National Academies Press: OpenBook

Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning (2005)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Context and Current State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13864.
×
Page 32

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.

11 CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT AND CURRENT STATE OF THE PRACTICE INTRODUCTION The past 30 years have been an important era in environ- mental policy. Federal and state laws passed during this time provide a more serious and comprehensive consideration of environmental factors in decisions that would clearly affect the environment. Advances in science and technology have allowed us to understand the often tenuous relationship between the nat- ural and built environments. Science and technology also showed great promise in helping reduce the negative environ- mental impacts of human activity, the best transportation exam- ple likely being the improvements in motor vehicle engine technology that have continually lowered the tailpipe emissions of new automobiles over time. However, even as such progress is being made, scientists warn about the significance of the con- tinuing loss of habitat, of diversity in these habitats, a declining availability and quality of water, the increasing human con- sumption of non-renewable natural resources, and the loss of “community” associated with modern urban form. Chapter 2 provides a context for the research results pre- sented in the remaining portions of this report. This research project reviewed many different bodies of literature associ- ated with linking environmental considerations and trans- portation planning. This literature is summarized in the first section of this chapter. In particular, the research team wanted to obtain a better idea of how other countries are approaching transportation and environmental planning. Special attention was given to the European Union, which has taken more active steps than the United States in foster- ing a closer linkage between transportation and environmen- tal planning. Appendix A, available as NCHRP Web-Only Document 77, provides extensive coverage of the European Union approach toward environmental assessment. The legislative and regulatory requirements for better linking environmental considerations and transportation planning and decision making are an important starting point for any discussion of what needs to be done and why. The second section of this chapter discusses laws, policies and regulations that provide a legislative framework for environmental stewardship in transportation planning. Appendix B, available as NCHRP Web-Only Document 77, provides an extensive list of state laws that refer to some link between transportation and environmental analysis. Finally, an important beginning point for any research is an understanding of the current state of the practice. This research conducted a national survey of state DOTs, metropolitan plan- ning organizations (MPOs), and state environmental agencies to determine both what is being done to consider environmen- tal factors in transportation systems planning and to obtain from transportation and environmental professionals what they think the key issues will be in the future. The third section of this chapter reports on the results of these surveys. LITERATURE REVIEW Many bodies of literature are important to this research. A web-based and library search of the literature was conducted. The material most relevant to this research is described in this section. The literature search was divided into four major areas—the environment perspective (which includes contri- butions from biology, ecology, and sustainability), context- sensitive solutions, transportation planning, and international practice in environmentally oriented planning and decision making. The environmental perspective was included in this literature review because it was considered difficult to under- stand how environmental factors could be better integrated into systems planning without understanding how the envi- ronment should be defined. Thus, those concepts of environ- mental science that are most conducive to being considered in systems planning (e.g., the systems-level approach toward ecosystems) were highlighted in the literature search. In addition, although a context-sensitive solution (also referred to as context-sensitive design) is more appropriately considered as a project development effort and not one normally associated with systems planning, many of the characteristics of this approach to project design were considered important for the concepts being examined in this research. Thus, both the lit- erature search, as well as information gathered from case stud- ies, included experience with context-sensitive design. Environmental Perspective: Biology, Ecology, and Sustainability The environmental literature is full of articles and books that present varying perspectives on the importance of the environment to society. The literature ranges from biology

(1), which focuses on the important relationship between ecosystems and the built environment, to public health (2, 3), which examines the risks to public health caused by human intrusion into the natural environment. The common theme throughout much of this literature is that nature, society, and technology are related in many complex and interconnected ways. As noted by Knox and Marston (4), “humans are not separate from nature, but are an integral part of it.” Two key ideas emerging from this literature are that the physical environment should be considered as an ecosystem, and that ecosystems have a carrying capacity that determines their ability to sustain life. These concepts are important in that they orient environmental planning to the systemic level, where larger environmental impacts are felt. Thus, the con- nections and interrelationships between transportation sys- tems and natural ecological systems could be important in transportation systems planning interested in likely environ- mental impacts. This perspective necessarily focuses atten- tion on what characterizes an ecological system. An ecosystem can be defined as an area where living organisms interact with each other and with the nonliving (or abiotic) components of their environment. The interdepen- dence among the many different components of an ecosys- tem is of particular interest in that disruption of this interde- pendence (for example, by removing or reducing wetlands) could have an important effect on the viability of the entire ecosystem. Much of the literature on ecosystems focuses on the effect of human action on the functioning of ecosystems as well as with the connection between ecosystems and broader environmental health concerns (5). The reader is referred to several authors for excellent overviews of the evolving study of ecosystems (see, for example, 6–8). The concept of carrying capacity is linked very closely to the viability of ecosystems. The carrying capacity of an ecosystem reflects the ability of an ecosystem to be “dis- turbed” while still carrying out its basic natural functions. As noted by White (9), the “ecological footprint” of a city is based on “the pattern of consumption, aggregated into a sin- gle measure of the land required to support various activities, such as food and transport requirements, energy use, landfill requirements, and so on.” Perhaps the best example of this literature is found in Wilson (10), which states that “the appropriation of productive land—the ecological footprint— is already too large for the planet to sustain, and it’s growing larger.” At the global scale, studies of what it takes to sup- port the economic functioning of developed countries have concluded that “we need more than three ‘planet Earths’ to support the current world population at a level of consump- tion typically found in rich countries.” (11) Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between human activ- ity and ecosystem stability. This figure shows the changing characteristics of vegetation in Aiken, South Carolina, as the city “footprint” expanded over the past 100 years. The change from primarily pine savanna to mixed pine hard- 12 woods in the area surrounding the city is explained mostly by the increasing levels of impervious surface in the region, thus increasing runoff (12). This changing dynamic also suggests that considering environmental factors in transportation sys- tems planning necessarily must examine the secondary and indirect effects of such investment on development patterns and magnitudes, and thus eventually on the natural environ- ment. One of the most important themes in the growing literature on urban environments is the concept of the city as an ecosys- tem (see, for example, 13). As noted by Tjallingii (14) and expanded upon in Newman and Kenworthy (15), “the city is conceived as a dynamic and complex ecosystem. This is not a metaphor, but a concept of a real city. The social, eco- nomic, and cultural systems cannot escape the rules of abi- otic and biotic nature.” Based on this concept, policy and planning principles can be developed to guide both govern- mental and individual decisions relating to community development and urban design. Basic to this approach, how- ever, is the idea that environmental and community concerns need to be considered early in community development decision-making. The concept of sustainability also is an important part of the environmental literature and has been adopted as a design concept in fields such as architecture (16, 17), city planning (18–20), and manufacturing (21, 22). Sustainable develop- ment is now a stated policy objective for many nations (23). Sustainability or sustainable development has many mean- ings. Perhaps the most appropriate definition for this research project comes from Roseland (24) in which sustainable development is defined as the “economic and social change to improve human well-being while reducing the need for environmental protection.” Inherent in this definition is a proactive approach to progress that considers environmental impacts and social equity issues very early in community decision-making. In the last decade, several existing organizations have had their responsibilities expanded and several new organiza- tions have been created to address issues of sustainable development. In the United States, such agencies included the Environmental Protection Agency, which took on new responsibilities and the Department of Energy, which created the Center for Excellence for Sustainable Development. In addition, some states have adopted or are considering poli- cies to promote sustainability in transportation planning and project development. For example, the Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act of 1992 ensured that transporta- tion decisions, including the commitment of funding, were to be made based on a transportation policy founded on sus- tainable principles. Table 1 shows some of the important principles or pre- cepts that several authors have identified as essential to sus- tainability. Note that many of these principles are likely to be important to the concept being examined in this research. For

example, those particularly relevant include (1) defining and avoiding environmentally sensitive areas, (2) using system design and management to balance societal needs and those of the natural environment, (3) designing with nature, (4) using investment to enhance ecological health not just to avoid further damage, and (5) relying on interdisciplinary skills to address fully the wide range of issues. Context-Sensitive Design/Solutions Engineers have been considering environmental impacts in project development for many years. As noted in Schulze 13 (27), “engineering designs are now expected to result in products or management plans whose use or implementation will not endanger important ecological conditions and processes.” However, only recently has serious examination been given to how nature and society can be improved through design and engineering (see, for example, 28). Better integration of environmental and community consid- erations into transportation engineering design is not new. In fact, some of the earliest professional manuals on urban high- way design stressed the importance of such considerations when designing and constructing a highway in an urban envi- ronment. In practice, though, such guidance was considered secondary to the primary function of the road—providing fast Figure 1. Impact of urbanization on an urban ecology, Aiken, SC. Source: Wilds and White, 2001 (12).

and reliable movement of vehicles. Increasingly, transportation professionals have been criticized for this perceived preference to accommodating the motor vehicle at the expense of other design goals. Many transportation agencies have been respond- ing by closely reexamining their standard approaches to urban highway design, and by incorporating more flexibility into both the physical design of the road and the adjacent roadside. One of the more important developments in transportation project development over the past 10 years has been the move- ment toward a transportation project design approach that is both environmentally sensitive and reflective of a community’s desires. For example FHWA, AASHTO, the Bicycle Federa- tion of America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Scenic America produced a design guide in 1998 entitled Flexibility in Highway Design that encouraged highway designers to consider environmental and community concerns early in project development (29). The movement toward more environmental and community-sensitive project development was known originally as context-sensitive design (CSD), although the term now generally accepted for this approach to project development is context sensitive solutions (CSS). Context-sensitive solutions can be defined as when a transportation project is developed from the very beginning 14 collaboratively with many different stakeholders, each of whom has a different perspective on what the project should be and how it might affect the surrounding natural and com- munity environment. As noted in a recent NCHRP report, “CSD recognizes that a highway or road itself, by the way it is integrated within the community, can have far-reaching effects (positive and negative) beyond its traffic or trans- portation function. The term CSD refers to as much an approach as it does to an actual outcome” (30). One of the seminal events in CSD/CSS as it has evolved in the transportation field occurred in 1998 when the Mary- land State Highway Administration sponsored a national workshop entitled, Thinking Beyond the Pavement, which promoted a nontraditional approach to highway design (31). The participant-defined vision for this new design included the qualities outlined below (as reported in 30). A vision for excellence in transportation design includes the following qualities: • The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as war- ranted as the project develops. From Eco-Cites to Living Machines, Principles of Ecological Design (25) Toward Sustainable Communities (26) Eco-City Dimensions, Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet (24) • The living world is the matrix for all design. • Design should follow, not oppose the laws of life. • Biological equity must determine design. • Design must reflect bioregionality. • Projects should be based on renewable energy sources. • Design should be sustainable through the integration of living systems. • Design should be co-evolutionary with the natural world. • Building and design should help to heal the planet. • Design should follow ecology. • Bring into harmony human and natural systems on a sustainable basis. • Balance long-term societal and natural system needs through system design and management. • Rediscover/emphasize resource conservation. • Halt diminution of biodiversity. • Embrace an eco-centric ethic. • Develop new mechanisms and institutions that balance the needs of human and natural systems. • Adopt regional planning based on sustainability principles. • Base planning units on natural boundaries. • Design with nature. • Consider global and cumulative effects. • Encourage inter-jurisdictional decision making. • Ensure consultation and facilitate cooperation and partnering. • Initiate long-term monitoring, feedback, and adaptation of plans. • Adopt an interdisciplinary approach to information. • Adopt a precautionary but positive approach to development that aims not just to avoid further damage but also to reduce stresses and enhance the integrity of ecosystems and communities. • Ensure that land use planning integrates (rather than merely “balances”) environmental, social, and economic objectives. • Link ecosystem planning with other aspects of democratic change, social learning, community building, and environmental enlightenment. TABLE 1 Important principles for sustainability

• The project is a safe facility both for the user and the community. • The project is in harmony with the community and pre- serves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area. • The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people’s minds. • The project involves efficient and effective use of resources (time, budget, community) of all involved parties. • The project is designed and built with minimal disrup- tion to the community. • The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community. A vision of the process that would yield excellence includes the following characteristics: • Communicate with all stakeholders in a manner that is open, honest, early, and continuous. • Tailor highway development to the circumstances. Employ a process that examines multiple alternatives and that will result in consensus on approaches. • Establish a multi-disciplinary team early, with disci- plines based on the needs of the specific project, and include the public. • Seek to understand the landscape, the community, and valued resources before beginning engineering design. • Involve a full range of stakeholders with transportation officials in the scoping phase. Clearly define the pur- poses of the project and forge consensus on the scope before proceeding. • Tailor public involvement to the project. Include infor- mal meetings. • Use a full range of tools for communication about proj- ect alternatives (e.g., visualization). • Secure commitment to the process from top agency offi- cials and local leaders. As seen in this vision statement, early consideration of environmental issues, problem definitions, and identification of environmentally sensitive alternatives are basic points of departure for CSS. Involving individuals representing a range of disciplinary skills and including substantive public involvement throughout the process are also key characteris- tics of a CSS process. As noted in NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context-Sensitive Solutions, “CSD/CSS means involving social, economic, and environmental considerations as a meaningful part of the solutions-generating process, not as additional or after-the- fact steps.” A process for considering environmental issues during transportation systems planning probably will have very similar characteristics. 15 Transportation Planning and the Environment A recent TRB study, whose purpose was to define a transportation-environmental strategic research program, identified six areas of needed research (32). These areas included: human health, ecology and natural systems, envi- ronmental and social justice, emerging technologies, land use, and planning and performance measures. As noted in that section of the report devoted to planning, “the methods and tools used by engineering and environmental profes- sionals for integrating environmental considerations into various aspects of transportation decision-making are quite rudimentary, having originated in the major highway con- struction era of the 1950s and 1960s.” In fact, the strong relationship between the construction and operation of the transportation system and the resulting effects on the natural environment have led to various approaches for considering environmental issues in trans- portation planning. One of the first major research efforts on this topic, sponsored by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, culminated in NCHRP Report 156, Transportation Decision-Making, A Guide to Social and Environmental Considerations (33). The three major find- ings of this research were that 1. The overall process through which social, economic, and environmental considerations are brought into transportation planning and decision-making is as important as the particular techniques used for predict- ing effects. 2. Issues of social equity must be explicitly recognized and taken into account in transportation decision- making. 3. Different groups of people can be expected to have dif- ferent interests and different priorities. This report was one of the first to note the “disconnect” between the level of data analysis and impact prediction that occurred during project development and that which was undertaken during system planning. This was primarily due to the longer time horizon for transportation systems plan- ning (and, therefore, the greater uncertainty associated with the predictions of effects), the spatial nature of the types of effects that are often spread over large expanses of a metro- politan area, the complex analysis challenge of determining system effects that can occur indirectly over time or geogra- phy, and the localized characteristics of some impact cate- gories (such as noise) that might not be available when systems planning occurs. Although many articles and books have developed “new” approaches to transportation systems planning, very few have specifically examined the role that environmental con- siderations should play in this process, other than as part of evaluation. European literature, which will be examined in more detail in the following section, has devoted more atten-

tion to this issue (see, for example, 34, 35). But even in this literature, the primary attention given to environmental fac- tors is a discourse of how transportation systems affect the natural and built environment, with a recommendation that such issues should be more closely linked. Very little atten- tion has been given to how such links should occur and what techniques could be used in analysis and evaluation. One of the most recent books on transportation systems planning begins the process of thinking about how such connections should be accomplished (36). This book views transportation as one system that relates to, and is part of, many other systems. This perspective leads to important planning questions reflecting the interaction among trans- portation and other systems that help an urban area func- tion, as well as between transportation and higher-level systems, such as ecological or economic systems. In par- ticular, transportation system effects on the ecosystem are highlighted as an important emerging issue in transporta- tion planning. The links between the construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of transportation facilities and the natural environment must often be considered from the broader perspective of the spatial and temporal links that characterize such processes. This book also examines the difference between what was referred to as a “traditional planning process” and a process that is concerned with sustainability. Table 2 shows the key differences between the two. Some of the key dif- ferences that are relevant to this research are the importance of ecology and systems theory for understanding the scale of effects; the focus of technical analysis on the relationship between the transportation system and ecosystems, land use, economic development, and social health; the use of societal costs to assess the value of environmental assets that are degraded or lost due to system development; and the importance of issues relating to biodiversity and eco- nomic development. As noted by the authors, the characteristics of planning oriented toward sustainable development clearly will evolve to reflect new understandings of the relationships between the human and natural environments. However, the planning characteristics shown in Table 2 are significant because those who practice a more traditional approach to transportation planning have a very different mindset than those interested in viewing transportation planning more broadly. The basic scientific foundation for the two approaches is different, thus leading to the use of tools and techniques for analyzing envi- ronmental impacts that vary significantly. The types of strategies that result from both planning processes and the type of information that is produced to inform such decisions will also be very different. The challenge for a future characterized by increasing environmental challenges could very well be in building a bridge between traditional planning, as practiced by almost every transportation agency in the United States, to planning that more seriously considers environmental impact. 16 International Practice The consideration of environmental factors has been a common characteristic of much infrastructure planning in other countries. In particular, the concepts of strategic envi- ronmental assessment (SEA), sustainable transportation planning, and environmental management systems are important approaches that relate environmental factors to systems-level planning for transportation and other civil infrastructure. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)—SEA is considering potential environmental effects early in the strategic investment decision-making process. Strategic, rather than project-level, decisions are those that concern policies, plans, and programs. SEA is applied to earlier and higher levels of decision-making where opportunities to avoid and mitigate potential environmental impacts can have greater dividends in time saved and/or improved project characteristics. Conducting environmental impact assessments at all decision-making levels (policy, plan/program, and project) began seriously in Europe in the 1970s. In 1973, the European Commission’s (EC’s) first environmental action program emphasized the importance of a comprehensive environmen- tal assessment of all plans to prevent environmental damage. In 1996, after a long development period, the EC adopted the SEA proposal, Proposal for the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programs on the Environment. The SEA proposal addressed the deficiencies in existing approaches for evaluating and documenting environmental impacts and established the minimum requirements for ensuring a proper environmental assessment at strategic decision-making levels (37). To date, SEAs have been performed for various sectors, such as transportation, other civil infrastructure, energy, and land use. These SEAs have been performed at various appli- cation levels, including regional, national, and international contexts. The European experience with SEA is arguably the most significant and advanced in the world, and thus can provide useful precedents, methodologies, and lessons learned to the United States. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for conducting an environmentally sustainable transportation study are shown in Table 3. The practical experience with SEA, which has been grow- ing steadily since the mid-1990s, can be found in most of the member states of the European Union (EU). SEA is already an official part of planning procedures within some coun- tries, and is practiced even in the absence of legislation. A recent report by the EC, Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Transport Sector: An Overview of Legislation and Practice in EU Member States (38), provides a comprehen- sive assessment of current transportation-related SEAs in the European Union. A survey was conducted of two groups of countries, those that have legal requirements for SEA for transport policies, plans, and programs, and those that have

17 Characteristic Traditional Process Process Oriented toward Sustainable Development Scale • Regional and network level • Local, state, national, and global perspective Underlying “Science” • Traffic flow theory • Network analysis • Travel behavior • Ecology • Systems theory Focus of Planning and Investment • Accommodate travel demand • Promote economic development • Enhance system safety • Catch up to sprawl • Efficient use/management of existing infrastructure • Provide transportation capacity where appropriate (from ecology perspective) • Redevelopment of development sites • Reduce demand for single-occupant vehicles • Reduce material consumption and throughput Government Economic Policies • Promote new development on new land • Focus economic policy on productivity • Do not include secondary and cumulative impacts in policy analysis • Promote reuse and infill development • Fully integrate economic policy with environmental policy • Include secondary and cumulative impacts as part of policy decision analysis Timeframe • 15–20 years planning • 4–8 years for decision-maker interest (elections) • Short (1–4 years) • Medium (4–12 years) • Long (12– --- years) Focus of Technical Analysis • Trip-making and system characteristics between origins and destinations • Air-quality conformity • Benefits defined in economic terms • Relationships between transportation, ecosystem, land use, economic development, and community social health • Secondary and cumulative impacts Role of Technology • Promote individual mobility • Meet government-mandated performance thresholds to minimize negative impacts • Improve system operations • Travel substitution and more options • Benign technology • Total life-cycle perspective to determine true costs • More efficient use of existing system Land Use • Considered as a given based on zoning that accommodates autos • Separated from transportation planning • Integral part of solutions set for providing mobility and sustainable community development • Infrastructure funding tied to sound land use planning • Increased density and preservation of open space/natural resources Pricing • Subsidies to transportation users • True “costs” to society not reflected in price to travel • Societal cost pricing including environmental cost accounting • Value, that is, transportation priced as utility Types of Issues • Congestion • Mobility and accessibility • Environmental impact at macroscale • Economic development • Little concern for secondary/cumulative impacts • Social equity (increasingly) • Global warming and greenhouse gases • Biodiversity and economic development • Community quality of life • Energy consumption • Social equity Types of Strategies • System expansion/safety • Efficiency improvements • Traffic management • Demand management (from perspective of system operating more smoothly) • Intelligent transportation systems • Maintenance of existing system • Traffic calming and urban design • Multimodal/intermodal • Transportation–land use integration • Demand management (from perspective of reducing demand)/nonmotorized transportation Education • TABLE 2 Traditional transportation planning process compared to process oriented toward sustainable development Source: Characteristics for process oriented toward sustainable development synthesized from Newman and Kenworthy, 1999 (15), Maser, 1997 (19), and Haq, 1997 (35).

practical experience with SEA in the transport sector, but no legal requirements. The report found that the existence of legislation promotes consistency and greater influence in SEA application. In addition to the benefits of early detection and mitigation of environmental effects, SEA was found to provide a more efficient approach to both policy develop- ment and implementation. The report also identified some obstacles in the successful implementation of SEAs, such as lack of expertise and lack of institutional collaboration. Another recent EC publication on transport SEAs is Strategic Environmental Assessment of Transport Corri- dors: Lessons Learned Comparing the Methods of Five Member States (39). This study analyzed five SEAs of multi- modal transport corridors, and found that an SEA can be more effective if initiated at the earliest stages of planning. The report demonstrates that SEAs are feasible for transport corridor assessment, and that flexibility is important for adoption. It concludes that SEAs are vital in the effort to pro- mote multimodal approaches and optimize the combination of infrastructure and noninfrastructure solutions. 18 From a legislative perspective, the EC has adopted COM 511 (41), the directive on the assessment of plans and pro- grams on the environment. In 1999, this directive was further defined to extend existing, project-level environmental assessment approaches to the planning and programming level (42). The directive requires early consideration of envi- ronmental impacts in decision making, which, in essence, is SEA. The directive pertains to a range of public plans and pro- grams in areas such as transport, energy, waste, water, indus- try, tourism, telecommunications, town and country planning, and land use. The EC’s Case Studies in Strategic Environ- mental Assessment (43) provides an overview of the status of SEA legislation in the EU member states and includes three case studies in which SEA principles were integrated into existing decision-making procedures at the strategic level. In broader work on SEA, a 2001 report by the EC (44) examines the benefits, challenges, and methods for integrat- ing environment factors into decisions concerning plans, policies, and programs. A collection of SEAs is studied in Partidário and Clark (45), with a focus on the use of SEA to GUIDELINE DESCRIPTION Guideline 1. Develop a long-term vision of a desirable transport future that is sustainable for environment and health and provides the benefits of mobility and access. Guideline 2. Assess long-term transportation trends, considering all aspects of transport, their health and environmental impacts, and the economic and social implications of continuing with business as usual. Guideline 3. Define health and environmental quality objectives based on health and environmental criteria, standards, and sustainability requirements. Guideline 4. Set quantified sector-specific targets derived from the environmental and health-quality objectives, and set target dates or milestones. Guideline 5. Identify strategies to achieve EST and combinations of measures to ensure technological enhancement and changes in transport activities. Guideline 6. Assess the social and economic implications of the vision, and ensure that they are consistent with social and economic sustainability. Guideline 7. Construct packages of measures and instruments for meeting the milestones and targets of EST. Highlight ‘win–win’ strategies incorporating, in particular, technology policy, infrastructure investment, pricing, transport demand and traffic management, improvement of public transport, and encouragement of walking and cycling; capturing synergies (e.g., those contributing to improved road safety), and avoiding counteracting effects among instruments. Guideline 8. Develop an implementation plan that involves well-phased application of packages of instruments capable of achieving EST taking into account local, regional, and national circumstances. Set a clear timetable and assign responsibilities for implementation. Assess whether proposed policies, plans, and programs contribute to or counteract EST in transport and associated sectors using tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Guideline 9. Set provisions for monitoring implementation and for public reporting on the EST strategy; use consistent, well-defined sustainable transport indicators to communicate the results; ensure follow-up action to adapt the strategy according to inputs received and new scientific evidence. Guideline 10. Build broad support and cooperation for implementing EST; involve concerned parties, ensure their active support and commitment, and enable broad public participation; raise public awareness and provide education programs. Ensure that all actions are consistent with global responsibility for sustainable development. TABLE 3 OECD environmentally sustainable transport (EST) guidelines Source: OECD, 2000 (40).

promote sustainability. Therivel and Partidário (46) analyze the strengths and challenges of SEA, and detail case studies of SEA from around the world. Partidário (47) reviews prac- tical approaches for SEA efforts and identifies key issues raised by practitioners. Therivel (48) examines several exist- ing and then-emerging SEA systems in European countries. Numerous guidebooks have been developed that outline the principles, processes, and methods that could be tailored to different applications (49). A large portion of SEA litera- ture provides useful guiding principles and frameworks for the application of SEAs, along with specific methodologies. A report by the EC (50) provides detailed guidance and methods for SEA for transport infrastructure plans. This report examines principles and processes of SEA, such as levels of planning (network, corridor, and project), steps to conduct an SEA, and methods of impact assessment for the transport sector. An earlier publication by the EC (51) set out methods to incorporate environmental issues into the defini- tion and preparation of regional plans and programming doc- uments in the context of the EU’s structural funds process. The key factors identified for a successful SEA in all of these guidance materials include the following: • Legislative Support—The most successful SEA gener- ally occurs where there is a legal obligation requiring its performance. • Transparency—SEA needs to be a clear process that allows environmental considerations to be highlighted. • Early Consideration—Successful SEAs have been at the start, rather than the end, of a process of integration and may serve as a catalyst for developing further guid- ance and training. • Alternative Options versus Option Alternatives—A successful SEA assesses the effects of alternative options rather than option alternatives. • Public Participation—Widespread involvement of stakeholders, policymakers, and the wider public is cru- cial for a successful SEA. • Open Communication—A successful SEA is an active, participatory, and educational process for all parties, in which stakeholders are able to influence the decision maker, and the decision maker is able to raise aware- ness of the strategic dimensions of the policy, plan, or program. • Information Accessibility—A successful SEA involves the wide use and dissemination of baseline and assess- ment information. • High-Quality Assessment—A successful SEA depends on high quality and rigorous application of assessment methodologies, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both. • Systematic Process—An SEA needs to be a systematic process involving different institutions in a common reporting framework. • Independent Review—An independent body that can review or audit the assessment process and content is 19 needed to provide sufficient incentive to carry out an SEA and promote accountability. The EU’s experience with SEA points to the importance of legislation in elevating environmental consideration to the systems level of planning and the subsequent effect of the environment as a criterion in identifying and selecting plan alternatives. Guidelines for the application of SEA are included in Appendix A, which is contained in NCHRP Web-Only Document 77. Sustainable Transportation Planning—Although sus- tainability was discussed in an earlier section, sustainable transportation planning has received such attention in the international literature that it is important to describe those aspects of the literature that relate to this topic. The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of present without com- promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (52) A sustainable process or condition is one that can be maintained indefinitely without progressive diminu- tion of valued qualities inside or outside the system in which the process operates or the condition prevails. (53) A review of the international literature indicated that Canada, the Baltic Region, New Zealand, the City of San Francisco, and the UK are noted for their work to incorporate sustainability in long-range transportation planning. OECD and the World Bank also are noted for integrating sustain- ability and systems-level planning (54). • In Canada, Transport Canada (as well as several other organizations, e.g., Environment Canada, National Round Table of the Environment and the Economy, Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, Transportation Association of Canada and Victoria Pol- icy Institute) is involved in the development of perfor- mance measures for systems-level decision making. In response to a legislative requirement, Transport Canada outlined its Sustainable Development Strategy in 1997, setting the direction for integrating environmental con- cerns with safety and efficiency in developing policies and programs and carrying out its day-to-day operations (55). Two years later, Transport Canada adopted a Sus- tainable Development Action Plan (SDAP), which out- lined eight sustainability challenges that articulate the agency’s sustainable development goals. In partnership with other agencies and various stakeholders, Transport Canada is presently involved in developing perfor- mance measures, collecting data, and developing analy- sis tools to monitor and advance its progress toward sustainability (56). • Baltic 21 is a multicountry process of regional coopera- tion and environmental improvement involving coun- tries bordering the Baltic Sea. The effort focuses on seven sectors of crucial importance in the region:

agriculture, energy, fisheries, forestry, industry, tour- ism, and transportation. Sustainable transportation indi- cators have been developed as part of the monitoring effort toward meeting the objectives of sustainability set out in the Baltic 21 agreement. The proposed set of indicators is based on outcome-oriented indicators linked to specific goals. • In June 1999, the New Zealand Ministry of the Envi- ronment published Proposals for Indicators of the Envi- ronmental Effects of Transport. The main purpose of the document was to provide the basis for agreement on the use of a core set of indicators to measure the environ- mental effects of transportation decisions. The proposal identified the following factors as major components of a framework for performance assessment: root causes of transport activity; indirect pressures; direct pressures, and state or effects indicators. 20 • The OECD has developed a framework of indicators for integrating environmental concerns into transportation policies. The OECD model has been adopted by most members of the European Union, and by some interna- tional organizations that deal with environmental information, as the most appropriate way to structure environmental information. Details on the OECD model are presented in the Appendix A, which is available as NCHRP Web-Only Document 77. Table 4 lists the sus- tainability indicators related to transportation policies. • In 1996, the City of San Francisco developed a sustain- ability plan with transportation as one of 15 major ele- ments given priority. The city identified seven major transportation and land-use goals and developed a set of four transportation indicators to monitor progress toward these goals. An extensive community consultation, which involved 400 volunteers, was used in developing 1. Overall Traffic Growth and Mode Split • Passenger traffic trends by mode (private cars, buses and coaches, railways, air) in passenger-kms • Freight traffic trends in vehicle-kms/road traffic trends in vehicle-kms • Trends of airport traffic, number of movements • Trends in tonnage handling in national harbors 2. Infrastructure • Capital expenditure, total and by mode 3. Vehicles and Mobile Equipment • Number of road vehicles (autos, commercial vehicles): total, gasoline, diesel, others 1. Resource Use • Total final energy consumption of the transport sector (share in total, per capita, by mode) in tonnes of oil equivalent 2. Air Pollution • Transport emissions (CO2, NOx, VOC, CO, etc) share in total, per capita, by mode) • Emissions per vehicle-km: CO2, NOx, VOC, CO, etc. 3. Water Pollution • Tonnage of oil released through accidents and dis- charges during current operations 4. Noise • Population exposed to noise greater than i65 dB(A) from transport 5. Waste • Tonnage of transport-related waste • Tonnage of hazardous waste imported or exported 6. Risk and Safety • Number of people killed or injured • Tonne-kms of hazardous materials transported 1. Environmental Damage • Environmental pollution damage relating to transport 2. Environmental Expenditure • Total expenditures on pollution prevention/clean-up • Research and development expenditures on quiet, clean, energy-efficient vehicles • Research and development expenditures on clean trans- port fuels 3. Taxation and Subsidies • Direct subsidies • Direct and indirect subsidies • Total economic subsidies • Relative taxation of vehicles and vehicle use 4. Price Structure • Trends in gasoline (leaded, unleaded), diesel, and other fuel prices and public transport prices in real terms 5. Trade and Environment • Indicator not yet developed Environmentally Significant Trends by Sector Environmental Impact Economic Considerations TABLE 4 OECD’s framework of sustainability indicators Source: Transport Canada, 1999 (55).

the plan. The plan formulation was dependent on work done for the European Union’s Agenda 21 Implementa- tion Plan. • The Department of the Environment, Transport, and Regions of the United Kingdom has developed indica- tors of sustainable development grouped around 21 main issues, one of which is transportation. Following the June 1992 commitment made at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1994 the U.K. government published its Strategy for Sustainable Development. One of the commitments made at the Earth Summit was the development of a set of indicators that would help to assess whether the country’s development was becom- ing more sustainable, and also whether U.K. govern- ment was meeting its objectives as set out in the Sustainable Development Strategy. • The World Bank, the world’s largest source of eco- nomic development assistance, maintains a large infor- mation base that includes environmental, economic, demographic, and other information, and has an exten- sive range of activities involving the development of indicators for sustainability. Examples of these are the Environmental Performance Indicator Project, which discusses indicator frameworks, selection criteria for environmental project indicators and issues to consider for various areas; the Indicators-on-the-Web Project, which provides managers with ideas for environmental performance indicators at the project and national lev- els; and, the Development Goals Project, which aims to develop a set of indicators to measure progress toward sustainable development. International experience with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and sustainable transportation planning indicates that environmental considerations in transportation planning are being elevated to the national agenda increas- ingly. At least two important messages emerge from these international experiences: (1) the passage of relevant legis- lation is an enabler for effective consideration of the envi- ronment in planning and (2) development of performance measures lends more credibility to the entire process of considering the environment in planning. Hence, the EU agencies with more effective SEAs have adopted legisla- tion to validate and support these assessments. Several countries that have adopted sustainability goals have begun initiatives to develop ways to measure their progress toward these goals. Although both initiatives are still relatively new, as they evolve they will continue to offer pertinent lessons for others in incorporating environmental factors earlier in planning. Environmental Management Systems—An environ- mental management system (EMS) is a framework for con- tinuously improving measurable environmental outcomes that result from decisions made by agencies (56). Outcomes are defined as the results, effects, or consequences of making 21 decisions and taking action. The International Standards Organization’s (ISO) 14001 standard for an EMS consists of five main elements: • Environmental Policy—Establishes overall policy related to laws and regulations for continuous improvement of environmental quality, requiring the attainment of targets and objectives with a periodic audit of the EMS. • Planning—Addresses all environmental aspects of an organization’s activities, operations, products and ser- vices that affect the environment—based on establish- ment of objectives, targets and time schedule for meeting targets, consistent with policy. • Implementation and Operation—Monitors and mea- sures environmental performance and assesses progress in achieving environmental objectives and targets. • Checking and Corrective Action—Addresses noncon- formance and provides preventive and corrective action. • Management Review—Assesses the suitability, ade- quacy, and effectiveness of EMS over time and addresses needed changes to all elements of the system. For transportation agencies, an EMS would relate closely to the activities undertaken in planning, programming, proj- ect development, operations, and maintenance for any mode of transportation. In particular, it would most likely interface closely with other management systems that are already in place in many transportation organizations, such as those relating to pavement management, bridge management, con- gestion management, safety management, maintenance and construction management, and project tracking. One of the best sources for information concerning the potential application of EMS procedures in transportation agencies is found in the Environmental Information Man- agement and Decision Support System—Implementation Handbook (58). This report comes from an NCHRP project that was initiated to respond to the need of state transporta- tion agencies and metropolitan planning organizations for systems to manage environmental information and to support decision making. The project objective was to develop a con- cept and implementation approach for an Environmental Information Management and Decision Support System (EIM & DSS) that addresses all levels of decision making— planning, programming, project development, operations, and maintenance—for all modes of transportation. This implementation handbook describes the EIM & DSS concept and provides guidance to state DOTs and MPOs on develop- ing and implementing such systems. This NCHRP project concluded from interviews with state DOT officials that an EMS that is ISO 14001 compliant is not sufficient to meet their decision-making needs. However, the value gained from the ISO 14001 EMS concept was con- sidered to be in its focus on explicitly creating environmen- tal policies, objectives, and targets, and measuring the effects of decisions on these objectives and targets.

Literature Summary The literature presented in the previous sections covers a wide range of topics that suggest the importance of incorpo- rating environmental considerations early in systems plan- ning. The basic messages that result from this literature search include the following: 1. Transportation and environmental professionals approach problems in very different ways. The underlying scien- tific concepts and the resulting analysis methods can lead the problem-solving search in various directions. The meaningful incorporation of environmental con- siderations into transportation systems planning will require transportation professionals to rethink the rela- tionship between transportation investments and the environment. 2. The “systems” perspective is a key point of departure for examining environmental impacts and understand- ing the relationships between the construction and operation of the transportation system, ecological sys- tems, and the built environment. This perspective encourages agencies to incorporate systemic environ- mental concerns, such as air quality and watershed effects, into transportation planning. 3. The European literature suggests that other countries are further advanced than the United States in integrat- ing environmental concerns into transportation systems planning. However, this experience has not resulted in significantly different approaches to alternatives defi- nition, nor to a fundamentally new way of making investment decisions. Europe has, however, made sig- nificant advances in monitoring environmental health and using this information to inform planning and decision-making. 4. The United States has made important, yet relatively targeted, progress in examining environmental and community factors earlier in project development. This is most notable in the context-sensitive solutions move- ment that has emerged in the past decade in many state and regional transportation agencies. The success of moving projects forward in a way that results in both meeting safety and mobility objectives while at the same time meeting community and environmental group desires for a more sensitive design represents an important evolutionary step forward for transportation agencies. 5. Although the concept of linking environmental consid- erations to transportation systems planning is not new, the relatively recent development of powerful and accessible computer-based tools and data management techniques has greatly increased the capability of doing so. This is particularly true in identifying areas of sen- sitive environmental resources through the use of geo- graphic information systems (GIS). 22 6. The evolution toward system planning that incorpo- rates environmental considerations in a meaningful way must look at all aspects of this process. The tradi- tional approach of including environmentally oriented criteria for plan or project evaluation alone is not suffi- cient to result in meaningful early assessment of envi- ronmental impacts. LAWS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS Federal and state laws and regulations often provide an important motivating factor for considering environmental factors in transportation planning and decision making. Respondents to the project survey, and many of those inter- viewed for the case studies, pointed to such laws and regula- tions as being the most important reason for environmental considerations being incorporated into transportation plan- ning and decision making. This section reviews some of the more important federal laws and regulations that relate to transportation and environmental quality, and provides examples of similar state laws. Federal Laws Almost every respondent to the project surveys and to questions posed during the case study visits credited Inter- modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cen- tury (TEA-21) for making planning more open and sensitive to broader issues. This section will begin with an overview of the environmental sections of TEA-21 and of the regula- tions that implemented the ISTEA provisions. Note that since no planning regulations were promulgated for TEA-21, the law itself and those parts of the ISTEA regulations not superseded by TEA-21, were in force since 1991 when ISTEA was passed. TEA-21 and ISTEA linked environmental issues with transportation planning in the following ways: 1. Consolidating 23 planning factors required in ISTEA for state and metropolitan planning into seven, including one stating the need to “protect and enhance the envi- ronment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life”; 2. Coordinating state planning with “planning needs to be coordinated with planning conducted by federal, state, and local environmental resource planning that sub- stantially affects transportation actions”; 3. Promoting public access and input into state trans- portation planning and for influencing key decisions; 4. Coordinating metropolitan transportation planning with the state implementation plan (SIP) in nonattain- ment or maintenance areas; and encouraging the devel- opment of transportation control measures;

5. Coordinating NEPA and transportation planning require- ments for highway/transit projects among the many different agencies involved with the environmental analysis that occurs during project development; 6. Encouraging environmental streamlining by coordinat- ing environmental review for highway construction projects; 7. Executing a planning program to “plan, develop, and implement strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and prac- tices that, among other things, will reduce the effects of transportation on the environment”; and 8. Promoting that “to the fullest extent possible, all envi- ronmental investigations, reviews, and consultations be coordinated as a single process, and compliance with all applicable environmental requirements be reflected in the environmental document required.” These requirements provide an important policy context for environmentally sensitive transportation planning. The number of federal laws and regulations that could influence transportation planning is quite extensive. How- ever, as noted by the respondents to the surveys, there were some federal laws and executive orders (other than ISTEA and TEA-21) that have had a more important effect for con- sidering environmental factors in transportation planning than others. These include the following: • The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969 required federal, state, and local governments to use systematic approaches to incorporate the protection of the natural and human environment within project development. NEPA also established the national com- mitment to preserving the environment as a goal of national policy. • The Clean Water Act Amendments (CWA) of 1997 established the basic structure for regulating the dis- charge of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a pro- gram to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill mate- rial into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities that are regulated under this program include fills for development and infrastructure development such as highways and airports. The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. • The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 addressed air quality standards, motor vehicle emis- sions, and alternative fuels, toxic air pollutants, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone depletion. The law desig- nated the states as being responsible for nonattainment areas; deadlines for attainment were established for 23 each source based on the severity of the pollution. This legislation also raised automobile emissions standards and set a definite timetable for reductions in order to tighten control in this area. Along with federal trans- portation legislation, the Clear Air Act established the process for conformity assessment that requires trans- portation plans, programs, and projects to conform with the state implementation plan (SIP) for the state. • The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 and reauthorized in 1988. This legislation regulated a wide range of activities affecting plants and animals desig- nated as endangered or threatened. By definition, an endangered species is an animal or plant listed by regu- lation as being in danger of extinction. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The Endan- gered Species Act provided a program for the conserva- tion of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior maintains a list of endangered and threatened species. • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated that no person in the United States on the ground of race, color, or national origin, should be excluded from participa- tion in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to dis- crimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This law is the foundation for the issues relating to environmental justice. • Executive Order 12898 of 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, required each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropri- ate, disproportionately high and adverse health or envi- ronmental effects of its activities on minority and low- income populations. Many additional laws and regulations have provided impor- tant access into transportation planning for environmental issues. A good reference for the federal laws, regulations, and guidance that relate to the consideration of environmen- tal factors in transportation decision-making can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment. State Laws States also have enacted laws or adopted policies and regu- lations to promote the consideration of environmental factors in transportation planning. The selected state laws presented below characterize the nature of the range of state legislation that currently exists in the Untied States. Appendix B, con- tained in NCHRP Web-Only Document 77, provides a much more detailed description of state laws as they relate to the relationship between transportation and consideration of envi- ronmental factors.

• California—The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is one of the most influential state envi- ronmental laws in the United States. Regional trans- portation plans (RTPs) and any subsequent revisions, amendments, or updates to the plan must be in compli- ance with the law, and the regional planning agency must prepare and certify an environmental document before adopting an updated plan. A program or master environmental impact report (EIR) is typically prepared for the RTP. An EIR must be prepared if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment. In the EIR, consideration of alternatives that would avoid or reduce significant environmental effects is required. A negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be prepared if no significant environ- mental impacts are identified, or if all identified poten- tially significant effects will be mitigated below the level of significance. The CEQA environmental docu- ment must address specific issues, the number and scope of which are determined by the potential environ- mental impacts. • Georgia—Title 32 (32-2-3) of the Georgia Code requires the Department of Transportation to develop a comprehensive, statewide 20-year transportation plan that must include “the total environment of the commu- nity and region including land use, state and regional development goals and decisions, population, travel patterns, ecology, pollution effects, esthetics, safety, and social community values.” • Maine—Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) sets the framework for Maine DOT’s planning and programming. The STPA resulted from a 1991 citizen-initiated referendum that mandated public par- ticipation in transportation decisions. It requires the analysis of alternatives before major highway invest- ments are made. • Maryland—The Maryland Smart Growth and Neigh- borhood Conservation Act and Executive Order became effective in 1997. This initiative directs growth to areas where it is most environmentally suitable while protect- ing some of the state’s most ecologically and environ- mentally valuable landscapes. It calls for transportation investments that satisfy current and projected travel demands while supporting smarter growth patterns. Maryland’s Transportation Performance Act, passed in May 2000, requires the Maryland DOT to apply perfor- mance measurements to the Maryland Transportation Plan and the state’s Consolidated Transportation Pro- gram or capital improvement program. • Minnesota—As per Minnesota state statutes (Chapter 174.01, Subdivision 2 [1994]), one of Minnesota’s 14 transportation goals is “to ensure that the planning and implementation of all modes of transportation are con- sistent with the environment and energy goals of the state.” 24 • Oregon—Oregon has 19 state planning goals of which transportation is one element. These planning goals include guidance to “protect and enhance the environ- ment, promote energy conservation, and improve qual- ity of life.” • Pennsylvania—In January 1999, the governor issued Executive Order 1999-1 requiring all Commonwealth agencies to identify laws, regulations, practices, and policies that advance the Commonwealth’s land-use objectives. Furthermore, Acts 67 and 68, signed into law in 2000, amended the municipal planning code to allow multimunicipality planning for the first time. All counties are required to have a comprehensive land-use plan under the new regulations. State agencies are allowed to consider municipality and county plans as well as zoning when they make decisions to permit and fund projects. • Washington—Transportation planning in Washington must comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). As part of this compliance, state transportation plans are required to identify and document potential affected environmental resources. The plans are exempt from the requirement for an environmental impact statement (EIS). However, actions to implement the plan(s) are subject to further, detailed analysis under SEPA. Also, the 2001 Washington State Legislature passed the Environmental Permit Streamlining Act, which established the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee. Although the commit- tee’s primary aim is to develop permit-streamlining processes, the law requires the committee to work with- in the structure of existing environmental laws and regulations. • Wisconsin—Wisconsin DOT is required to complete a System-Plan Environmental Evaluation (SEE) as per Wisconsin Administrative Rule TRANS 400, which implements the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act as it relates to DOT planning activities. The rule has been applied to several statewide modal plans, resulting in a systems-level environmental evaluation. SURVEY OF DOTS, MPOS, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AGENCIES To gain a better understanding of the current state-of-the- practice in linking environmental factors and transportation planning, web-based surveys were administered to state DOTs, MPOs, and state environmental resource agencies. Although respondent-specific questions were incorporated into each survey, similar questions allowed for comparisons on key topics. (The survey instruments are found in Appen- dix C, which is contained in NCHRP Web-Only Document 77). Some surveys were pretested by state transportation planning officials, and the feedback from these pretests was incorporated into the final survey instrument. An electronic

mailing was sent to 685 survey respondents to request their participation in the web-based survey. Those not responding to this initial effort were contacted through a second elec- tronic mailing, which was followed with telephone calls to identified respondents who still had not completed the survey. The survey was sent to 51 members of the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) who represented each state DOT and Washing- ton, D.C.; 340 members of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO); and 293 members of envi- ronmental resource associations—the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA), the Asso- ciation of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). A total of 42 responses were received from the state DOTs (82% response rate); 45 responses from MPOs (13% response rate); and 13 responses from environmental resource agen- cies (4% response rate). Although special efforts were made to obtain responses from environmental resource agencies, the response rate was quite low. The study team found that many resource agency officials had not considered how to better integrate environ- mental considerations into transportation systems planning and, in many cases, did not know what the system planning process was. Therefore, these respondents felt there was lit- tle they could offer to the survey. While the low MPO response rate is cause for some con- cern, these concerns are offset by the fact that of the 293 MPOs asked to participate in the survey, some represented very small urban areas. The 45 responses from MPOs included the largest MPOs in the country, and reflect the environmental concerns that would most likely be found in large metropolitan areas. This bias toward large MPOs is not considered a threat to the validity of the research results because large metropolitan areas typically face the widest range of environmental problems. Smaller metropolitan areas encounter environmental issues similar to those faced by larger MPOs, although on a lesser scale. Because of the ability of large MPOs to confront the full range of environ- mental issues, as well as their ability to draw upon greater resources in addressing these issues, the survey should ade- quately represent the current state-of-the-practice in envi- ronmentally sensitive planning. The following sections sum- marize the results of the survey effort. Key Findings from the Surveys The survey findings indicate that 38% of the state respon- dents and a similar percentage of MPO respondents thought that environmental considerations were important (rated 4 or 5 on the survey question) in the development of their latest transportation plan. This percentage increased to 45% for state DOTs and 52% for MPOs when asked how important envi- ronmental factors are likely to be in the update of the plan 10 25 years in the future. Most state respondents thought that envi- ronmental factors were somewhat important for both the last update as well as for the future update of the plan. For MPOs, most responses fell into the “more important” category. Generally, there also seemed to be a consensus that incor- porating environmental factors earlier in planning leads to better decisions and shortens the time for project implemen- tation. Several DOTs were able to identify specific examples where incorporating environmental factors earlier in plan- ning had resulted in tangible benefits. The 12 areas detailed below summarize the major results of the survey effort. A more detailed summary of the key findings, as well as detailed reports from the three surveys, are included in Appendix C, which is contained in NCHRP Web-Only Document 77. 1. The most considered environmental factors in current transportation planning are air quality, land use, socio- economic considerations, and environmental justice. • DOTs considered air quality to be the most important factor in the most recent plan update as well as likely being the most important factor in the update of the plan 10 years hence. MPOs considered land use to be the most important factor both in the most recent plan and in the pending 10-year update of the plan. Environmen- tal resource agencies considered air quality to be the most important factor for DOTs and MPOs, both for the most recent plans and for plan updates 10 years in the future. • DOTs identified land use, socioeconomic considera- tions, and environmental justice as the next most impor- tant factors in planning in the most recent and 10-year updates of the plan. MPOs identified air quality, socio- economic considerations and environmental justice as the next most important environmental factors. 2. The most widely used tools for considering environ- mental factors in transportation planning are data trend analysis, geographic information systems (GIS), environmental-impact-specific models, overlay maps, and focus groups. • According to the DOT respondents, the most commonly used tools for environmental assessment are data trend analysis, GIS, environmental-impact-specific models, socioeconomic impact assessment, surveys, and focus groups. • According to the MPO respondents, the most com- monly used tools are data trend analysis, GIS, overlay maps, and environmental-impact-specific models. • According to the environmental resource agency respon- dents, the most commonly used tools are environmental- impact-specific models, overlay maps, data trends, and focus groups.

3. There is general agreement that only part of the data needed for considering environmental factors in trans- portation planning is available. • Sixty-six percent of the responding DOTs, 51% of the responding MPOs, and 57% of the responding environ- mental resource agencies (i.e., most each group) were of the opinion that only part of the data needed for consid- ering environmental factors in transportation planning is currently available. 4. The most readily available types of data within agen- cies relate to air quality, socioeconomic, noise, energy consumption, storm water runoff, and erosion. • According to the DOTs, the most readily available in- house data are air quality and socioeconomic data. • According to the MPOs, the most readily available in- house data relate to noise, energy consumption, storm water runoff, and erosion. • According to the environmental resource agencies, the most readily available types of data in MPOs and DOTs relate to air quality, erosion, and water quality. 5. The most readily available types of data from outside agencies are environmental justice, hazardous wastes, historic properties, water quality, biological, and climate. • According to the DOTs, the most readily available data from outside the agency relate to environmental justice, hazardous wastes, and historic properties. • According to the MPOs, the most readily available data from outside the agency relate to climate, water quality, biological, community cohesion, and historic proper- ties. • According to the environmental resource agencies, the types of data most readily available to transportation planning agencies relate to air quality, water quality, erosion, wetlands, and storm water runoff. 6. Most DOTs and some of MPOs use performance mea- sures that include environmental factors in transporta- tion planning. Most states and MPOs use performance measures in transportation planning. • Approximately 59% of the responding DOTs and 36% of the responding MPOs use performance measures that include environmental factors for transportation plan- ning. • Approximately 12% of the states and 43% of the MPOs use performance measures that do not include environ- mental factors. 7. DOTs and MPOs have a relatively high level of inter- action with each other and with environmental resource 26 agencies, the governor’s office, environmental advocacy groups, and public interest groups in transportation planning. • Approximately 46% of DOTs stated that they interact with MPOs, environmental resource agencies, the gov- ernor’s office, environmental advocacy groups, and public interest groups (other than environmental groups) in transportation planning. The DOTs interact most closely with MPOs. • Approximately 79% of MPOs stated that they interact with DOTs, environmental resource agencies, the gov- ernor’s office, environmental advocacy groups, and public interest groups (other than environmental groups) in transportation planning. The MPOs interact most closely with the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion. • Approximately 74% of the environmental resource agencies indicated that they interact with DOTs, MPOs, other environmental resource agencies, public interest groups (other than environmental groups), and the gov- ernor’s office in transportation planning. 8. Competing priorities that detract from environmental issues and a lack of appropriate planning analysis tools were identified by DOTs, MPOs, and environmental resource agencies as the most significant obstacles to con- sidering environmental factors in transportation plan- ning. Lack of data and lack of regulations were perceived as less important obstacles to considering environmental factors in transportation planning. • Most DOT respondents (76%) selected “competing pri- orities that distract from environmental issues” as an obstacle to considering environmental factors in trans- portation planning; 53% of the DOT respondents indi- cated that a lack of appropriate planning analysis tools was an obstacle. • Most MPO respondents (64%) indicated that “compet- ing priorities that distract from environmental issues” was an obstacle to considering environmental factors in transportation planning; 58% of the MPO respondents indicated that the lack of appropriate analysis tools was an obstacle as well. • Most sustainability environmental resource agency respondents (85%) also saw “competing priorities that distract from environmental issues” as an obstacle to considering environmental factors in transportation planning; 38% of the environmental resource agency respondents perceived the next most important obstacle was a lack of appropriate analysis tools. 9. Most DOT and MPO respondents had taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors before the project development stage.

• Most (88%) of the DOT respondents had taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors before the project development stage. • Almost two-thirds (62%) of the MPO respondents had taken action to promote the consideration of environ- mental factors before the project development stage. • Most DOTs had defined purpose and need early in plan- ning and entered into agreements with environmental resource agencies. • Most MPOs had defined purpose and need early in the process and used environmental experts to identify sen- sitive areas. 10. Most DOTs, MPOs, and environmental resource agencies believe that the most important benefit for con- sidering environmental factors before the project develop- ment stage is that it results in better decisions. In addition, MPOs also believe that an equally important benefit is that it shortens the time to project implementation. • For DOT respondents, other important benefits included improving the agency image, reducing the level of potential public controversy, and engaging environ- mental resource agencies earlier. • For MPO respondents, other important benefits included linking planning better with project develop- ment, reducing the level of potential public controversy, and helping to develop a constituency for a project. • For environmental resource agency respondents, other important benefits included linking planning to project development, engaging environmental resource agen- cies earlier, and shortening the time to project imple- mentation. 11. Respondents varied in their ability to identify specific examples in which considering environmental factors before project development had resulted in benefits. • Just over 50% of the DOT respondents, 22% of the MPO respondents, and 23% of the environmental resource agency respondents could identify specific examples in which considering environmental factors before project development resulted in benefits. 12. Most of the MPO respondents (73%) indicated that they believed implementing agencies in their area would be supportive of addressing environmental concerns ear- lier in project development. Figures 2 through 6 show the differences between the DOT and MPO responses for key survey questions. The sur- vey indicates that there is notable variation in the ways in which different agencies are considering environmental fac- tors in transportation planning. Typically, DOTs and MPOs place great emphasis on air quality and environmental justice 27 issues in transportation planning, and use tools such as data trend analysis, GIS, air quality impact models, overlay maps, and focus groups as part of their analysis. This is not sur- prising given the emphasis these concerns have received in recent years. Planning agencies generally consider data availability an issue in addressing environmental factors in planning. In addition, they are hindered by the lack of appro- priate analysis tools and too many competing objectives that detract from environmental considerations. Many DOTs and MPOs are including environmental per- formance measures in planning. Most DOTs and MPOs seem to have taken at least one action to incorporate environmen- tal factors before the project development stage. There seems to be general agreement that there is a high level of interac- tion among implementing agencies, and MPOs seem opti- mistic that implementing agencies would be supportive of incorporating environmental factors earlier in planning. There also seems to be broad consensus that incorporating environmental factors earlier in planning generally leads to better decisions. Several agencies gave examples where incorporating environmental factors earlier resulted in tangi- ble benefits. In general, the survey suggests that DOTs and MPOs rec- ognize the importance of environmental considerations in transportation planning, but that the state-of-the-practice is oriented toward environmental-impact-specific issues. Not surprisingly, both DOT and MPO respondents identified air quality and environmental justice as those issues receiving the most attention. These issues have been the focus of most recent federal legislation and regulatory actions. Very few examples were found where environmental issues were con- sidered from a systems perspective and linked closely with the development of transportation plans. Some examples were found where agencies, especially state DOTs, have implemented actions to streamline project development. As seen in the survey response, a major reason for considering environmental factors earlier was considered to be better decisions. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF IMPORTANT FINDINGS The literature points to several theoretical bases for addressing the environment in transportation planning at a systems level. The idea of cities as ecosystems with finite carrying capacities presents a simple and broadly understood basis for integrating environmental considerations with plan- ning and for tracking how transportation development deci- sions are impacting the environment over time. The concept of sustainability also is increasingly important in transporta- tion planning. Sustainability refers to economic and social change to improve human well-being while reducing the need for environmental protection. The importance of legislation in advancing environmental considerations in planning for infrastructure is found in both

domestic and international experiences. States that have passed strong environmental legislation, not surprisingly, have made greater progress than their counterparts without similar legislation. A similar finding was made for countries in the European Union: those who had passed legislation on Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) had made more strides with the application and effectiveness of SEAs. The fact that some states have passed laws that explicitly link environmental considerations to transportation planning and decision making is indicative of a growing awareness of the importance of this issue and a desire to institutionalize requirements to address it. Both domestic experiences with transportation planning and international experiences with sustainable transportation activities highlight the importance of performance measure- ment as a tool for assessing an agency’s progress toward environmental or sustainability goals. The literature shows that performance measurement is one of the first steps agen- cies take to develop credibility in the environmental area. Although the survey results indicate a general consensus on the importance of environmental considerations in trans- portation planning, they also show that different agencies have adopted various approaches and priorities to address the environment during planning. Thus, it is unlikely that there 28 will be a universal approach that fits the needs or perceived priorities of all agencies. It is interesting to note that agencies tend to agree that earlier environmental considerations should result in better decisions. However, agencies also tend to be constrained by other competing priorities, indicating that some form of incentive (e.g., devoting additional resources to this goal) may be necessary to foster increased integration of environmental considerations with transporta- tion planning. Not surprisingly, the United States and coun- tries in the European Union that have passed legislation to promote environmental considerations in planning have given this issue a high priority and allocated appropriate resources to address it. The next chapter presents a transportation planning frame- work and the important steps needed to consider environ- mental factors earlier. As noted in the results of the survey, although the application of this framework could result in faster project development procedures, the primary intent is to produce better decisions. In this case, “better” means investment decisions that meet the important transportation goals of a community, but do so in a way that enhances the capacity and functionality of the surrounding environment while preserving those quality-of-life characteristics valued by the local community. State DOTs MPOs Figure 2. Importance of environmental factors, state DOTs and MPOs.

29 Figure 3. Most important methods and tools for environmental consideration, state DOTs and MPOs. State DOTs MPOs

30 State DOTs MPOs Figure 4. Existence of data for consideration of environmental factors, state DOTs and MPOs.

31 State DOTs MPOs Figure 5. Obstacles to incorporating environmental factors into trans- portation planning, state DOTs and MPOs.

32 State DOTs MPOs Reasons to Consider Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development Reasons to Consider Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development Pe rc en t C ho os in g th e O bs ta cl e as Im po rta nt Pe rc en t C ho os in g th e O bs ta cl e as Im po rta nt Figure 6. Reasons for considering environmental factors earlier in project development, state DOTs and MPOs.

Next: Chpater 3 - Incorporating Environmental Concerns Into Transportation Planning and Project Development »
Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 541: Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning examines processes, procedures, and methods for integrating environmental factors in transportation systems planning and decision making at the statewide, regional, and metropolitan levels. The appendixes to NCHRP Report 541 have been published as NCHRP Web-Only Document 77.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!