[scm] transportation planning process.pdf

7/27/2019 [SCM] Transportation Planning Process.pdf

1/71

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 37

Integrating Sustainability

into the Transportation

Planning Process


2/71

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

2005 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake CityVice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaExecutive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, AustinAllen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, HarrisburgLarry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson

Deborah H. Butler, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GeorgiaAnne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C.

John L. Craig, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads, LincolnDouglas G. Duncan, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TennesseeNicholas J. Garber, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, CharlottesvilleAngela Gittens, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FloridaGenevieve Giuliano, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Past Chair, 2003)Bernard S. Groseclose, Jr., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority, CharlestonSusan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester,

MassachusettsJames R. Hertwig, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FloridaGloria Jean Jeff, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, LansingAdib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyHerbert S. Levinson, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, Connecticut

Sue McNeil, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, NewarkMichael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, ArlingtonCarol A. Murray, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, ConcordMichael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Virginia (Past Chair, 2004)C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, AustinLinda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando

Marion C. Blakey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, Georgia (ex officio)George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of

Engineering, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)J. Richard Capka, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)

Thomas H. Collins (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)James J. Eberhardt, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)Jacqueline Glassman, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)David B. Horner, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

(ex officio)John E. Jamian, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John C. Stennis Space

Center, Mississippi (ex officio)Ashok G. Kaveeshwar, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)

Brigham McCown, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation (ex officio)

William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) (Past Chair, 1992)Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio)Annette M. Sandberg, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Carl A. Strock (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Washington, D.C. (ex officio)

* Membership as of December 2005.


3/71


4/71

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 37ISSN 1073-1652ISBN 0-309-09418-6

Subscriber CategoryIA planning and administrationIB energy and environment

Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly fromthe TRB Business Office, through the Internet at national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscriptionthrough organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible forsubstantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office,500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or [email protected]).

Printed in the United States of America.

NOTICE: The conference that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of theNational Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy ofSciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the com-mittee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropri-ate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved

by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the NationalAcademy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.The views expressed in the presentations and papers contained in this report are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect the views of the committee, the Transportation Research Board, the NationalResearch Council, or the sponsors of the conference.

The conference was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, the Federal HighwayAdministration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Committee for the Conference on Introducing Sustainability into Surface Transportation Planning

David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ChairWilliam R. Black, Indiana UniversityDavid G. Burwell, Prague Institute for Global Urban DevelopmentThomas M. Downs, Eno Transportation FoundationRichard Gilbert, Centre for Sustainable TransportationKevin E. Heanue, ConsultantYsela Llort, Florida Department of TransportationMarianne Millar Mintz, Argonne National LaboratoryArthur (Chris) Nelson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute at Alexandria

John P. Poorman, Capital District Transportation CommitteeDaniel Sperling, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis

Liaison MembersMichael Savonis, Federal Highway AdministrationKirsten Oldenburg, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Transportation Research Board Staff

Mark R. Norman, Director, Technical ActivitiesClaire L. Felbinger, Transportation Policy and Management SpecialistMartine Micozzi, Management and Policy SpecialistMary Kissi, Senior Program Assistant

Janille Smith, National Research Council Intern

Karin DeMoors, TransTech Management, Inc., Consultant

TRB Publications Office StaffNorman Solomon, Senior EditorMary McLaughlin, Proofreader

Jennifer J. Weeks, Editorial Services Specialist


5/71

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguishedscholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science andtechnology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it bythe Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal governmenton scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy ofSciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciencesthe responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,

and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of theNational Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure theservices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per-taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the NationalAcademy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, onits own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Finebergis president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to asso-ciate the broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of furtheringknowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to thegovernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administeredjointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. WilliamA. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Boards mission is topromote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisci-plinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policyby researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services thatpromote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and dis-

seminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Boards varied activi-ties annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers andpractitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their exper-tise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federalagencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, andother organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
http://www.trb.org/http://www.trb.org/http://www.national-academies.org/http://www.national-academies.org/http://www.trb.org/


6/71


7/71

Contents

PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................vii

COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................1

GENERAL AND CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Welcoming Remarks and Charge to the Conference ...............................................................................11Jim Shrouds and David L. Greene

Keynote Address .....................................................................................................................................12Thomas B. Deen

Presentations on Transportation Sustainability Indicators.......................................................................13

Mark DeLuchi, Mike MacCracken, Daniel Sperling, David G. Burwell,Elizabeth Deakin, and Richard Forman

Concurrent Sessions: What Are the Challenges? .....................................................................................17William R. Black, Joan Ogden, Michael Wang, Kevin E. Heanue, Bob Johnston,

John P. Poorman, Arthur (Chris) Nelson, Steve Lockwood, Tom Sanchez, Christina Casgar,Lee Schipper, and Martin Lee-Gosselin

Reports on the Concurrent Sessions: What Are the Challenges? .............................................................21Genevieve Giuliano, Thomas M. Downs, Anne Canby, and Richard Gilbert

Panel Discussion: Potential Solutions to Challenges................................................................................24

Kevin E. Heanue, Anne Canby, John Horsley, Hal Kassoff, John Pucher, andG. Alexander Taft

Reports on Concurrent Roundtable Discussions: Potential Solutions to Challenges................................26Genevieve Giuliano, Thomas M. Downs, Anne Canby, and Richard Gilbert

Luncheon Speakers..................................................................................................................................29Lewis Dale and Emil Frankel

Poster Session..........................................................................................................................................31


8/71

Conference Closing .................................................................................................................................32David L. Greene

RESOURCE PAPERS

Sustainable Transport: Definitions and Responses ..................................................................................35

William R. Black

What Are the Challenges to Creating Sustainable Transportation? How Can TransportationSystems Become More Sustainable? ....................................................................................................44

Martin Wachs

COMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................53

PARTICIPANTS............................................................................................................................................58


9/71

v i i

Preface

In July 2004 approximately 70 people assembled inBaltimore, Maryland, to participate in the Confer-ence on Integrating Sustainability into the Trans-

portation Planning Process. The conference, organizedand conducted by the Transportation Research Board(TRB), brought together individuals from across thetransportation, energy, environmental, land use, plan-ning, and public policy communitiesat national, state,and local levels and from the public and the private sec-tors. The public sector was represented by officials fromthe U.S. Department of Transportation, the FederalHighway Administration, the Federal Transit Adminis-tration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyas well as from state and regional organizations. Pri-vate-sector participants included members of academia,individuals from trade associations, automotive indus-try professionals, and consultants.

Sponsored by TRB, the Federal Highway Adminis-tration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,the conference was conducted under the auspices ofTRBs parent organizaton, the National Research Coun-

cil (NRC). A specially appointed NRC committee devel-oped the conference as a forum to exchange perspectiveson the challenges and potential solutions to the chal-lenges of integrating sustainability concerns into thetransportation planning process. Drawing on theresource papers, presentations, and conference discus-sions, the conference committee evaluated the currentstate of the practice, considered strategies for integrat-ing sustainability concepts into transportation planning,and identified areas for further research.

CONFERENCE PROGRAM

The conference program was designed to maximize theexchange of information and perspectives among par-ticipants. To gain a better understanding of all of theviewpoints presented, the reader is encouraged to readthe report in its entirety.

The program began with a general session (GeneralSession 1) that included a welcome from the FederalHighway Administration, a sponsor of the conference;the presentation of the conference charge by the confer-ence committee chair, David Greene; a keynote addressby Thomas Deen; and presentation of the first of tworesource papers developed for the conferenceSus-tainable Transport: Definitions and Responses byWilliam Black.

In General Session 2, participants heard from expertson six indicators of sustainability: health, climate change,energy, equity, land/community, and habitats/ecosystems.In General Session 3, the second resource paper was pre-sentedWhat Are the Challenges to Creating Sustain-

able Transportation? How Can Transportation SystemsBecome More Sustainable? by Martin Wachs.

The conference program then separated the partici-pants into four concurrent panel sessions organized intosubstantive tracks. Each concurrent session included afacilitator who served to energize and spur discussionand a rapporteur who recapped the discussion high-lights. Concurrent Sessions I focused on the challengesof sustainable transportation, and Concurrent SessionsII requested the participants to discuss potential solu-


10/71

tions to the challenges. In General Sessions 4 and 6 therapporteurs provided summaries of the concurrent ses-sion discussions to stimulate the exchange of viewsamong conference participants.

In General Session 5 industry experts participated ona panel in which they presented approaches to the chal-

lenges of sustainable transportation. In addition to thegeneral and concurrent sessions described above, theconference included two luncheon speakers and a postersession. By the close of the conference, participants notonly had collected a significant amount of informationbut also had exchanged perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individualschosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper-tise, in accordance with procedures approved by NRCs

Report Review Committee. The purposes of this indepen-dent review are to provide candid and critical commentsthat will assist the institution in making its publishedreport as sound as possible and to ensure that the reportmeets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and

responsiveness to the study charge. The review commentsand draft manuscript remain confidential to protect theintegrity of the deliberative process.

The conference committee thanks the following indi-viduals for their review of this report: David J. Forken-brock, University of Iowa, Iowa City; Francis B.

Francois, Consultant, Washington, D.C.; Charles E.Howard, Jr., Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle,Washington; Ashby Johnson, HoustonGalveston AreaCouncil, Houston, Texas; Lee Schipper, World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, D.C.; and Sarah J. Siwek, Sarah J.Siwek and Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California.

Although the reviewers listed above provided manyconstructive comments and suggestions, they were notasked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations,nor did they see the final draft of the report before itsrelease. The review of this report was overseen by C.Michael Walton, University of Texas at Austin. Appointedby NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an

independent examination of this report was carried out inaccordance with institutional procedures and that allreview comments were carefully considered. Responsibil-ity for the final content of this report rests entirely with theauthoring committee and the institution.

INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TR ANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESSv i i i


11/71

1

The idea of a sustainable society in which theneeds of the present are met without compro-mising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs is compelling. Despite its many dimen-sions and uncertainties, sustainability is generallyagreed to be important and worth pursuing. At thesame time, current trends in transportation contributeto unsustainable conditions, including climate change,energy insecurity, congestion, noise pollution, and eco-logical impacts. Widespread uncertainty exists abouthow to address the goal of a sustainable transportationsystem. What is clear is that attaining a sustainabletransportation system will require action by the publicsector, private companies, and individual citizens.Given the complexity of the issue and the variety ofplayers, it also will require a major cultural change toraise and organize societal awareness.

The effort to form a culture in which sustainability con-cepts are legitimized and integrated into transportationplanning is just beginning and will likely involve a longlearning process. The Transportation Research Board

(TRB) Conference on Integrating Sustainability into theTransportation Planning Process examined whether andhow sustainability objectives can be introduced into theplanning process for surface transportation facilities andoperations.

After the final conference session, the TRB Commit-tee for the Conference on Introducing Sustainability intoSurface Transportation Planning convened to developits findings, which were based largely on the presenta-

tions and discussions at the conference. A summary ofthe committees findings and recommendations follows.They are organized into four sections:

Issues of sustainability, Vision of a sustainable transportation system, State of the practice, and Strategies for integrating sustainability concepts

into transportation planning.

ISSUES OF SUSTAINABILITY

The concept of sustainability has a powerful grip onpeople. Few could disagree that attainment of a sustain-able transportation system is desirable; however, manychallenges lie along the path to achieving such a system.The nations transportation system has enhanced qual-ity of life through increased access to health care, edu-cation, employment, recreation, and a wide range ofconsumer goods. These benefits have not been achieved

without costs. The negative impacts of the transporta-tion system include congestion; fatalities and injuries;noise, air, and water pollution; greenhouse gas emis-sions; diminishing energy resources; and biological andecosystem damage. The challenge of a sustainable trans-portation system lies in minimizing these costs whileoffering strong transportation benefits.

There have been some successes in responding tothese challenges. Air quality regulations, for instance,

Committee Findings and Recommendations


12/71

have resulted in substantial air quality improvements.Air pollution has not been eliminated, but air quality isbetter in most areas. This success and others provideencouragement that sustainable transportation chal-lenges can be met. However, consistent effort is neces-sary, even in areas where progress has been made. Air

quality has improved, but increasing travel volumesrequire continuing reductions in air pollution.

Numerous unsustainable impacts of transportationdemonstrate the challenges faced in transitioning to asustainable transportation system. A discussion of theseimpacts is provided below.

Nonrenewable Fuel Depletion andEnergy Insecurity

The current transportation system depends on nonrenew-able fuels. The rate of consumption of nonrenewable fuels

is projected to grow as travel domestically and elsewhereincreases. The challenge is in finding ways to reduce therate of consumption of nonrenewable energy sourcesincluding more carbon-intense unconventional sources ofpetroleumthrough the development of renewableenergy sources, improved energy efficiency of vehicles,and increased use of public and nonmotorized transporta-tion. There are economic, environmental, and societaltrade-offs associated with each of these alternatives.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The burning of fossil fuels to power transportation vehi-cles releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,which contributes to increasing global average tempera-ture and other climate changes. Greenhouse gases areemitted throughout the fuel cycle, from well to tailpipe.The use of petroleum-based fossil fuels for transporta-tion is responsible, directly or indirectly, for more thanone-fourth of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the prin-cipal greenhouse gas produced by transportation.Improved fuel efficiency and increased use of alternativefuels are proven options available to reduce greenhousegas emissions over the entire fuel cycle.

Global Climate Change

An enhanced greenhouse effect will have significantimpacts on sea level, climate, and agriculture. Impactsof the rise in sea level alone may include the flooding oftunnels, coastal highways, runways, and railways.Other impacts may include grounding of airplanes dueto high temperatures, buckling of highways and rail-road tracks due to heat, the submersion of dock facili-

ties, and a shift in agriculture to areas that are nowcooler. Such results demonstrate that reducing green-house gas emissions must be a top priority. The extentof mitigation will mainly determine the rate of climatechange experienced by future generations. Because ofthe inertia of the climate system, adaptation will be nec-

essary regardless of efforts to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from this time forward. It is probably too lateto prevent or completely reverse climate change.

Local Air Quality

Motorized vehicles contribute significantly to local airpollution. Poor air quality has various negative healthimpacts, particularly on the respiratory system. Airquality, however, is one area where large gains have beenmade. Growth in transportation activity threatens tolimit the effectiveness of existing strategies to reduce

emissions. As a result, despite the progress that has beenmade, new methods, technologies, and policies toimprove air quality are required.

Fatalities and Injuries

Unacceptable levels of fatalities and injuries occur onthe nations highways. A goal of zero fatalities and seri-ous injuries is appropriate. Sustainability argues for acontinuous decline in fatalities and injuries resulting ina safer transportation system.

Congestion

Congestion would be a sustainability issue even if anenergy source were developed that had zero harmfulemissions and was renewable. Congestion worsensmotorized mobility. The rise in congestion is attribut-able not only to increased personal mobility and freightmovement but also to a lack of adequate and reliabletransportation funding. Congestion negatively affectsthe economic and social health of the nation and, if notaddressed, will leave future generations without a rea-

sonable level of mobility. Some observers argue thatcongestion can have positive implications for sustain-ability because congested highways cause some peopleto choose alternative modes of transportation.

Noise Pollution

The transportation system is a significant source ofnoise. Transportation noise originates from all motor-ized modes of transport. Examples of transportation-

2 I NT EG RAT IN G SU S TA IN AB IL I TY I NT O TH E TR AN SP OR TAT IO N PL AN NI NG P RO CE SS


13/71

related sources of noise include engines, vehicle contactwith pavement and other surfaces, horns, construction,brakes, and airplane takeoff and landing, to name a few.Loud noise and continuous noise are harmful to humanhealth. The impacts include behavioral disorders, heartdisease, and hearing loss. Noise also disturbs wildlife.

Studies of the breeding and habitat of birds have foundthat higher volumes of traffic affect the nesting patternsof birds. Noise harms human health and wildlife andcan damage the quality of life.

Low Mobility

A reasonable level of mobility is an essential character-istic of a sustainable transportation system. Mobility isnecessary for the nations economy and for social andcultural interaction. Transportation must be availableto all members of the community, including vulnerable

groups such as persons with low income, children, theelderly, and the disabled.

Ecosystem Damage

Transportation activities can harm biological resources.The effects can range from the death of individual animalsto the loss of critical habitat. Some impacts are localized,such as animals killed along highways, disruption ofmigration patterns, runoff that pollutes rivers and streams,oil tanker spills, and plants affected by emissions. Otherimpacts are more profound, such as fragmentation andloss of species and long-term damage to ecosystems.Improvements have been made with regard to the effectsof transportation on ecosystems. For example, mitigationrequirements for highways and other paved surfaces atairports, seaports, and maintenance garages have greatlyreduced runoff impacts. The Endangered Species Act hasprovided significant protections. As population and travelvolume increase, a continuous effort must be made tomaintain and improve on areas of success.

Lack of Equity

Intergenerational and social equity are the overarchingaims of a sustainable transportation system. In reducingthe unsustainable impacts of transportation, as dis-cussed elsewhere in this section, progress toward anequitable transportation system would be made.

The challenges to achieving a sustainable transporta-tion system identified above provide a baseline for anaction agenda that can lead to a sustainable transporta-tion system. Properly planned transportation systemscan play a central role in promoting sustainability.

VISION OF A SUSTAINABLETRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

What would a sustainable transportation system looklike? Outlining the basic components of such a system isan important step in progressing toward sustainability,

even if the resulting vision is not entirely clear.At the most basic level, a sustainable transportation

system is one that meets the transportation and otherneeds of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their needs. In considering theneeds of future generations, however, the benefits of thepresent transportation system should not be excessivelyinhibited or used as the justification for precluding futurechoices. Transportation planners and providers mustcontinuously struggle with the trade-offs between theeconomic and societal benefits of transportation and theassociated unsustainable environmental, safety, health,ecosystem, and equity impacts.

A sustainable transportation system requires a cul-ture that not only sees sustainability as desirable butalso accepts the inclusion of sustainability concepts inthe transportation planning process and supports thetough decisions necessary to make sustainability a pri-ority. The public and policy makers in this culture willunderstand and consider potential solutions, such asintegrated land use and transportation and innovativepublic transportation (for example, bus rapid transitand car sharing).

This cultural acceptance will be supported by theprovision of adequate and reliable transportation fund-ing consistent with fiscal constraints. Legislators andpolicy makers will recognize that a sustainable fundingsource is needed to meet current mobility needs whileaddressing the unsustainable effects of transportation.In addition, transportation providers must be able toensure that investments in transportation facilities haveadequate operations and maintenance funding.

A sustainable transportation system will have account-ability in the planning process. Performance measure-ment and feedback loops will enable planners to learnfrom past experiences and understand fully the ramifica-tions of decisions on the components of sustainability.Continuous improvement enabled through flexibility and

innovation will be a key element of sustainable trans-portation as travel patterns, vehicle and fuel technologies,land use patterns, population densities, and individualtravel choices change.

STATE OF THE PRACTICE

On the basis of the ideas and issues addressed at theconference (and summarized elsewhere in these pro-ceedings), the committee developed a set of observa-

3COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


14/71

tions about the state of the practice with regard to sus-tainability concepts and transportation. These are orga-nized into two categories: (a) political, legislative, andregulatory findings and (b) transportation planningprocess findings.

Political, Legislative, and Regulatory Findings

Lack of a National SustainableTransportation Policy

There is no effective national policy with regard to thesustainability of transportation. A national policy onthe need to integrate sustainability concepts into trans-portation planning could facilitate the development oflegislation, regulation, guidance, and other tools. Thenew tools would support changes in current practicesthat are unacceptable because they fail to emphasize or

ignore notions of sustainability.

Innovative Solutions Often Discouraged byCurrent Standards and Regulations

Innovative transportation solutions that could addresssustainability issues are often discouraged by inflexibleand outdated regulations, rules, codes, and standards.Examples of such innovative solutions are improved fueleconomy standards, full-cost pricing, certain transporta-tion infrastructure and vehicle technologies, and alterna-tive energy sources and fuels. Flexibility must be providedto enable minimization of adverse sustainability impacts.

Transportation Planning Process Findings

Transportation Planning Horizons NotLong Enough

Federal regulations relating to transportation and air qual-ity require states and metropolitan planning organizationsto complete long-range transportation plans and pro-grams for a 20-year forecast period. For transportation

planning processes to integrate sustainability objectives,the forecast period must be at least 40 years. Some plan-ning organizations have begun to extend their planninghorizons, but the practice remains limited.

Assessment of Transportation Impacts NotSufficiently Broad

The effects of transportation on climate change are notusually considered in the planning process. In certain

areas, such as road ecology, some effects are considered,such as the presence of endangered species in theplanned corridor. Other effects, however, such as theimpacts of noise on the breeding and migration patternsof birds, are not commonly considered. A more coher-ent and integrated road ecology approach is needed.

Transportation planning, particularly in urban areas, isbased on already adopted land use plans and objectives.Integrated transportation and land use decision makinghas not been realized. Land use planning and zoningremain the prerogative of local governments that striveto optimize their own objectives, which often directlyrelate to maximizing local tax revenue. Planningprocesses also do not give appropriate importance tothe role of freight and its impact on sustainability.

Existing Institutional Structure PermitsIntegrating Sustainability into Planning

Sustainability objectives can be introduced into the trans-portation planning process within the current institu-tional structure. State departments of transportation andmetropolitan planning organizations, for example, arecapable of incorporating sustainability into their plan-ning processes. Indeed, sustainability practices and toolsdo exist and are utilized by some states and planningorganizations, but not widely. The barriers to implement-ing sustainable transportation planning within currentorganizations are more cultural than institutional.

STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITYCONCEPTS INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

In line with its findings, the committee developed a setof recommendations focused on updating and improv-ing the planning process, providing public and profes-sional education, and identifying areas for furtherresearch. Given the complexity and scale of the sustain-ability challenge, the committee first pointed to threeareas where broadly based action is needed to achievegreater coherence and consensus on sustainability, bothnationally and internationally:

Adopting a national statement of values and defi-nitions on sustainability, including a transportation com-ponent with specific national objectives and performancemeasures that can support review and revision of theobjectives. Possible objectives include the reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions from transportation sourcesvia energy efficiency, reduction in the use of nonrenew-able transportation fuels, and support of nontechnologi-cal solutions such as incentives for use of nonmotorizedtransport and public transportation.



15/71

Building consensus on a sustainability policy acrossall levels of governmentfederal, state, regional, andlocal. To lead effectively in communication and consensus-building activities across relevant agencies at all levelsof government, the U.S. Department of Transportationwill need to determine how to bring about this collab-

oration and how best to support the efforts of localgovernments to tackle transportation sustainability.

Cooperating with other nations to address theglobal dimensions of sustainable transportation. Withimpacts that are global as well as local and regional, thisinherently international issue requires that the UnitedStates work cooperatively with other nations to addresssustainable transportation effectively.

The committee made the following recommendationsfor integrating sustainability concepts into transportationplanning.

Planning Process Recommendations

Adopt Sustainability as a Primary Objectiveof Transportation Planning

At all levels of governmentfederal, regional, state, andlocaluse of sustainability criteria should be a centralfeature of transportation planning. A goal of trans-portation planning should be to address transporta-tions unsustainable impacts, including depletion ofnonrenewable fuels, climate change, air pollution, fatal-ities and injuries, congestion, noise pollution, lowmobility, biological damage, and lack of equity. Thesecriteria should be built into planning guidelines andprocesses. In addition, transportation planning shouldbe proactive and promote sustainability through prac-tices such as integrated land use and transportationplanning and cross-modal planning. Transportationplanning also should conduct forward-looking analysesof demographics, market preferences, and job locationtrends to be responsive to the emerging needs of futuregenerations.

Use Existing Institutional Structure butAddress Cultural Issues

The existing institutional structure of transportationplanningstate departments of transportation, met-ropolitan planning organizations, and local planningagenciesis capable of integrating sustainabilityobjectives into the transportation planning process.Planning agencies nevertheless face cultural chal-lenges that must be overcome to address unsustain-able transportation impacts. Cultural issues must be

accommodated to enable the incorporation of sus-tainability-friendly solutions such as integrated landuse and transportation planning, cross-modal plan-ning, and full-cost pricing. These solutions requiretransportation planners to reach beyond their tradi-tional areas of expertise and work collaboratively with

other agencies. Moreover, to enable accountability fortransportation investment decisions, transportationplanning institutions should be given budgetary andmanagement authority.

Adopt Use of Inclusive Long-Term Visioningin Planning

Adopting longer horizons and visioning techniques inthe development of transportation plans will enhancethe ability of planning processes to integrate sustainabil-ity objectives. Standard 20-year planning horizons need

to be extended to at least 40 years to incorporate sus-tainability concepts. In addition, public involvementshould be expanded to enable plans that reflect a com-munitys vision, have support from a broad constituency,and are therefore more likely to be implemented success-fully. Underrepresented groups such as children, theelderly, and those with low income should be included inpublic involvement, along with industry, educators, andpublic health officials. In conjunction with visioning andlonger planning horizons, backcasting should be encour-aged. Backcasting involves working backwards from aparticular desired future, or set of goals, to the present.A handful of planning institutions have begun imple-menting these practices, and their experiences can bevaluable to other agencies.

Evaluate the Broad Range of Effects ofTransportation Investments in the

Planning Process

Transportation investments have a wide range of effectson the economy, the environment, and our culture. Abroad transportation planning perspective should beimplemented to enable planners to address more fully

unsustainable effects such as congestion, lack of equity,climate change, air pollution, ecological degradation,and resource depletion. In tackling these effects, plan-ning agencies should consider applying triple bottomline analysis to transportation planning. Triple bot-tom line analysis gives environmental quality and socialjustice equal weight with financial considerations.When transportations full range of effects is consid-ered in the planning process, innovative solutions canbe developed that enable reasonable growth whileaddressing sustainability.



16/71

Education Recommendation: EducateStakeholders in Issues of Sustainability

To build consensus and institutional capacity, educationin the dimensions of sustainability including sustainabletransportation is needed. Educational methods such as

professional development and training; public outreach;institution building; information dissemination; andadaptation of elementary, secondary, and tertiary cur-ricula should be applied to appropriate stakeholdergroups. For example, planning professionals shouldreceive uniform and legitimized training and educationto augment planners capabilities to include sustainabil-ity issues. Planning professionals need to be providedwith the information, resources, and skills that canenable them to deal with the complex interrelated issuesassociated with sustainability. As another example, cur-ricula on sustainability should be used in elementary,secondary, and tertiary schools to instill the values of

sustainability in younger generations. The general pub-lic should be educated in sustainability and the impor-tance of individual decisions and behavior throughoutreach and other forms of information dissemination.

Recommended Areas for Further Research

Methods and Models for Longer Time Horizonand Broader Reach Planning

Tools that enable the integration of sustainable trans-portation practices into the planning process should bedeveloped. Tools are particularly needed in the areas ofsustainable urban development, finance, freight, green-house gas emissions, road ecology, and public decisionmaking. Research also is needed on the extent to whichmethodologies such as longer horizon planning, vision-ing, and backcasting will result in more sustainabletransportation.

Individual Transportation Behavior

Research current behavior patterns and the circumstances

under which current behavior might change. Researchattitudes toward sustainability and environmental issues.These data will enable improved planning for the nextgeneration of travelers, shippers, and carriers.

Alternative Energy Sources and TechnologicalAdvancements

Research innovative solutions to unsustainable effects oftransportation including, but not limited to, the following:

New vehicle and fuel technologies such as smallspecialized vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, electricguideways, and fuel cell vehicles;

Alternative vehicle concepts such as car sharingand smart paratransit;

New low-carbon fuels such as biofuels, electricity,

and hydrogen; More energy-efficient combustion engine vehicles; Sustainable means of freight movement; and Pricing and full costing of fuel and roadways.

Case Studies and Pilot Projects

Through pilot projects and case studies, research inno-vative processes, tools, and methods that demonstratethe integration of sustainability concepts into trans-portation planning. Case examples and pilot projectsshould be conducted with metropolitan planning organi-

zations and state agencies to demonstrate innovationssuch as visioning; longer planning horizons; backcasting;ecological mitigation; land use and transportation inte-gration; introduction of new modes, vehicles, and fuels;and cross-modal planning. Air quality attainmentmethodology can be and, in a few instances, has beeneasily adapted to accommodate greenhouse gas esti-mates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyfundedefforts with state energy agencies have demonstrated themerits of pilot approaches. Metropolitan planning orga-nizations and state departments of transportation arefully capable of undertaking meaningful efforts if federalfunding could provide the necessary resources.

CONCLUSION

Achieving a sustainable transportation systemone inwhich (a) current social and economic transportationneeds are met in an environmentally conscious mannerand (b) the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds is not compromisedis not a simple task. Cer-tainly, the path to such a transportation system will bedifficult. Transportation system planners and providerswill need to work with and respond to market conditions,

demographic changes, and political challenges; it will notbe possible to envision achieving sustainability otherwise.Despite the enormity of the challenges, transportation

planning can play a significant role in a mix of publicand private actions toward the goal of sustainability.Annually, tens of billions of dollars are invested in trans-portation facilities and services by governmental units inthe United States. These investments leverage a fargreater level of private transportation investment to sus-tain the economy. Transportation planning productsgenerate, prioritize, guide, and authorize these strategic



17/71

public investments. Thus, whether decisions made withinthe planning process reflect or ignore sustainability con-cepts has a significant bearing on the likelihood ofachieving a sustainable system.

In brief, two achievable adjustments will greatlyhelp integrate sustainability concepts into transporta-

tion planning practices: (a) taking a broader view withfull concern for transportations impacts on publichealth, equity, and the environment; and (b) taking alonger-term view with full concern for future genera-

tions. While some emerging practices embrace thesetwo adjustments, most current practices are still rootedin more limited, traditional technical methods, evalua-tion schemes, and time horizons. A national consensusconcerning sustainability, facilitated by dialogue andtechnical assistance supported by the U. S. Department

of Transportation, will be needed to ensure that theentire transportation planning community makes thenecessary adjustments to integrate sustainability intoplanning practice.



18/71


19/71

GENERAL AND CONCURRENT SESSIONS


20/71


21/71

1 1

Welcoming Remarks andCharge to the Conference

Jim Shrouds, Federal Highway AdministrationDavid L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The Conference on Integrating Sustainability intothe Transportation Planning Process began with ageneral session that included welcoming remarks

from the conference sponsor and the conference com-mittee chair.

Jim Shrouds, Director of the Office of Natural andHuman Environment, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), offered welcoming remarks on behalf of theconference sponsor. He compared the challenges of sus-tainable transportation to those of the perfect storm.The three storm systems that unite to create these chal-lenges are growth in population and employment,growth in travel and congestion, and growth in concernfor the environment.

FHWA sees sustainable mobility as a systemwide issueand is undertaking various efforts in this area. In particu-lar, cost-effective and sustainable mitigation research anddevelopment, ecosystem initiatives, and FHWAs Centerfor Global Climate Change, which researches ways toreduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to theimpacts on transportation infrastructure from climate

changes such as a rise in sea level, were noted.Three of the challenges that FHWA faces are (a) pro-viding better linkages between transportation planningand environmental requirements in project develop-ment, (b) engaging stakeholders early and continuouslyin the transportation planning process, and (c) improv-ing integration of transportation and land use planning

at the local level. By facilitating discussion and expand-ing the horizons of participants, the conference is help-ing to meet those challenges.

David L. Greene, conference chair, welcomed partic-ipants to the conference and provided an overview of itsstructure and objectives. He charged participants to takeownership of the conference and, through their partici-pation, to contribute to the overall success of the ses-sions and of the conference. The role of the conferencecommittee members is to advise the U.S. government onhow to incorporate sustainability into transportationplanning on the basis of the results of this conference.Dr. Greene requested that the participants provide infor-mation and advice to committee members to assist themin meeting this charge.

Examples of working definitions of sustainabilitywere provided, including the definitions supported bythe United Nations World Commission on Environmentand Development (the Brundtland Commission) and thedefinition provided in a joint statement of 63 of theworlds scientific academies. Society cannot be sustain-

able if its parts are not sustainable, and transportationnot only must be sustainable but also must contribute tothe sustainability of society.

Dr. Greene noted that the conference has broughttogether an outstanding group of participants andexcellent speakers for a program focused on obtainingparticipant input for the conference sponsors.


22/71

1 2

Keynote Address

Thomas B. Deen, Consultant

Thomas B. Deen began his keynote address by dis-cussing previous efforts that have been under-taken on issues of sustainable transportation.

Many of the participants in this conference were active10 years ago, when work in this area was just begin-ning. Today, through this conference, participants aretaking the concept of sustainability one step further andasking how to operationalize it and make it effective.

There are four broad human aspirations: peace, free-dom, economic well-being, and a good physical envi-ronment. The last two of these are linked in that newindustry (or economic well-being) often leads to envi-ronmental degradation. This is the crux of sustainabledevelopmenthow to have economic growth withoutenvironmental decay. In the short term, jobs and growthtend to trump environmental concerns. Examples arethe increase in the percentage of workers driving alone,the decline in carpooling, the drop in transit share, theincreased length of the peak hour, the decline in urbandensity, and ever-increasing energy imports. On the

basis of these facts, Mr. Deen cannot see how one canargue that sustainability has any traction in the realworld; even the most optimistic would say that we mustdo better.

The daunting task of this conference is to movebeyond endorsing sustainability in principle and toobtain political traction to influence transportation pol-icy and activities. Mr. Deen provided the conference par-ticipants with some optimism. While a single definitionof sustainability eludes diverse groups, it is not the firstpowerful concept that suffers from the lack of a precisedefinition. Precise definitions also elude art and religion,but progress in these areas has been made. Soon a pointwill be reached where even critics will see the limits ofthe earths resources and mans effects on them, andchange will be forced.

The job of the conference participants is to figure outhow to put sustainability objectives into the real worldand make changes. It is necessary to be prepared for thetime when crisis demands ideas that can be implemented.


23/71

1 3

Presentations on TransportationSustainability Indicators

Mark DeLuchi, University of California (presented by David L. Greene,Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Mike MacCracken, Climate InstituteDaniel Sperling, University of California, DavisDavid G. Burwell, Prague Institute for Global Urban DevelopmentElizabeth Deakin, University of California, BerkeleyRichard Forman, Harvard University

HEALTH

Mark DeLuchi

David Greene presented on behalf ofMark DeLuchi,who was unable to attend the conference. The presenta-tion, External Costs of Motor Vehicle Use: Status andTrends, discussed transportations external costs as wellas its impacts on human health. The external costsexamined in the presentation included accidents, con-gestion, oil use and energy security (military expendi-tures, macroeconomic costs, pecuniary costs), airpollution (human health, visibility, crops, forests), andnoise. The presentation provided estimates of these costsas well as trends in impacts and costs.

Since 1990, all of the external costs of transportationexcept those resulting from air pollution have increasedsubstantially. The cost increases have occurred becauseof a steady increase in vehicle miles traveled despite someareas of improvement such as a reduced involvement ofalcohol, increased use of seat belts, and improved vehicle

safety. The difficulty of reducing the growth of vehiclemiles traveled suggests that health, safety, noise, conges-tion, and energy security costs of motor vehicle use mayhave to be mitigated by reducing impacts per mile. Suchmitigation, however, faces many challenges, and it is notlikely that spotty management of per mile impacts willresult in a sustainable transportation system.

Transportation sustainability depends on the develop-ment of personal transportation choices that reduce theexternalities of transportation without compromisingany of the benefits of private motor vehicle use. This will

require new visions of integrated development of towns,transportation infrastructure, and transportation modes.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mike MacCracken

Mike MacCracken began his presentation, ClimateChange and Sustainable Transportation: The Need toEnd Our Addiction to Fossil Fuels, by dividing the cli-mate change issue into the following three questions:

1. How is the climate expected to change, and are wealready seeing the early signs of these changes?

2. What are the likely environmental and societalimpacts of changes in carbon dioxide concentration andthe climate, and to what extent can adaptation amelioratethe projected negative consequences?

3. What are the options for limiting the human-caused factors inducing these changes, and how rapidly

and economically can they be implemented?

Answering these key questions is complicated by sev-eral unusual factors including long time horizons; thefact that all that can be expected given the complexity ofsociety and the environment is a projection of a range ofpossibilities; and the fact that the causes, impacts, andcontrol of the climate change issue are necessarily inter-national. Dr. MacCracken then summarized fossil fuelsbenefits to society as well as the major effects they haveon the environment. He demonstrated that the rise in


24/71

carbon dioxide concentration is unusual and that aver-age temperatures are in fact higher because of humanactivity. Other climate measures are projected to changebecause of fossil fuel use: precipitation and the rate ofevaporation will increase and sea level will rise. It isimportant to be aware that changes in these measures

may not be smooth; abrupt changes are possible.Adaptation will be essential regardless of choices

made concerning mitigation. Past emissions havealready initiated climate change, and implementation ofmitigation will merely determine the rate of climatechange. With regard to the impacts of climate change onparticular regions, only generalized projections are pos-sible. However, tools have been developed to indicatelevels of likelihood and confidence, and particularregions and sectors should use these tools to enhancelong-term planning.

The presentation concluded with the message thattransportation is not only responsible for emissions of

greenhouse gases but will also be affected by the chang-ing climate. To be sustainable, the transportation systemmust address adaptation as well as mitigation.

ENERGY

Daniel Sperling

Daniel Sperlings presentation on transportation energysustainability began by outlining the upward trends inenergy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Rapidincreases in worldwide energy use are expected to con-tinue, and carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, withan increasing proportion from transport.

Potential methods to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions and oil use were discussed. Suggestions includedchanges in behavior such as driving less and use of effi-cient, low-carbon modes of transportation; changes intransportation and land use formats such as new modes(car sharing, smart paratransit, dynamic ridesharing),specialized vehicles, and more efficient land use pat-terns; and changes in technology and fuels such as moreenergy-efficient vehicles and use of low-carbon fuels.Large reductions in greenhouse gases are possible with

electric drive and alternative fuels. Although previousalternative fuels, such as synfuels, methanol, ethanol,and compressed natural gas, failed because of cost andlack of large societal benefits, more promising alterna-tive fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, battery electric vehi-cles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have high efficiencyand reliability and zero to near-zero emissions.

Dr. Sperling recommended that signals be sent to con-sumers and industry to reduce energy consumption andgreenhouse gases. More efficient use of transport,improvements in conventional vehicles and hybrid elec-

tric vehicles in the near term, and longer-term investmentsin advanced technologies should be encouraged. Researchinto and development of clean and renewable energysources should be expanded, as should experimentationwith new vehicles and services.

EQUITY

David G. Burwell

David G. Burwell discussed the relationships betweenequity, social stability, and sustainable transportation.Traditionally, the equity and social issues of trans-portation were thought to affect only the poor. Morerecently, however, these issues have been recognized asaffecting a much broader range of the demographic,including low-income and minority groups, seniors andthe elderly, children, and the physically disabled. The

extent of the impact also is much broader and includesaccess to transportation services, lifestyle (active versussedentary as well as social isolation), and communitycohesion. Community cohesion is required to be con-sidered in all transportation plans and is defined by theextent of civic institutions, trust of political institu-tions, density of acquaintances, and degree of familyand friendship networks.

The equity and social impacts of transportation placechallenges on transportation planning. The challengeswill require better planning management that accom-modates notions of social equity across populationgroups with respect to access, quality of life, and com-munity cohesion. Current transportation services, inconjunction with present settlement patterns, generatetoo many social burdens and insufficient social benefitsacross interest groups.

People have been designed out of many urban areas,which contributes to increases in obesity, increases inType 2 diabetes in minority children, reductions in theindependent mobility of children (e.g., parents mustdrive children to school), and reductions in senior citi-zen travel. Transportation, if properly planned, couldbuild social stability by renewing neighborhoods, nur-turing a sense of community, improving safety and secu-

rity, improving access, promoting public health, andshaping growth to minimize sprawl.The following activities should be undertaken to

move toward including the impacts on equity and socialstability in transportation planning:

Study community cohesion as a planning factor, asrequired by 23 U.S.C. 109(h)(2);

Improve accountability of agencies and commu-nity partners in addressing transportation, equity, andsocial stability;

1 4 INTEGRAT ING SUSTAINABIL ITY INT O THE TRANSPORTAT ION PLANNING PROCESS


25/71

Place intense focus on community engagement inall planning efforts to understand equity and social sta-bility impacts; and

Strengthen transportation and land use partner-ships as a primary strategy for good equity and socialstability outcomes.

LAND AND COMMUNITY

Elizabeth Deakin

Elizabeth Deakin began her presentation on land use,development, and sustainable transportation by high-lighting key strategies for sustainable development andtransportation in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Thefollowing are among the key strategies for sustainableurban and suburban development:

Investment and reinvestment in existing districtsand neighborhoods, including preservation, renovation,and reuse of structures;

Upgrades to infrastructure (sewer, water, streetsand highways, telecommunications, parks);

Upgrades to services (schools, police, fire); Development of higher-density communities, espe-

cially near transit; Development of mixed-use real estate, especially

in downtowns and city centers; and Infill of urban areas to create contiguous growth.

These urban and suburban development strategiesshould be coupled with transportation strategies such assidewalk improvements, transit service improvements,signal timing favoring person trips rather than vehiclemovements, and clean and well-paved streets.

In rural areas, the key strategies for sustainabledevelopment are slightly different and include the fol-lowing:

Preservation and renewal of main streets and vil-lage centers;

Preservation of rural landscapes and views; Conservation of agriculture and open spaces;

Cluster development; and Economic development and job training to main-tain, increase, diversify, and improve jobs.

As with urban and suburban areas, rural sustainabledevelopment strategies should be coupled with trans-portation strategies as follows:

Traffic calming on entering towns, Sidewalks and bike lanes in towns and walking

trails and bike paths through the countryside,

Road location and design that take advantage ofscenic vistas and historic sites and that protect environ-mentally sensitive areas, and

Road ecology.

The following are among the challenges facing sus-

tainable transportation and development:

It is easier to keep doing what you know than totry something new.

Reuse, rehabilitation, renovation, and infill can becostly and may generate opposition.

Infrastructure provision, pricing, and fundingpolicies sometimes favor new areas.

Design standards for arterials and highwaysemphasize vehicle throughput to the detriment of otherstreet functions.

Funding for sidewalks or street trees is lacking. It is difficult to meet transportation needs in low-

density suburbs and rural areas for those without cars. There is not enough funding for operations and

maintenance.

Despite these challenges, successes are found all overthe country. The successes, however, are not yet trans-lating into an overall development trend. Some regionsare building on project successes to devise a regionalstrategy, and some state departments of transportationare reforming their policies to integrate land use andcommunity values.

The differences between the success stories and the sto-ries of those who have tried and failed were summarized.Environmental quality, equity, and economic develop-ment are fundamental objectives of planning processes,not post hoc evaluation criteria. In instances of success,planners are not just forecasting but also backcasting tofigure out how to get to a future that people want.

HABITATS AND ECOSYSTEMS

Richard Forman

Richard Forman began his presentation by stating that

the objective of sustainable transportation with regardto habitats and ecosystems should be to mesh safe andefficient mobility with natural processes and biodiver-sity. Society should aim to improve natural systemsalong the road network while reestablishing a connec-tivity of natural areas and green corridors that the roadnetwork has cut into small parcels. The presentationthen focused on seven aspects of road ecology:

1. Road kill. This is generally a minor issue excep-tion when animals that reproduce slowly are affected.

1 5PRESENTATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS


26/71

2. Traffic disturbance and wildlife. A study was dis-cussed that found that low-volume roads do not have anystatistical effect on the breeding or existence of birds sur-rounding the roadway. As volume on roads increases,however, the study showed a significant effect on thebreeding and existence of birds. The size of the affected

area also increases as traffic volumes increase. Solutionsto the impacts of traffic on wildlife may include improvedvehicle and pavement designs that reduce noise.

3. Roadside vegetation. A primary function of road-side vegetation is safety. If roadside trees narrow thevision ahead, drivers slow down. Roads in the UnitedStates, however, are designed for speed, with grassyopen areas along the roads. Trees planted up to the sideof the road could improve safety by reducing speeds andat the same time provide habitat for wildlife.

4. Connectivity of land. The existing road networksevers the land and affects the habitats and migration

patterns of wildlife. Overpasses to increase connectivity,not only for animals but also for farmers and hikers,should be used.

5. Water and aquatic ecosystems. Sedimentation,road salt, and other pollutant runoff from roads affectwater quality. Such impacts, however, can be mitigated

by disconnecting roads from water bodies and by usingsoil as a filtering substance for runoff.

6. Road density. The current road networks insensi-tivity to ecology was discussed, and an ecosystem-friendly transportation infrastructure that maintainslarge road-free areas and concentrates traffic on a fewlarge roads was described.

7. Regional transportation planning. Currently, airquality is the only environmental impact of transporta-tion that is adequately modeled on a regional basis. Sim-ilar modeling should be conducted for other majorenvironmental issues.



27/71

1 7

Concurrent SessionsWhat Are the Challenges?

William R. Black, Indiana UniversityJoan Ogden, University of California, DavisMichael Wang, Argonne National LaboratoryKevin E. Heanue, ConsultantBob Johnston, University of California, Davis

John P. Poorman, Capital District Transportation Committee, AlbanyArthur (Chris) Nelson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversitySteve Lockwood, PB ConsultTom Sanchez, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityChristina Casgar, U.S. Department of TransportationLee Schipper, World Resources InstituteMartin Lee-Gosselin, University of Laval, Canada

This section provides a synthesis of the presenta-tions and discussions that occurred in the initialsessions of four concurrent sessions on the fol-

lowing topic areas: technology, tools and institutions,policy, and behavior. In each concurrent session, twopresentations were followed by a facilitated discussion.The purpose of the initial concurrent sessions was todiscuss the challenges facing sustainable transportationin each of the four topic areas.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-1: TECHNOLOGY

William R. Black, Facilitator

Joan Ogden and Michael Wang, Presenters

Presentations

Joan Ogden discussed the potential role for hydrogenin a sustainable transportation system. She outlinedseveral reasons why hydrogen should be considered asa transportation fuel, including its zero or near-zeroemissions at point of use, low to zero well-to-wheelsemissions of both air pollutants and greenhouse gases

with some supply pathways, ability to be made fromdiverse sources (fossil, renewable, nuclear), wide usetoday, the rapid progress in hydrogen and fuel cell tech-nologies, and potential to enable new products and ser-vices that would transform the way energy is used andproduced. In addition, hydrogen could reduce green-house gas and air pollutant emissions and utilizediverse energy supplies.

Barriers to a hydrogen economy include the need todevelop emerging technologies while adapting currenthydrogen technologies for a hydrogen energy economy(e.g., fuel cells, hydrogen storage for vehicles), the cur-rent high cost of hydrogen end use technologies, the cur-rent lack of infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to

consumers, and the lack of consistent policies reflectingthe external costs of energy. Hydrogen also presentstechnical challenges. For instance, current automotivefuel cells are many times more expensive than gasoline,the lifetime of fuel cells is currently too short, there areunresolved system issues with heat and water manage-ment, hydrogen is bulkier and heavier than liquid fuels,and no current hydrogen storage technology satisfiesautomobile company requirements with regard to cost,range, and refueling time. The technology to producehydrogen at a large scale and low cost from fossil fuels


28/71

is well established. Small-scale production of hydrogenat refueling sites, however, is under development and isfacing issues such as cost, efficiency, and system integra-tion. For hydrogen to be sustainable, pathways must bezero carbon and zero emissions.

Even under optimistic scenarios, it will be several

decades before hydrogen can affect emissions on aglobal scale. Dr. Ogden recommended the followingactions to support hydrogen: research and developmenton hydrogen technologies, publicprivate partnershipsto demonstrate hydrogen technologies, the institution offederal and state governments as early adopters ofhydrogen technologies, the establishment of codes andstandards for safe operation in energy applications, andanalysis to better understand the societal costs of energyand the role of hydrogen in the future energy system.

Michael Wang discussed the life-cycle effects ofvehicle and fuel technologies. The gap between U.S. oildemand and domestic oil supply will continue to grow,

new-vehicle fuel economy in the United States has notimproved measurably since 1985, and the UnitedStates will continue to have the highest total green-house gas emissions. The reduction in criteria pollu-tant emissions has been a bright spot in the UnitedStates.

The life cycle of fuel can be defined as well to wheelsor well to pump + pump to wheels, and the entire lifecycle needs to be considered in energy and environmentalassessments. Oil use and greenhouse gases are major chal-lenges for a sustainable transportation system. However,efficiency improvements, combined with fuel switches,could significantly reduce oil use and greenhouse gas emis-sions of motor vehicles. As tailpipe emissions continue todecline, well-to-pump emissions of criteria pollutantscould become a significant share of total well-to-wheelemissions, and this portion of the life cycle should not beignored. Advanced vehicle and fuel systems need to becarefully examined to ensure achievement of intendedenergy and emission benefits.

Discussion

After the two presentations, William Black facilitated a

discussion. Topics included ways in which hydrogenmight interact with other infrastructure and trends, theneed to design transportation infrastructure now forfuture hydrogen compatibility, and the ability to applytransportation planning tools to the hydrogen economy.The need for technological change must be communi-cated effectively to the public. To motivate politicalaction, a global understanding of the long-term problemand the need to make decisions now to affect results 50years in the future is necessary.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-2:TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS

Kevin Heanue, Facilitator

Bob Johnston and John Poorman, Presenters

Presentations

Bob Johnston discussed the sustainable transportationplanning tools available to metropolitan planning organi-zations and state departments of transportation. Currentsustainable transportation planning is a medium-rangeprocess that ignores most impacts. A policy analysisframework that requires long-range comprehensive plan-ning should be developed and implemented.

Once such a policy framework is in place, existingtools and models can be used to facilitate the sustain-able transportation process. Within agencies possessing

adequate resources, there is a technical capacity toengage in land use and transportation modeling. Dr.

Johnston provided an overview of models currently inuse throughout the United States and noted the cost-effectiveness and appropriate scale of use of each model.

John Poorman offered insight into the current stateof transportation plannings institutional frameworkand culture. Missed opportunities in the sustainabletransportation movement were discussed. The recenttransportation funding reauthorization debate was onesuch missed opportunity to promote sustainability intransportation.

The current institutional structure for transportationplanning is capable of supporting sustainable planning.However, the institutional culture of planning organiza-tions inhibits advancement toward the integration ofsustainable concepts. Transportation planning is a slowprocess that is constantly in transition. There is a lack ofinstitutional understanding about the future and a needfor metropolitan planning organizations and statedepartments of transportation to embrace uncertaintyin the planning process.

Metropolitan planning organizations and statedepartments of transportation must approach trans-portation planning as a multipurpose process and not

limit their perspective to only one mode. Finally, long-range transportation planning and community forma-tion and land use planning require improved funding.

Discussion

Kevin Heanue facilitated this sessions discussion. Thediscussion focused on the many challenges facing theimplementation of planning tools and models within the



29/71

sustainable transportation movement. The discussionidentified the following issues:

Lack of a sustainability requirement in the plan-ning process;

Cultural resistance to the sustainability movement;

Lack of resources for the sustainability movement; Existence of political pressures; Lack of accountability within the transportation

planning process; Lack of performance measures; Variation in forecasting methodsstate, local,

and federal; Differences in metropolitan economics and gov-

erning; Overemphasis on model running and lack of

emphasis on data feeding; and Difficulties in modeling equity impacts.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-3: POLICY

Arthur (Chris) Nelson, Facilitator

Steve Lockwood and Tom Sanchez, Presenters

Presentations

Steve Lockwood mentioned some of the challenges facingpolicy with regard to sustainability. They include posi-tional/political sustainability, institutional/financial sus-tainability, program sustainability via accountability (i.e.,systems development, output efficiency, and mobility andsafety outcomes), and environmental sustainability (i.e.,regulatory requirements and program externalities). Tocomplicate matters further, sustainability goals encompassseveral overlapping policy arenas including technology,demand management, and supply management. In addi-tion, issues of sustainability lie within the span of controlof all levels of governmentfederal, state, regional, andlocal.

Mr. Lockwood discussed the role of system opera-tions in a sustainable transportation system. He summa-rized the effect of system operations and management on

roadway operating regimes for both recurring and non-recurring causes of delay. In general, potential reductionsin delay are minimal except for incident management ofbreakdowns and crashes. In that case, a reduction of 20percent is possible. With regard to the impact of opera-tions on emissions, even the most cost-effective emissionreduction strategies do little for mobility or congestion(except pricing).

Trends in system operations were discussed, includingreductions in system expansion coupled with a focus on

the efficiency of available capacity, significant improve-ments in speedflow regimes, improvements in safetyand security, reductions in modal distinctions, and possi-bly the integration of operations into the planningprocess. Transportation providers are moving from pro-viding a network and developing projects to improving

mobility through system operations and management.Tom Sanchez discussed the equity considerations and

concerns of sustainable transportation. From a researchperspective, it is important to identify the constraintsthat prevent people from participating adequately in allaspects of society, including education, employment,housing, and public services. There are several areas ofconcern in transportation equity research: demographictrends, personal transportation costs, indirect economicand social effects, health effects, language barriers, citi-zen participation, and employment and business oppor-tunities within the transportation industry.

Discussion

After the two presentations, Arthur Nelson summarizedthe statistics of anticipated development over the next30 years and the implications that this development mayhave for highways. Among the implications areincreased vehicles, vehicle miles traveled, and lane miles.He posed the following policy questions:

Where should this development be built? How should this development be configured? How should transportation systems be designed to

serve this future development? What policies and policy processes are needed to

achieve this at the federal level?

Among the policy challenges facing sustainable trans-portation are the lack of broad consensus on nationaltargets for sustainability; the absence of nationally gal-vanizing goals for sustainability; and the lack of broadpublic understanding of the issues, challenges, choices,and implications of choices with regard to sustainability.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-4: BEHAVIOR

Christina Casgar, Facilitator

Lee Schipper and Martin Lee-Gosselin, Presenters

Presentations

Lee Schipper addressed the role that behavior plays inachieving sustainable transport. He focused on the role

1 9CONCURRENT SESSIONS: WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES?


30/71

that the United States plays in shaping the worldwideview of sustainable transport and the steps being takentoward implementing sustainable transport in theUnited States.

Unpredictable changes in behavior hamper the sus-tainability process. Intervention could enable the sus-

tainable transportation movement at three levels ofbehavior: the macro level (politicians), the meso level(administrators and transport professionals), and themicro level (individual travelers).

Key areas where further research is needed linkingtransportation and behavior were identified. There is aneed for a shift from typical destination studies to ananalysis of the transportation decision-making process.To achieve sustainable transport in the United States,Americans need to develop cultural recognition and costinternalization of the basic ingredients of sustainability.

Martin Lee-Gosselin discussed the reasons behavioris seen as a problem in sustainable transportation plan-

ning and policy. He also spoke to ways researchers areresponding to the complexity of evolving transportationbehavior.

Dr. Lee-Gosselin first defined the externalities andunanticipated consequences (good and bad) that resultfrom the choices of travelers. He then described the sixinconveniences of behavior, including the differencebetween preference and choice and the complexities that

arise from the fact that mode and route choices dependon more than just a travelers work commute.

Several short- and long-term actions being taken byresearchers to address the complexity of behavior wereidentified. It is helpful to understand which decisionsare important to whom (individuals, firms, public agen-

cies). There is a need to understand both conventionaldata sources and how travelers interpret and use infor-mation on travel options.

Dr. Lee-Gosselin proposed that the transportationindustry design behavior indicators and establish a bal-ance between persuasion, pricing, and regulation. Behav-ior change in favor of sustainable transportation willrequire feedback at the local, regional, and national levels.

Discussion

Christina Casgar facilitated the discussion during this ses-

sion. The discussion focused on the limitations of humancognitive ability and how these limitations affect the plan-ning process. The inability of the individual to grasp theidea of sustainability was attributed to the restriction ofthought to short-term versus long-term thinking. The par-ticipants also made an attempt to determine the extent towhich changes in behavior had to occur before changes intransportation could be achieved.



31/71

2 1

Reports on the Concurrent SessionsWhat Are the Challenges?

Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern CaliforniaThomas M. Downs, Eno Transportation FoundationAnne Canby, Surface Transportation Policy ProjectRichard Gilbert, Centre for Sustainable Transportation

Conference participants assembled in a general ses-sion to discuss key points and areas of generalagreement identified in the initial concurrent ses-

sions on the challenges facing sustainability in each ofthe four topic areas: technology, tools and institutions,policy, and behavior. A rapporteur provided an overviewof each initial concurrent session.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-1: TECHNOLOGY

Genevieve Giuliano, Rapporteur

Participants primarily discussed the technology offuture energy sources with regard to production, distri-bution, and storage. A 30- to 70-year time frame isrequired for the implementation of new transportationtechnologies. To make informed policy decisions aboutfuture energy sources and their sustainability, a fullwell-to-wheel evaluation is required.

In the short term, future energy sources are likely to

include hybrids, natural gas, ethanol, and unconven-tional oil. In the long term, hydrogen appears to be themost promising energy source, but other options such asnuclear, electric, and sequestration also need to be con-sidered. Hydrogen has the most potential, on the basisof its diverse sources of production, near-zero emissions,and rapid technological advances. The technologicalchallenges associated with hydrogen include its highcost, limited fuel cell lifetime, heat and water manage-ment, on-vehicle storage, production systems, and riskand uncertainty of some production sources. The transi-

tion to hydrogen also presents such obstacles as con-sumer acceptance and development of compatible pro-duction, storage, and distribution systems. Whether toproduce hydrogen from fossil fuels as an interim phaseto production via electricity is another question.

In addition to the development of future energysources and the reduction of greenhouse gases, areaswhere technology could be successful in meeting sus-tainable transportation challenges include adaptation toclimate change, improved safety, noise reductionthrough sound-absorbing pavements and quiet cars,congestion relief through improved system manage-ment, and facilitation of mobility. The participants con-cluded that technology research should be focusedwhere solutions are the most promising with regard totheir positive impact on sustainability.

CONCURRENT SESSION I-2:TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS

Thomas M. Downs, Rapporteur

Participants discussed numerous challenges to integrat-ing concepts of sustainability into the tools and institu-tions of the planning process. To start, sustainability isnot a requirement in the planning process, and politicalpressures and a lack of resources inhibit t

[scm] transportation planning process.pdf

Documents