Click for next page ( 107


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 106
106 REFERENCES 1. Kress, J. and G. Barrett, A New Century of Biology, Washington 25. Todd, N. and J. Todd, From Eco-Cities to Living Machines, D.C: Smithsonian Press, 2001. Principles of Ecological Design, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic 2. Booth, D. The Environmental Consequences of Growth, Lon- Books, 1994. don: Routledge, 1998. 26. Mazmanian, D. and M. Kraft, Toward Sustainable Communi- 3. Nadakavukaren, A., Our Global Environment, A Health Per- ties, Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy, spective, 5th edition, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 2000. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999. 4. Knox, P. and S. Marston, Places and Regions in Global Con- 27. Schulze, P., ed., Engineering Within Ecological Constraints, text, Human Geography, 2nd edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Washington D.C: National Academy Press, 1996. Prentice Hall, 2003. 28. Raven, P. ed., Nature and Human Society, The Quest for a Sus- 5. Goudie, A., The Human Impact on the Natural Environment, tainable World, Washington D.C: National Academy Press, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000. 1997. 6. Golley, F., A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology, 29. Federal Highway Administration, Flexibility in Highway Design, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998. 7. Likens, G. "Ecosystems, Energetics and Biogeochemistry," 30. Neuman, T. et al, "A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving in Kress, J. and G. Barrett, A New Century of Biology, Context-Sensitive Solutions", National Cooperative Highway Washington D.C: Smithsonian Press, 2001. Research Project Report 480, Washington D.C: Transportation 8. Aber, J. and J. Melillo, Terrestrial Ecosystems, 2nd edition, Research Board, 2002. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001. 31. Maryland State Highway Commission, Thinking Beyond the 9. White, R., Building the Ecological City, Cambridge, England: Pavement, A National Workshop on Integrating Highway Woodhead Publishing, 2002. Development with Communities and the Environment while 10. Wilson, E., The Future of Life, Alfred Knopf, New York, 2002. Maintaining Safety and Performance, Baltimore, MD, 1998. 11. Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: 32. Transportation Research Board, Surface Transportation Envi- Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Gabriola Island, BC, ronmental Research, A Long-Term Strategy, Special Report New Society Publishers, 1996. 268, Washington D.C: National Academy Press, 2002. 12. Wilds, S. and P. White, "Dynamic Terrestrial Ecosystem Pat- 33. Manheim, M. et al., Transportation Decision-Making, A Guide terns and Processes," in Jensen M. and P. Bourgeron, eds. A to Social and Environmental Considerations, National Coop- Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments, New York: erative Highway Research Program Report 156, Transporta- Springer, 2001. tion Research Board, Washington D.C., 1975. 13. Archibugi, F., The Ecological City and the City Effect, Essays 34. Banister, D. and K. Button, eds., Transport, the Environment, on the Urban Planning Requirements for the Sustainable City, and Sustainable Development, London: E&FN Spon, 1993. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 1997. 35. Haq, G., Towards Sustainable Transport Planning, Aldershot, 14. Tjallingii, S., Ecopolis: Strategies for Ecologically Sound England: Ashgate, 1997. Urban Development, Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Pub- 36. Meyer, M. and E. Miller, Urban Transportation Planning: A lishers, 1995. Decision Oriented Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. 15. Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities, Over- 37. Feldmann, Lieselotte, The European Commission's Proposal coming Automobile Dependence, Washington D.C: Island for a Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Expand- Press, 1999. ing the Scope of Environmental Impact Assessment in Europe. 16. Van der Ryn, S. and S. Cowan, Ecological Design, Washing- Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 1998, pp. 314. ton D.C: Island Press, 1996. 38. European Commission (2001a) Strategic Environmental Assess- 17. Wines, J., Green Architecture, London: Taschen, 2000. ment in the Transport Sector: An Overview of Legislation and Prac- 18. Platt, R., R. Rowntree, and P. Muick, eds., The Ecological City, tice in EU Member States, 2001. Accessed at http://europa.eu.int/ Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994. comm/environment/eia/sea-studies-and-reports/sea_transport.pdf 19. Maser, C., Sustainable Community Development, Principles in July 2001. and Concepts, Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 1997. 39. European Commission, Strategic Environmental Assessment of 20. Kivell, P., P. Roberts, and G. Walker, eds., Environment, Plan- Transport Corridors: Lessons Learned Comparing the Meth- ning, and Land Use, Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 1998. ods of Five Member States, 2001. Accessed at http:// 21. Allenby, B. and D. Richards, eds., The Greening of Industrial europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/sea-studies-and-reports/ Ecosystems, Washington D.C: National Academy Press, 1994. sea_transport2.pdf in July 2001. 22. McDonagh, W. and M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, Remaking 40. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development the Way We Make Things, New York: North Point Press, 2002. (OECD), EST! Environmentally Sustainable Transport Guide- 23. Facheux, Sylvie; Pearce, David; and, John Proops, Models of lines, Endorsed at the OECD International Conference, Vienna, Sustainable Development. New Horizons in Environmental Austria, October 4-6, 2000. Accessed at http://www.oecd.org/ Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1996. pdf/M0006000/M00006604.pdf in July 2002. 24. Roseland, M. ed., Eco-City Dimensions, Healthy Communities, 41. European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive on Healthy Planet, Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Soci- the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes ety Publishers, 1997. on the Environment. COM(96)511 final. ISBN 92 78 13254 3,

OCR for page 106
107 1997. Accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ 59. Meyer, M., "Measuring System Performance: Key to Estab- eia/full-legal-text/96pc511.htm in July 2001. lishing Operations as a Core Agency Mission," Transportation 42. European Commission, Amended Proposal for a Council Research Record 1817, Washington D.C: Transportation Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Research Board, 2002. Programmes on the Environment. COM(99)73 final. ISSN 60. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. "A Guidebook for Performance- 0254 1475, Brussels, Belgium, 1999. Based Transportation Planning," NCHRP Report 446, Wash- 43. European Commission, Case Studies in Strategic Environmen- ington D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2000. tal Assessment. ISBN 92 828 3558 X, 1997. Accessed at 61. Meyer, M.D., "Measuring that which cannot be measured http://www.eic.or.jp/eanet/assessment/sea/sea2/s206-2.htm in (At least according to conventional wisdom)." In Conference July 2001. Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Trans- 44. European Commission, SEA and Integration of the Environment portation Systems and Agency Operations. Washington D.C: into Strategic Decision-Making, 2001, http://europa.eu.int/ Transportation Research Board, 2001. comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm. 62. California Department of Transportation, California Trans- 45. Partidrio, M. and R. Clark, eds., Perspectives on Strategic portation Plan, 2025, draft, Sacramento, CA, September 25, Environmental Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 2002. Florida, 2000. 63. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 46. Therivel, R. and M. Partidrio, eds., The Practice of Strategic Environmental Policy, Code 1.6-3, Albany, NY, June 20, 2000. Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London, 1996. 64. Portland METRO, The Nature of 2040: The Region's 50-year 47. Partidrio, M., "Strategic environmental assessment: Key Plan for Managing Growth, Portland, OR, 2000. issues emerging from recent practice," Environmental Impact 65. Puget Sound Regional Commission, Vision 2020, Seattle, WA, Assessment Review 16, 1996. pp. 3155. October 1990. 48. Therivel, R. "Systems of strategic environmental assessment," 66. Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington Environmental Impact Assessment Review vol. 13, no. 3, 1993, Transportation Plan 2003 2022, Olympia, WA, 2002. pp. 145168. 67. Cape Cod Commission, Regional Policy Plan 2001, draft. 49. Sadler, B. and R. Verheem, Strategic Environmental Assess- Barnstable, MA, June 4, 2001. ment: Status, Challenges, and Future Directions, Report no. 68. Lane Council of Governments, TransPlan, The Eugene- 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environ- Springfield Transportation System Plan, Eugene, OR, Septem- ment, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1996. ber 2001. 50. European Commission, Manual on Strategic Environmental 69. Minnesota Department of Transportation, "Design Policy-- Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans. Accessed at Design Excellence Through Context Sensitive Design," Tech- http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/network/english/ nical Memorandum No. 00-24-TS-03, St. Paul, MN, Novem- bground.doc/index.en.html in July 2001. ber 9, 2000. 51. European Commission, Handbook on Environmental Assess- 70. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennPlan Moves! ment of Regional Development Plans and Structural Funds Report of Achievements 2000. Pennsylvania Statewide Long Programmes. Brussels, Belgium, 1998. Range Transportation Plan 2000-2025, Harrisburg, PA, 2001. 52. World Commission on Environment and Development 71. Southern California Association of Governments, RTP Com- (WCED), Our Common Future. Oxford, England, Oxford Uni- munity Link 21, Adopted April, Los Angeles, CA, 2001. versity Press, 1987. 72. Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Year 2025 53. Holdren, J.; Daily, G. and P. Ehrlich, "The Meaning of Sus- Regional Transportation Plan--Update 2000, Toledo, Ohio, tainability: Biogeophysical Aspects," In Defining and Measur- 2000. ing Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations. Edited by 73. Riverside County, Riverside County Integrated Project Plan, Munasinghe, Mohan and Walter Shearer. The United Nations Riverside, CA, Nov. 2002. University (UNU) and the World Bank, 1995, pp. 314. 74. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2003), accessed at: 54. Gilbert, R. and H. Tanguay. Sustainable Transportation http://www.trpa.org/eipdocument/volume4/units.pdf. Performance Indicators Project. Brief Review of Some Rele- 75. Freilich, R., From Sprawl to Smart Growth, Successful Legal, vant Worldwide Activity and Development of an Initial Long Planning and Environmental Systems, Chicago: American Bar List of Indicators. The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, Association, 1999. Environment Canada and Transport Canada, 2000. 76. Albright, D., "Context Sensitivity in the 21st Century," Cal- 55. Transport Canada, Transport Canada's Sustainable Develop- trans, Sacramento, CA: August 1, 2001. ment Action Plan, Ottawa, Ontario, 1999. 77. Florida Department of Transportation, Florida's ETDM 56. Gilbert, R., Potential Users and Uses of Sustainable Trans- Process, Progress Report 2, Tallahassee, FL, April 2002. portation Performance Indicators (STPI). Final Report on 78. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Draft 2001 Phase 2 of the STPI Project. The Centre for Sustainable Trans- Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, portation, Environment Canada, and Transport Canada, 2001. Environmental Impact Report, August 2001. 57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 79. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennDOT's 10- (OECD), Transport-Environment Indicators, Paris, France, Step Process to Transportation Project Development, 1993. Accessed in February 2002. www.faeco.telerama.com/the.htm. 58. Booz Allen Hamilton and Michael Baker, Inc., "Environmen- 80. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Correspondence to tal Information Management and Decision Support System-- Federal Highway Administration on Funding of Staffing Agree- Implementation Handbook," National Cooperative Highway ments with Environmental Resource Agencies, April 6, 2001. Research Program Report 481, Transportation Research 81. Smedley, Jim, Director of Transportation Planning; Kotay, Board, Washington D.C., 2003. Thomas -- Manager, Center for Program Development & Man-

OCR for page 106
108 ager; and Angela Watson -- Land Use Coordinator (2002). 92. Lane, Leigh Blackmon, S. Hoffeld, and D. Griffin, "Environ- Interview by Adjo A. Amekudzi, Pennsylvania Department of mental Justice Evaluation, Wilmington Bypass, Wilmington, Transportation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, January 31, 2002. NC," Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Trans- 82. Washington State Department of Transportation, Understand portation Research Record 1626, Washington D.C: Trans- Environmental Costs Related to Transportation Projects, Envi- portation Research Board, 1998. ronmental Affairs Office, Olympia, WA, April 21, 2002. 93. Amekudzi, A. and K. Dixon, "Development of an Environ- 83. Washington State Department of Transportation, WSDOT mental Justice Analysis Methodology for the Georgia Depart- (2002), SR 104 EIS NEPA Pilot Project, accessed in Feb- ment of Transportation's Multimodal Transportation Planning ruary 2003 at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/Olympic/ Tool," Proceedings of the 8th Transportation Research Board planning/corridorplanning/sr104/. Conference on Planning Applications, Corpus Christi, TX, 84. Maryland Department of Transportation/State Highway April 2001. Administration, A Training Program to Support Maryland 94. Owens, B., S. Logren, W.B. Nixon, and K. Nixon, "The Air State Highway Administration's Secondary and Cumulative Force Environmental Justice Methodology--A Discussion," Effects Analysis Guidelines, Version 5.5, October 20, 2000. Presented at the Air & Waste Management Association's 90th 85. Pima County, Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Preliminary, Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, June 8-13, 1997. Tucson, AZ, September 2000. 95. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Environ- 86. ECONorthwest, Shapiro and Associates, and Professor Sefcik, mental Information Management and Decision Support Sys- Environmental Benefit/Cost Assessment System, A report pre- tem: Implementation Handbook Report 481, Washington D.C.: pared for the Washington Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Board, 2003. December 2001. 96. DHV Environmental and Infrastructure BV, Strategic Envi- 87. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1994), Reference Document for ronmental Assessment, Existing Methodology, undated. Preparation of System-Plan Environmental Evaluations, Pre- 97. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memoran- pared for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, April. dum of Agreement Between Department of Transportation and 88. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin State the Department of Fish and Game, Memorandum from Robert Highway Plan 2020, Madison, WI, 2000. Best to Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 89. Dale, V. and M. English (eds.), Tools to Aid Environmental December 13, 1990. Decision Making, New York: Springer, 1999. 98. Gregory, R., "Identifying Environmental Values," in Dale V. 90. Jensen, M. and P. Bourgeron, A Guidebook for Integrated Eco- and M. English, eds., Tools to Aid Environmental Decision logical Assessments, New York: Springer, 2001. Making, New York: Springer, 1999. 91. Purvis, C., "Data and Analysis Methods for Metropolitan- 99. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Context Level Environmental Justice Assessment," Journal of the Sensitive Solutions Implementation Plan, Memorandum from Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Rick Knapp to Director, Deputy Directors, Division Chiefs, Record 1756, Washington D.C.: Transportation Research District Directors, California Department of Transportation, Board, 2001. Sacramento, CA, October 3, 2002.