Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 214


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 213
unique benefit. Transportation analysts could count either the reduced shipping costs or the lower market price of tomatoes as a benefit, but not both, because the one flows directly from the other. For this reason, highway project benefit-cost analysis has often focused strictly on user benefits--reduced travel times, lower vehicle operating costs, and a reduction in the number of accidents--and broader economic impacts have at times been ignored (see AASHTO 2003 for a discussion of this approach). The matter is even more complicated for economic impacts that are in part shifts in activity. Here analysts often argued that ignoring economic impacts altogether was more practical than having to evaluate the gains in one location and the losses in another. The old maxims do not apply when examining environmental justice concerns. To continue with the tomato analogy, lower shipping costs that result in lower market prices benefit consumers. Lower shipping prices that do not result in lower market prices benefit shippers or tomato growers. Understanding the distributive impacts of the various economic benefits illuminates who gains from a transportation project. The same holds true for business development and economic growth. Environmental justice requires a shift in focus from aggregate benefit-cost comparisons to an understanding of which groups benefit and which groups do not. While traditional highway project analysis has not focused on the distributive impacts of economic benefits, there are many methods and techniques that can be easily adapted to the task. Because local officials often understand and care about the spatial distribution of economic impacts of highway projects, there is research and practice to provide a foundation for environmental justice analysis in this area. The techniques range from plotting businesses in a corridor, to survey and focus group techniques, to more complex analytical methods. Most have their roots in existing transportation analysis and so will be familiar to transportation planners. In evaluating the environmental justice implications of highway economic impacts, the primary task will be to adapt existing tools to a spatial and distributive framework. This can often be done easily and without substantial additional commitments of agency resources. SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ANALYSIS There are generally two types of economic effects: direct and indirect. The nature and extent of these effects can be quite different during and after construction. Each of these aspects is discussed below. Be sure to adequately address each of these issues as part of an economic assessment. Steps in the assessment. In general, an environmental justice assessment for the economic development impacts of highways involves two steps--assessing the spatial extent of the positive and negative effects and then overlaying this information on data (often in the form of maps) about minority and low-income communities to assess whether the distributional impact raises environmental justice concerns. In this chapter, we discuss methods for assessing the spatial extent of positive or negative economic impacts from highway projects. Methods for analyzing the locations of low-income or minority populations and for overlaying spatial impacts with demographic characteristics are described in Chapter 2. 218