Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

107 1997. Accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ eia/full-legal-text/96pc511.htm in July 2001. 42. European Commission, Amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. COM(99)73 final. ISSN 0254 1475, Brussels, Belgium, 1999. 43. European Commission, Case Studies in Strategic Environmen- tal Assessment. ISBN 92 828 3558 X, 1997. Accessed at http://www.eic.or.jp/eanet/assessment/sea/sea2/s206-2.htm in July 2001. 44. European Commission, SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making, 2001, http://europa.eu.int/ comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm. 45. Partidário, M. and R. Clark, eds., Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000. 46. Therivel, R. and M. Partidário, eds., The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London, 1996. 47. Partidário, M., “Strategic environmental assessment: Key issues emerging from recent practice,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16, 1996. pp. 31–55. 48. Therivel, R. “Systems of strategic environmental assessment,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review vol. 13, no. 3, 1993, pp. 145–168. 49. Sadler, B. and R. Verheem, Strategic Environmental Assess- ment: Status, Challenges, and Future Directions, Report no. 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environ- ment, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1996. 50. European Commission, Manual on Strategic Environmental Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans. Accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/network/english/ bground.doc/index.en.html in July 2001. 51. European Commission, Handbook on Environmental Assess- ment of Regional Development Plans and Structural Funds Programmes. Brussels, Belgium, 1998. 52. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future. Oxford, England, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1987. 53. Holdren, J.; Daily, G. and P. Ehrlich, “The Meaning of Sus- tainability: Biogeophysical Aspects,” In Defining and Measur- ing Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations. Edited by Munasinghe, Mohan and Walter Shearer. The United Nations University (UNU) and the World Bank, 1995, pp. 3–14. 54. Gilbert, R. and H. Tanguay. Sustainable Transportation Performance Indicators Project. Brief Review of Some Rele- vant Worldwide Activity and Development of an Initial Long List of Indicators. The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, Environment Canada and Transport Canada, 2000. 55. Transport Canada, Transport Canada’s Sustainable Develop- ment Action Plan, Ottawa, Ontario, 1999. 56. Gilbert, R., Potential Users and Uses of Sustainable Trans- portation Performance Indicators (STPI). Final Report on Phase 2 of the STPI Project. The Centre for Sustainable Trans- portation, Environment Canada, and Transport Canada, 2001. 57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Transport-Environment Indicators, Paris, France, 1993. 58. Booz Allen Hamilton and Michael Baker, Inc., “Environmen- tal Information Management and Decision Support System— Implementation Handbook,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 481, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2003. 59. Meyer, M., “Measuring System Performance: Key to Estab- lishing Operations as a Core Agency Mission,” Transportation Research Record 1817, Washington D.C: Transportation Research Board, 2002. 60. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. “A Guidebook for Performance- Based Transportation Planning,” NCHRP Report 446, Wash- ington D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2000. 61. Meyer, M.D., “Measuring that which cannot be measured (At least according to conventional wisdom).” In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Trans- portation Systems and Agency Operations. Washington D.C: Transportation Research Board, 2001. 62. California Department of Transportation, California Trans- portation Plan, 2025, draft, Sacramento, CA, September 25, 2002. 63. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), Environmental Policy, Code 1.6-3, Albany, NY, June 20, 2000. 64. Portland METRO, The Nature of 2040: The Region’s 50-year Plan for Managing Growth, Portland, OR, 2000. 65. Puget Sound Regional Commission, Vision 2020, Seattle, WA, October 1990. 66. Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington Transportation Plan 2003 – 2022, Olympia, WA, 2002. 67. Cape Cod Commission, Regional Policy Plan 2001, draft. Barnstable, MA, June 4, 2001. 68. Lane Council of Governments, TransPlan, The Eugene- Springfield Transportation System Plan, Eugene, OR, Septem- ber 2001. 69. Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Design Policy— Design Excellence Through Context Sensitive Design,” Tech- nical Memorandum No. 00-24-TS-03, St. Paul, MN, Novem- ber 9, 2000. 70. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennPlan Moves! Report of Achievements 2000. Pennsylvania Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan 2000-2025, Harrisburg, PA, 2001. 71. Southern California Association of Governments, RTP Com- munity Link 21, Adopted April, Los Angeles, CA, 2001. 72. Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Year 2025 Regional Transportation Plan—Update 2000, Toledo, Ohio, 2000. 73. Riverside County, Riverside County Integrated Project Plan, Riverside, CA, Nov. 2002. 74. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2003), accessed at: http://www.trpa.org/eipdocument/volume4/units.pdf. 75. Freilich, R., From Sprawl to Smart Growth, Successful Legal, Planning and Environmental Systems, Chicago: American Bar Association, 1999. 76. Albright, D., “Context Sensitivity in the 21st Century,” Cal- trans, Sacramento, CA: August 1, 2001. 77. Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s ETDM Process, Progress Report 2, Tallahassee, FL, April 2002. 78. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Draft 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, Environmental Impact Report, August 2001. 79. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennDOT’s 10- Step Process to Transportation Project Development, Accessed in February 2002. www.faeco.telerama.com/the.htm. 80. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Correspondence to Federal Highway Administration on Funding of Staffing Agree- ments with Environmental Resource Agencies, April 6, 2001. 81. Smedley, Jim, Director of Transportation Planning; Kotay, Thomas — Manager, Center for Program Development & Man-

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