make everyone happy

All impacts, all people, all times

Net Social Welfare; The Public Good

5

Level 2

Livability

(Sustainability)

6

Goals and Sub-Goals

Goals = What we care about= Impacts= Benefits and costs= Performance Measures Evaluation Criteria= 7

Smart

Powerful

Strong Slender

Rich Stable 8

Public Policy: What actions do we take to achieve what we want?

9

Measures of

Outcomes

Outputs Inputs

10

Public Policy: Where does Sustainability fit in?

11

Triple Bottom Line: E3

Livability

Economy Environment

Equity Distribution of Impacts

Fiscal

12

Attributes Important to Defining Sustainability

Time….How long?

Perspective….For whom?

13

14

Attributes Important to Defining Sustainability

Time….How long?

Perspective….For whom?

How much does Bruntland help?

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

15

New ideas, or just new terms?

Old School

Measure, monitor

All Impacts

Of alternative courses of action

On classes of people

Now and future

To achieve

Net Benefits, Social Welfare, Public Interest

New School

Performance measures, outcomes

TBL E3

Possible futures

Equity

Future generations

To achieve

Sustainability, Quality of Life, Livability

16

But some things (may) have changed

Better science, better measurement

Changing (greener) values (?)

Extended planning horizon

Result:

Increasing concern with ability to sustain current levels of consumption

Find more “efficient” and fair policies

17

Why the Change in Public Attitude about Sustainability?

18

Demand

More People

More

Consumption

19

Exponential Growth: People

20

Why Now? Technology and Energy

21

Per capita consumption

22

Supply

23

24

25

Pollution

26

Estimated # of polluted industrial sites in the

US?

600,000

27

And the Other Stuff

Genetic mutation

Viruses and pandemics

Resource wars

Terrorism

Natural disasters

Government crisis: national debt, health care system, social security, tax system

Higher parking fees

28

Recipe for a Bad Brew

In a globe of increasingly stressed resources

Add

Population growth (inevitable without catastrophe)

Increasing per capita demand (globalization, developing countries, redressing inequality)

Water (while you can)

Bake (either between brown-outs, or wait for global warming)

29

Public Policy: Where does Transportation fit in?

30

Transportation in the Context of Typical Goal

Categories for Local and State Agencies

Effects on Everything

Economy

Environment

Land Use

Infrastructure

Social

Fiscal

Public Process

(Legality: usually implied)

31

Transportation System Performance

Safety

Speed (accessibility and mobility)

Reliability

Convenience

Cost / Effectiveness / Fiscal Constraint

Distribution of impacts (equity)

Transportation and Sustainability

1/3 of US energy consumption

Travel > VMT > Fuel Consumption (+ Congestion)

> Emissions > GHG > Climate Change > …..

Transportation systems > land use patterns >

costs of services + “livability”

Other effects (e.g., health, equity)

Sustaining existing infrastructure: inadequate

maintenance

More efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

32

What we will cover today

33

How We Narrowed the Scope

Surface transportation in urban areas

A subset of issues related to sustainability

Sustainability means, in part, better evaluation: full

impacts over the longer run

Better evaluation = better framework & data

34

Decision Tools and Data for Finding Sustainable Transportation Policies Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest

1

Remember the Framework…

2

All impacts, all people, all times

Net Social Welfare; The Public Good

3

Typical Public-Sector Goal Categories

Effects on Everything

Economy

Environment

Land Use

Infrastructure

Social

Fiscal

Public Process

(Legality: usually implied)

4

Transportation System Performance

Safety

Speed (accessibility and mobility)

Reliability

Convenience

Cost / Effectiveness / Fiscal Constraint

Distribution of impacts (equity)

Triple Bottom Line: E3

Livability

Economy Environment

Equity Distribution of Impacts

Fiscal

5

Oregon DOT

Transport Performance

Mobility, Accessibility, Safety & Security

Other Effects

E1: Economic Vitality, Funding & Finance

E2: Environmental Stewardship, Land Use and Growth Management, Q of L & Livability

E3: Equity 6

Puget Sound MPO

Transport Performance

Mobility, Transportation-related Q of L (safety, options), Finance / Cost

Other Effects

E1: Economic Prosperity, Finance

E2: Environmental Stewardship, Growth Management

E3: Equity

7

Overarching Framework

Environment

Development Pattern

Economy

Transportation

Puget Sound

Regional Council

Categories of goals

Evaluation criteria

Measurement Evaluation Criteria

Mobility

Finance

Growth Management

Economic Prosperity

Equity

Environment

Quality of Life

8

Techniques consistent with the Framework

9

Framework vs. Technique

Broad agreement: need multi-objective framework

Sustainability & TBL: multi-objective framework for “other” effects (beyond “transportation system performance”)

Lots of techniques for multi-objective evaluation; different emphases:

Quantification and summation of impacts and weights

Benefit-cost analysis, least-cost planning, STARS, multi-attribute utility analysis, goals achievement matrix, AHP, conjoint

Quantification of opinions

Delphi, public-opinion surveys, voting exercises

List and discuss

EIS, matrix display

10

Typical techniques

Benefit-cost analysis

The grandfather and gold standard

Good in concept; often flawed in practice (or not used)

Multi-attribute utility analysis

BCA in different units

Least-cost planning

Assumes a cost-minimization problem

Triple-bottom line

Often with rating systems: e.g., STARS, I-LAST

Matrix display of performance measurement

11

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Well-established techniques

All impacts, over time

But:

Can be inappropriately applied

Benefits to non-motorized units difficult; May be more of an equity issue

Hard:

In concept

In practice

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 127/Friday, July 1, 2011/Notices Tiger grants BCA

12

Hard to do this in your head, based on professional judgment

Calculating travel B-C complex

13

Regional

Economic

Forecasts

Benefit-Cost

Analysis

Air Quality

Analysis

Alternatives

Development

Land Use

Forecasts

Travel

Forecasts

Transport

System

Least-Cost Planning

Oregon DOT: Mosaic note the typical steps

14

Least-Cost Planning, ODOT Mosiac

Oregon DOT: Mosaic

15

Performance Measurement

16

Examples of Measurement

ODOT LCP

17

OUTCOMES

MOBILITY

COMMUNITY CHARACTER

PROSPEROUS ECONOMY

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

& EQUITY

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Mode Choice

MEASURES

Improved Modal

Connection

Passenger VMT

Reduction

Travel Time

Reliability Benefits

Center Mobility &

Access

Bicycle Pedestrian

Trips (Health)

Injury & Fatality

Reduction

Fostering Economic Growth

Benefits to Trucks

Special Needs

Accessibility

Benefits to EJ

Populations

Water & Habitat

Protection/ Improvemen

t

Energy Use

GHG Emissions

Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Regional Geography

Puget Sound Regional Council

Rating Systems

19

Rating Systems

20

5 categories

3 subcategories

each with several

credits

Rating Systems

21

The typical matrix display

22

Problems: Measurement

23

Measurement challenges

Identification of relevant measures

Unlimited possibilities

Different purposes Different perspectives Different time periods Different level of effort: Cost and Time

Measurements vs. forecasts

Complexity of causal relationships

24

Multiplying measures: A transportation example

Each measure of transportation performance has multiple variations

By mode: motor vehicle, transit (bus for this evaluation), bicycle, and walking

By performance measure: e.g., safety, travel time, emissions

By distribution: e.g., subareas and user groups

By units of measurement: e.g., total, per person, per acre, % change, rate of change

By time period

By cost type and and funding available

25

More measurement challenges

Accuracy vs. transparency

Get it right vs. keep it simple

In the aggregate and on average vs. details of impacts on subareas and groups

Models /numbers vs. Judgment / opinion

Spillover effects

Politics of measurement

26

Problems: Valuation and Aggregation

27

Valuation and Aggregation Challenges

No common units for impacts

Monetization or scoring

Weighting (values)

Multiple constituencies > different values

Inconsistent values

28

The “ideal” steps (per analysts)

Categories of goals (i.e., objectives, outcomes, etc.)

Measurements of goals in “natural units”

For each measurement, a score based on relative performance across alternatives

For benefit-cost analysis, score = $

Weights for (1) goals categories, and (2) scores for measurements within goals

Sum to weighted score

29

Some problems with the “ideal”

Weighting

Ex Ante: does it make it fair or flawed?

Outlier cases: projects with fatal flaws

Getting to weights: problems with both statistical and non-statistical methods

Sticking with the weights: attitudes change

Analysis

Requires models: cannot be “transparent”

Future uncertain: results depend on assumptions

Model results may be counterintuitive

Perspective matters (e.g., whose funding?)

Politics and public opinion matters

30

Concluding Observations

31

Performance Measurement and

Sustainability / Triple Bottom Line

Not new ideas. Haven’t been done because:

Hard

Potentially expensive

Payoffs are long run

Problems weren’t judged by public and their elected officials as “bad enough”

Sustainability and TBL

Has always been the public-sector’s charge

A framework; can use any of many possible techniques

Changing data, techniques, values, and problems all encouraging more measurement of TBL factors

32

A Fundamental Dilemma

Measurement not the challenge

But unlimited (or just extensive) measurement

Not cost effective or useful for decisionmaking

Gets stuck on consolidation and ranking So, fewer measures, right…?

How can just a few measures capture all that people care about?

Even if good-faith agreement at the start, hard to dismiss “other” measures later

33

Measurement and Sustainability

Neither is a new idea; just haven’t been done because….

But the concepts and attempts to apply them important

Implications:

Not: Do nothing

Rather:

Recognize challenges

Decide: What level & type of measurement makes sense for our community?

34