Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning (2005)

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

33 CHAPTER 3 INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a conceptual framework of trans- portation systems planning and project development that illustrates where environmental considerations can be incor- porated into planning and what strategies can be used to pro- vide greater sensitivity to environmental concerns. The first section of this chapter describes the conceptual framework. Subsequent sections use the results of the case studies con- ducted for this project to illustrate how some states and MPOs have incorporated environmental considerations into each step of system planning and project development. An important step in systems planning, and thus a compo- nent of the conceptual framework, is analyzing alternatives. This step is heavily dependent on data collection and inter- pretation. In addition, analysis uses models or other tools to understand how changing the characteristics of the trans- portation system might affect system performance and oth- erwise affect the natural and built environment. Because many distinct analysis tools and methods could be used to incorporate environmental factors into systems planning, this topic will be covered in Chapter 4. The conceptual framework is defined in this chapter in gen- eral terms that make it possible to describe the basic steps for planning and project development in both statewide and metropolitan-level applications. Clearly, different compo- nents of such a framework might receive different levels of emphasis in each type of application. For example, metropol- itan transportation systems planning tends to be much more dependent on network modeling activities than most exam- ples of statewide transportation planning. Although several states have developed models that forecast future travel flows on the state’s transportation system, most state planning activ- ities have not included this level of complexity in the process. Another important distinction between metropolitan and statewide transportation planning applications is that a state DOT has a responsibility not only for statewide transportation planning, but also for project development. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are primarily responsible for transportation systems planning, and project development is left to other agencies. This is an important institutional issue in that the challenge of influencing systems planning and proj- ect development will likely relate to which organizations are responsible for each. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK By its very nature, a conceptual framework is a simplifi- cation of what could be a very complex process. For exam- ple, the framework outlined in this chapter presents systems planning and project development as an orderly, somewhat rational series of steps that logically follow one another. An illustration of this framework shows the process as starting with ideas (e.g., developing a vision) and ending with a solu- tion to identified problems (e.g., projects programmed and designed). In reality, planning and project development are much more complex, with many different activities possibly occurring concurrently. Additionally, in a typical planning context, many of the steps outlined in the framework might have already occurred and be irrelevant to a particular situa- tion at a specific time. Even with these caveats, a conceptual framework that identifies important components of a process and how they relate to one another can be beneficial in guid- ing the discussion of how this process can be modified. The conceptual framework that has guided this research is shown in Figure 7. The development of this framework has relied heavily on two recent contributions to the literature, both of which emphasize different parts of the framework. First, Meyer and Miller’s (36) book on urban transportation planning provides the key point of departure for the systems planning components of this framework. Second, project development borrows heavily from NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context-Sensitive Solutions (30). Systems planning begins with the creation of a vision. The definition of a vision portrayed in Figure 7 reflects the inter- action between desired states of prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity/quality of life. These three factors have been used purposely to define the key definitions of sustainable development. This vision can consist of general statements of desired end-states, or can be as specific as a defined land-use scenario. Usually, the vision for metropoli- tan planning tends to be more specific than the vision created for state-level planning. The “visioning process” relies on extensive public outreach and is often one of the most inter- active steps of the systems planning process. Once a vision has been defined, planning needs more spe- cific information on what this vision means in terms of both desired transportation system performance, as well as the

desired characteristics of those aspects of community life affected by transportation, such as environmental quality or economic development. This is usually accomplished by defining goals and objectives that provide overall direction to the planning process. These goals and objectives not only serve the purpose of helping to define what the purposes of planning are but, later in planning, they lead to the identifi- cation of criteria that are used to evaluate different trans- portation system options and alternatives. Goals and objectives can also lead to the identification of system performance measures. The use of measures to mon- itor the performance of the transportation system and of other systems deemed important to decision-making is a relatively new phenomenon to the transportation field (see, for exam- ple, 59, 60). The primary purpose of these measures is to tar- get key data collection (and resulting information needs) on those aspects of performance that decision makers determine to be of most importance for their state or region. For exam- ple, many performance measures have been defined that monitor whether congestion, average speeds, system relia- bility, and mobility options have changed over time. Very few transportation-systems-level examples exist of measures that relate to such things as environmental quality, economic development, and quality of life (61). Key to understanding the problems and challenges likely to be faced in the future is the ability to collect and analyze data. Analysis primarily focuses on understanding how a trans- portation system and its components work and, consequently, 34 how changes to that system will alter its performance. Analy- sis also focuses on the relationships between transportation system performance and other topics such as environmental quality, economic development, and quality of life. The analysis step includes the identification of alternative strate- gies or projects that meet the objectives of the study. Analy- sis tools, ranging from simple data analysis to complex simulation models, are used to produce the information that feeds the next step of the process, which is evaluation. Evaluation is synthesizing information on the benefits, costs, and effects generated by analysis so that judgments can be made concerning the relative merits of alternative actions. As noted by Meyer and Miller (36), evaluation should have the following characteristics: • Focus on the decisions being faced by decision makers. • Relate the consequences of alternatives to goals and objectives. • Determine how different groups are affected by trans- portation proposals. • Be sensitive to the time frame in which project effects are likely to occur. • In the case of regional transportation planning, produce information on the likely effects of alternatives at a level of aggregation that permits varying levels of assess- ment. • Analyze the implementation requirements of each alternative. Environmental quality Prosperity Social equity/ quality of life Vision Goals and objectives Performance measures Evaluation criteria Plan Develop project concepts TIP Alternative improvement strategies Data Analysis methods Other sources for project ideas System monitoring Project planning Project design Project Development Process Transportation Systems Planning Figure 7. Conceptual framework of transportation system planning and project development. Source: Meyer and Miller, 2001 (36).

• Assess the financial feasibility of the actions recom- mended in the plan. • Provide information to decision makers on the value of alternatives in a readily understandable form and a timely fashion. One of the most common ways of making sure that the results of evaluation are linked closely to the needs of deci- sion makers is through the definition of evaluation criteria that reflect important decision-making concerns. These criteria provide important guidance to planners and engi- neers about what type of data and analysis tools must be available in order to produce the desired information. The result of evaluation is the development of recommended strategies or a plan. In the United States, the actual program of action, referred to as the transportation improvement program (TIP) for a metropolitan area and the state transportation improvement program (STIP) for a state, is connected to the plan through programming. Programming is matching actions that have surfaced through evaluation as being the most desirable with available funds. When funds are insufficient to satisfy all of the funding needs, some form of priority-setting occurs. This priority-setting can take many forms from pure politics to the use of systems analysis tools to assigning priority weights to different feasible actions. Once a project or action has been programmed for imple- mentation, that project must be further refined in terms of design and operation, as well as to better understand likely effects. Such refinement is called project development. The three major steps in project development include developing project concepts, planning the project in finer detail than what would ordinarily occur in systems planning, and pre- liminary and final engineering. Project development takes various forms depending on the scope and magnitude of the project and expected effects. When significant environmen- tal impacts are expected, for example, project development will include an analysis whose steps are well laid out in rules and regulations. The final component of the framework is system monitor- ing. Note in Figure 7 that system monitoring provides a feed- back loop to the definition of goals and objectives and the use of performance measures. Poor system performance can lead to further planning analysis to better understand the dynam- ics of the underlying problem and might lead to the identifi- cation of new goals and objectives. The system planning framework shown in Figure 7 is very different from more traditional constructs. First, and perhaps most significantly, system planning as shown encompasses a broad set of activities. Many books on transportation plan- ning have focused almost exclusively on analysis and evalu- ation, with the visioning process, program and/or project implementation, and system monitoring (i.e., assessing how well the system is performing) occurring outside the plan- ners’ purview. The conceptual framework for this research 35 adopts a much broader perspective of what constitutes sys- tems planning. Second, a relatively new addition to systems planning is the use of performance measures, shown in Figure 7 as a central concept in the overall planning process. Given the important link between planning and decision making, per- formance measures should focus on the information of great- est concern to decision makers. Performance measures should reflect the ultimate outcomes of transportation system performance, including, for example, the level of mobility for disadvantaged populations, pollutant levels from mobile sources, and economic development gains. Performance measures not only define data requirements and influence the development of analytical methods, but they become a criti- cal way of providing feedback to decision-making on the results of previous decisions. Third, a major focus of systems planning is the considera- tion of alternative strategies, which could include projects in the conventional sense, but also may include many different types of actions designed to influence travel behavior and system performance. For example, travel demand manage- ment (TDM) strategies, such as variable work hours, rideshare programs, and parking pricing, have become important options in many metropolitan areas for reducing transportation demand. Likewise, many intelligent trans- portation system (ITS) actions are not really “projects” as much as they are efforts to better coordinate the actions of those responsible for system operations. And also included in the strategies concept are actions that can be undertaken individually or in concert with specific projects aimed at reducing or avoiding environmental impacts. Thus, the con- ceptual framework shown in Figure 7 provides for a much wider consideration of actions and strategies than what is usually considered in the systems planning process. A final characteristic of the planning framework pro- posed here is the periodic feedback provided by system monitoring to the original vision definition, goals state- ment, and identification of performance measures. Analy- sis and evaluation are undertaken not only to assess the consequences of a decision, but also to better understand the definition of the problem, which may require changing this definition based on preliminary analysis results. System monitoring serves as a major source of information on the performance of the transportation system and is an important indicator of system deficiencies or opportunities for improvement. A very important context for the consideration of environ- mental factors in transportation systems planning is found in the community development decision-making process. A community develops in response to various influences, ranging from market and economic factors that affect the location of households and firms to changing levels of acces- sibility afforded by a transportation system. Land-use deci- sions incorporate various influences, often reflecting the market demand for community development and the political

structure established for making land-use decisions. Such decisions can be substantially constrained by both the inabil- ity of a transportation system to provide needed levels of accessibility and by environmental limits on the ability to pro- vide water and support human activity on environmentally sensitive land. Land-use decisions drive transportation demand; they can shape the natural environment and alter it in such ways that infrastructure delivery becomes challenging (e.g., creation of park lands or protected habitats). In addition, land-use decisions such as corridor preservation or transit- oriented development can help create opportunities that sup- port more effective and efficient transportation services. Historically, transportation projects and, in some cases, plans as well, have been developed with community and environmental issues relegated to an evaluation issue. This may prompt questions such as: How does the proposed project or plan affect the land use and environmental charac- teristics of the adjacent land? What form of mitigation is necessary? However, the premise of this study is that envi- ronmental concerns need to be integrated closely with com- munity planning, and that transportation planning needs to be better integrated with both environmental concerns and com- munity planning. By providing a broader context, projects could be identified that provide dual benefits, not only enhancing a community’s environmental quality, but also satisfying a transportation need. Several case studies in this chapter illustrate how some communities have linked community planning, environmen- tal assessment, and infrastructure provision. The triangle on the left side of Figure 7 represents this integration. One of the most important challenges to the transportation profession in the next several decades is to evolve into a more integrated approach toward community development that both recog- nizes environmental constraints and provides infrastructure supportive of the community vision. The conceptual framework shown in Figure 7 represents a simplification of the systems planning and project devel- opment approach to transportation decision making. For this research, the important questions become: (1) To what extent and in what way can environmental factors be incor- porated into each of the steps shown in this figure? and (2) Are there steps in systems planning where such factors can be considered earlier such that better and timelier decisions will result? CASE STUDIES Although the survey results presented in Chapter 2 did not find many examples of agencies that have effectively incorporated environmental concerns into transportation systems planning, there were several noteworthy examples. These examples ranged from changing an organizational culture so that environmental consequences were consid- ered in every action taken by agency staff to identifying 36 new tools and methods that allowed decision makers to visualize likely effects at the systems planning stage of decision making. Case studies of selected DOTs and MPOs were under- taken in order to better understand the examples where link- ing environmental factors and transportation planning was found. The case studies were selected on the basis of the level to which survey respondents indicated that efforts had been made to consider environmental factors in systems planning, or where strategies to expedite project develop- ment by moving environmental tasks earlier into planning had been implemented. In some cases, such as the Cape Cod Commission or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, both the literature and survey respondents pointed to each area as one where environmental concerns have played a dominant role in planning. These case studies represent the activities and efforts of agencies at a particular point in time, in this case, primarily during the summer and fall of 2002. Changes in agency administration and personnel can strongly influence how a process evolves, possibly changing its direction signifi- cantly. Nonetheless, the best-case practice represented by these case studies reflects the challenges and opportunities that have been faced by transportation planners, engineers, and decision makers in evolving toward a more environmen- tally sensitive decision-making process. Each of the case studies focused on several key character- istics of the planning and environmental process found in that institutional environment. In particular, each case study described long-range transportation systems planning being used for that jurisdiction, the environmental goals and objec- tives that had been articulated for this process, any legisla- tion or regulations that guided actions by agency staff, and the tools or methods that had been developed and/or used to analyze or evaluate environmental consequences in the plan- ning process. Case studies were undertaken in the following locations: • States – California – Florida – Maryland – Minnesota – North Carolina – Oregon – Pennsylvania – Washington – Wisconsin • Metropolitan/regional areas – Atlanta (Georgia) – Cape Cod (Massachusetts) – Eugene (Lane County, Oregon) – Portland (Oregon) – San Francisco Bay Area (California) – Seattle (Washington)

– Southern California Council of Governments (Los Angeles, California) – Tahoe Region (Nevada) – Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (Ohio) Vision In the context of this research, vision has two meanings. A vision can be a statement of desired end states and/or direc- tions that describe what a community wants to achieve in the future or an organizational philosophy or mission statement that outlines an organization’s approach to achieving its mandate. With respect to this latter concept, state legislation and/or regulation can have an important influence on how an agency incorporates environmental considerations into trans- portation planning. An important distinction needs to be made between a vision statement that simply lists general principles accepted by everyone (but have very little influence on actual results) and concepts that lead to very specific actions and activities aimed at achieving the vision. In the context of this research, a vision means articulating statements concerning environ- mental quality and preservation that are implemented in sub- sequent planning activities, leading eventually to investment decisions that reflect a concern for environment quality. As will be seen in the following examples, this distinction can have an important influence on the types of strategies that are considered in the planning process. California Department of Transportation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for developing the transportation plan for the state of California. Developing this plan is accomplished in coordi- nation with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and 45 regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs). Sixteen of the RTPAs are MPOs and 29 are nonurban planning agencies. Since the mid-1970s, state law has required these regions to prepare regional transportation plans (RTPs) that focus on the specific challenges each is facing, and that are designed to assist local and state decision makers in shaping California’s transportation future. According to state law, the California Transportation Plan must be consistent with the plans developed by other entities in the state, such as cities, counties, special districts, private organizations, tribal govern- ments, and state and federal agencies. State law specifically prohibits the California Transportation Plan from being proj- ect specific. Caltrans also develops and disseminates guide- lines for regional transportation planning to the RTPAs and MPOs so that the regional transportation plans are consistent with federal and state transportation planning requirements. The transportation challenge facing California is formida- ble. California has the world’s fifth largest economy, with 37 much of the economic wealth dependent on a functioning transportation system (e.g., California is the nation’s leading global gateway for Pacific Rim trade with an estimated 37 percent of the value of all U.S. and foreign trade—an amount over $200 billion—passing through California’s ports). Over 11 million people will be added to the current state popula- tion of 34 million by the year 2020, significantly stretching the capability of the transportation system to meet travel demands. To prepare for this future, Caltrans has developed a state transportation plan that outlines the goals, policies, and strate- gies needed to meet the expected challenges. In developing this plan, extensive public involvement was used to formulate a vision of the state’s transportation system that could guide the selection of strategies. The vision of California’s future transportation system is one where California has a safe, sustainable transportation system that is environmentally sound, socially equitable, economically viable, and devel- oped through collaboration; it provides for the mobility and accessibility of people, goods, services, and information through an integrated, multimodal network. (62) Key concepts in this vision include the following four elements: 1. California is one of the few states that declares sus- tainability as a key guiding principle as part of its statewide transportation plan. Sustainability was defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. When applied to transportation, it means ensuring that environmental, social, and eco- nomic considerations are factored into decisions affecting transportation activity.” (62) 2. The term “environmentally sound” is used to describe a transportation system that “is part of an enhanced, ecologically healthy environment, and is developed with appropriate safeguards to protect open space, agri- cultural and sensitive lands, critical habitats, wildlife, water and air quality, and to minimize noise and visual effects.” 3. A socially equitable transportation system is one where the burdens and benefits resulting from transportation investment are fairly distributed. In addition, targeted populations, such as low-income groups, the young and elderly, people with disabilities, and other disadvan- taged individuals in rural and urban areas are to have access to safe and reliable transportation. 4. The vision specifically includes the concept of collabo- ration. This pertains not only to the participation of numerous stakeholders and groups that are normally involved in the development and implementation of the transportation plan, but also to the needed collaboration with the environmental community and especially with environmental permitting agencies.

Maryland Department of Transportation In 1992, Maryland’s General Assembly enacted the Mary- land Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act. This act established seven guiding visions for growth in Maryland. In addition, it required all local plans to comply with the act’s provisions, mandated that state and local cap- ital projects be consistent with local plans, and established an Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Com- mission. The visions were aimed at placing all county and municipal plans within the broader context of state goals for fostering economic development and environmental quality. In particular, the visions emphasized that 1. Development be concentrated in suitable areas, 2. Sensitive areas be protected, 3. In rural areas, growth be directed to existing population centers and resource areas be protected, 4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic, 5. Resources be conserved, including reducing resource consumption, 6. To assure achievement of (1) through (5) above, eco- nomic growth be encouraged and regulatory mecha- nisms streamlined, and 7. Funding mechanisms be put in place to achieve these visions. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has adopted an organizational perspective that supports state laws as they relate to smart growth and environmental preser- vation. In particular, Maryland’s SHA has articulated the fol- lowing four principles to guide the agency’s activities as they relate to the environment: 1. Meet or exceed all environmental laws and regulations applicable to SHA activities; 2. Incorporate and integrate smart growth, environmental protection, and enhancement measures in planning, design, construction, and operations; 3. Protect and enhance all aspects of the natural and human environment whenever possible, using avail- able state-of-the-art practices; and 4. Support advancement in environmental protection tech- nology through innovation and technology transfer. To provide organizational support for these principles, Maryland’s SHA has hired staff specialists in such environ- mental areas as wetlands, streams and floodplains, noise abatement, storm water management, water quality, air qual- ity, historic resources, archaeology, access for people with special needs, landscape architecture, socioeconomic impact assessment, erosion and sediment control, plant and wildlife ecology, forest creation, safety, hazardous waste manage- ment, and pedestrian access and bicycle compatibility. 38 New York State Department of Transportation The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has been a national leader in inculcating an envi- ronmental ethic into its organizational culture. In 1998, in response to the governor’s desire for more active state involve- ment in environmental quality, NYSDOT launched an “Envi- ronmental Initiative” to change its way of doing business. The department moved away from a perspective of dealing with environmental issues simply as complying with regulations, to one where project construction and maintenance were viewed as an opportunity for improving the local environment, even if such efforts were not required as part of project approval. New York State law has historically provided strong envi- ronmental protection of the lands surrounding state-funded transportation projects. Recently, however, state law was modified to allow NYSDOT to undertake environmental enhancement projects off of a project’s right-of-way. Article 2 of the State Highway Law, for example, gives the NYSDOT Commissioner the authority to acquire “property for recrea- tional, natural, and scenic areas along, but not necessarily contiguous to, state highways. . . . that shall lend itself to restoration, preservation or enhancement as a recreational, natural, or scenic area or provides visual access from high- way to such area.” The law further authorizes the Commis- sioner to spend state highway dollars to improve these areas. One of the ways NYSDOT has incorporated environmen- tal factors more seriously into its operations has been by changing departmental policies and procedures. The most important policy with respect to the Environmental Initiative is the NYSDOT Environmental Policy (63) that was issued in 2000. Key statements from this policy include the following: • As New York State’s largest public works agency, the Department of Transportation has an obligation to the people of New York State to preserve, protect, and enhance the environment. • It is the policy and practice of the Department to – Plan, design, construct, and maintain facilities that meet transportation needs while proactively protect- ing, conserving, restoring, and enhancing important natural and man-made resources. Again, project per- mit and mitigation requirements are only a start. – Seek opportunities to cooperatively advance federal, state, and local environmental policies, programs, and objectives as part of the department’s work through close and systematic coordination with the public and concerned agencies and groups. – Demonstrate leadership by piloting the development and implementation of improved methods for envi- ronmental protection and enhancement. – Employ safe and appropriate context-sensitive design measures to ensure that project designs reflect com- munity values as understood through proactive out- reach with local stakeholders.

– Assist municipalities and others with their environ- mental projects by allowing them to include their work as “betterments” in department projects so that their investments can benefit from the economies of scale associated with larger projects. These policy goals have been incorporated into the standard operating procedures of the agency, which are known as Engineering Instructions. NYSDOT officials felt strongly that changing the mindset of transportation employees who have traditionally viewed the environment as “something to overcome” is the key to successfully integrating environmental considerations into decision making. At NYSDOT, this meant changing the pro- cedures and standard operating procedures of the organiza- tion, and constantly reinforcing the message at all levels of the organization. North Carolina Department of Transportation The North Carolina DOT has adopted an organization-wide strategy for incorporating environmental stewardship into all aspects of its operations. The general impetus for this initiative came from the adoption of a 1999 Strategic Plan for Trans- portation that incorporated several goals that related to human and natural environmental stewardship. DOT leadership adopted an Environmental Stewardship Policy that outlined the key characteristics of what environmental stewardship meant for DOT employees. As noted in this policy environ- mental stewardship encompasses . . . (providing an integrated transportation system that enhances the state’s well-being) . . . and is reflected in the day-to-day operations by • Safeguarding the public’s health by conducting DOT’s business in an environmentally responsible manner, • Demonstrating DOT’s care for, and commitment to, the environment, and • Recognizing that DOT’s customers expect the agency to provide mobility and quality of life that includes the protection of the natural resources and the cultural and social values of their community. This vision of what environmental stewardship meant to the DOT was implemented through various organizational changes designed to emphasize a continual commitment to enhancing environmental quality. These changes included appointing the first DOT’s Deputy Secretary for Environ- ment, Planning, and Local Government Affairs; the creation of an environmental committee of the state’s Board of Trans- portation; the appointment of a Board member with specific responsibility for representing environmental issues; incor- porating environmental stewardship as part of the DOT’s strategic plan; and the creation of a DOT Office of Environ- mental Quality. 39 To establish a consistent vision among its many different partner agencies, the DOT entered into formal agreements with such agencies as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The major purpose of these agreements was for joint efforts to set a common mission of furthering trans- portation projects while preserving the environment. The resulting “Process Improvement Memorandum of Agree- ment” among the three agencies committed each agency to work cooperatively to improve the process of “developing quality permit applications, issuing environmental permits, and mitigation that support timely delivery of transportation programs while minimizing disruption to the natural and human environment.” Portland, Oregon The state of Oregon enacted land-use laws in 1973 requir- ing every city and county to have a long-range plan that addressed future growth and that achieved three objectives. These plans were to (1) meet the expectations established by state and local comprehensive plans; (2) establish urban growth boundaries, which must contain an adequate supply of developable land to accommodate the expected growth in a 20-year period; and (3) protect natural resources (64). The state’s land use goals were developed by the Land Conserva- tion and Development Commission (LCDC). The administra- tive arm of the LCDC, the Department of Conservation and Land Development (DCLC), reviews and approves local com- prehensive plans, a procedure known as “acknowledgement.” In 1992, Portland voters approved a home-rule charter that directed Portland Metro, the region’s MPO, to make regional growth management its primary mission. This charter required Metro to adopt a future vision capturing a long- range statement of the region’s outlook and values as well as a comprehensive set of regional policies on land use, trans- portation, water quality, natural areas and other regional planning mandates. The region’s transportation system plan was to integrate goods and people movement with the desired community vision of surrounding land use. Metro used an extensive public outreach effort to help identify the outlook and values of the region by asking basic questions on livability that were later used to prioritize community values. Public response placed a premium on several quality of life characteristics, including the following that relate to environmental quality (64): • A sense of community, • Quiet neighborhoods with easy access to shopping, schools, jobs, and recreational opportunities, • The preservation of natural areas, forests, and farmlands, • The “feel” of the region with open spaces, scenic beauty, and a small-town atmosphere,

• Preservation of individual community’s character and assets, and • A balanced transportation system providing a range of choices, including transit, walking, biking, and cars. Based on these desired regional characteristics, Portland Metro developed a 2040 Growth Concept that was to serve as a blueprint for regional growth. The 2040 Growth Concept complies with state land-use goals and is the basis for all of Metro’s subsequent planning activities. It embraces “land use and transportation policies that will allow Metro and the metropolitan area’s cities and counties to manage growth, protect natural resources, and make improvements to facili- ties and infrastructure while maintaining the region’s quality of life.” Important elements of this concept include (1) main- taining clearly defined boundaries and characteristics of the different communities in the region; (2) promoting thriving central cities, regional and town centers, station communities (i.e., areas of development centered around a light rail or high-capacity transit station with shops and services that are accessible to people using all modes of transportation); and (3) designating lands that will remain undeveloped. Portland Metro’s approach to defining a vision is very much tied to the community’s desires for quality of life and future development. Oregon’s strong growth management laws and a public ethic of supporting effective regional plan- ning have resulted in an integrated approach to decision making that is unique in the United States. Many of the most significant environmental challenges facing the region are linked to land-use and development decisions. By focusing on these decisions and by putting in place strategies such as 40 urban growth boundaries, the Portland region is attempting to preempt future environmental problems by making smart decisions today. The community-led definition of a consen- sus vision was the beginning of such an effort. Puget Sound (Seattle), Washington The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is the trans- portation and growth planning coordinating agency for the central Puget Sound region of the state of Washington. PSRC’s Vision 2020, the region’s adopted growth manage- ment, economic, and transportation strategy, guides both the region’s long-range transportation planning, as well as the short-range prioritization of projects and financial strategies. Vision 2020’s primary goal is to create diverse, economically and environmentally healthy communities framed by open space and connected by a high-quality, multimodal trans- portation system that provides effective mobility for people and goods. Vision 2020 was based on an analysis of five alternative growth and transportation strategies, including: no action, implementing existing plans, focusing development in major urban centers, focusing development in multiple centers, and allowing growth to disperse throughout the region. The process used in developing Vision 2020 is indicative of the important role that public outreach has in providing a sense of what type of future the public desires. Figure 8, for example, indicates the results of four major public involvement activi- ties and how each activity led to a public expression of desir- able futures for the Seattle region. This public process also led 0 10 20 30 40 50 No Action Existing Plans Major Centers Multiple Centers Dispersed Growth Panel Survey Newspaper Responses Public Hearings Municipal League Pe rc en t Figure 8. Public expression of support for alternative visions in Seattle. Source: Puget Sound Regional Commission, 1990 (65).

to the identification of the following five strategies that were to guide planning and decision making in the region: 1. Create a regional system of central places framed by open space. 2. Strategically invest in various mobility options and demand that management support the regional system of central places. 3. Maintain economic opportunity while managing growth. 4. Conserve environmental resources. 5. Mitigate potential adverse effects of concentrating development by early action. The main theme that surfaced from the Vision 2020 effort was that land use and quality of life should come first. Trans- portation investment should then be targeted to achieve whatever goals are associated with both issues. In addition, the public supported conserving environmental resources by thinking about such issues early in planning (65). Like Port- land, the Seattle region has been known for its approach to environmental preservation and mitigation of project con- struction. The vision for the region, and the planning that followed, heavily considered environmental factors in the systems planning process. Washington State Department of Transportation The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for developing the state’s long-range transportation plan. This plan is largely a policy document that sets policy for all transportation agencies in the state. One of the guiding visions for WSDOT is growth management, which has a particularly strong legislative foundation and widespread public support in the state. The Washington State Environ- mental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all cities and counties to develop a growth management plan. All urbanized areas must have growth boundaries. In 1990, the state legislature passed a Growth Management Act (GMA) that required all cities and counties to plan for the transportation infrastructure needed for anticipated growth and to deny additional development if local infrastructure was not available. These concurrency require- ments were aimed at tying growth to the ability of municipali- ties to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure. WSDOT has been proactive in fostering environmental stewardship and sustainable transportation in its program of activities. A section of the most recent Washington Trans- portation Plan (WTP) is entitled “Environmental Challenges and Opportunities.” Dedicated to the identification of transportation-related environmental challenges and oppor- tunities, it states that “Environmental concerns must now be incorporated early into planning and project development to ensure minimal effects to the environment and effective mit- igation for unavoidable effects.” (66) 41 WSDOT’s seven core principles of management for oper- ating and improving the state’s transportation systems include environmental responsibility alongside other princi- ples of leadership, safety, delivery and accountability, com- munications, business practices, and excellence and integrity. The environmental responsibility principle states: “Our work shall incorporate the principles of environmental protection and stewardship into the day-to-day operations of the department as well as the ongoing development of the state’s transportation facilities” (66). WSDOT has adopted an Environmental Policy Statement that acknowledges the state’s vital interests in protecting and preserving natural resources and other environmental assets and its citizens’ health. The policy calls for the implementa- tion of an Environmental Management System (EMS) that embraces all of WSDOT’s program functions as well as the establishment of performance indicators on environmental stewardship that would be reported regularly to the public. WSDOT also has an Environmental Affairs Office that focuses on the environmental linkage to long-range trans- portation planning. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Wisconsin is one of the few states that require an environ- mental analysis of state transportation plans, and is a good example of the challenges that might be faced when attempt- ing to assess the environmental impacts of system plans and policies at a very broad level of application. The state administrative rule governing this analysis is known as TRANS 400, which implements, for transportation actions, the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act adopted in 1971. Key concepts of TRANS 400 include Purpose: “. . . to implement the Wisconsin environmen- tal policy act by establishing the policy by which the department will consider environ- mental effects of its major actions on the qual- ity of the human environment. . . . Policy: “The department shall strive to protect and enhance the quality of the human environment in carrying out its basic transportation mission and shall consider pertinent environmental fac- tors consequential to any proposed action. . . . Actions: “A System-Plan Environmental Evaluation (SEE) may be prepared in the case of proposals contained in system plans, if it is concluded they are major and significant new proposals. . . . (and) that if the plan recommendations are implemented, there will be subsequent project or site-specific environmental reviews. SEE Content: “. . . it is recognized that, in most cases, the analysis of transportation alternatives, includ- ing multimodal analyses where appropriate,

will be qualitative, reflecting the broad level of generality of system plans. Therefore, by necessity, a SEE shall be more conceptual, qualitative, and general than is common with the individual project environmental reviews. A SEE, prepared as an integral part of a sys- tem plan, may address the following matters (a) The range of environmental effects, including the effects on sensitive land and water resources of systems plans; (b) In non-attainment areas, the range of air quality effects which might be expected from system plan recommendations; (c) The range of system plan effects on energy consumption; (d) The relation of system plans to adopted regional development goals and plans, including potential effects of transporta- tion on land use and land use on trans- portation demand; (e) The range of anticipated effects of system plans on traffic congestion; (f) The range of anticipated effects of system plans on economic development; (g) The qualitative comparison of the costs of system plans and expected benefits; and (h) The range of effects of system plans on communities.” The most important benefit of the TRANS 400 process, as identified by WisDOT officials, was the early involvement of other agencies and interest groups in the environmental issues associated with transportation investment. For exam- ple, the early involvement of the Department of Natural Resources, the state’s environmental agency, was considered a positive result of the SEE process. Coming to agreement early in planning on (1) the goals of the study; (2) how envi- ronmental factors were to be incorporated into the planning process; and (3) developing a sense of what types of results were expected was considered by WisDOT officials as a very important factor in the success of the planning effort. Goals/Objectives and Performance Measures Visions need to be translated into explicit statements of goals, objectives, and system performance measures. Goals and objectives provide specific guidance to the planning process. Performance measures are even more specific in that they target the key dimensions of transportation and other system performance that are of interest to decision makers. Goals and objectives should be strongly linked to the types of actions that result later in the process. Thus, environmen- tal goals and objectives should have some influence over the identification of strategies and on the type of information that 42 will be used by decision makers to choose among the many strategies examined during analysis. Cape Cod, Massachusetts Cape Cod is one of the nation’s most environmentally sensitive areas. Given ecological habitats unique to the United States, including the largest single source aquifer in the United States, the Cape Cod’s tremendous population growth over the past 20 years has resulted in significant con- cerns about the future of this national resource. As noted in the 2001 Regional Policy Plan, “portions of Cape Cod’s sole source aquifer have been contaminated by incompatible uses, discharges of hazardous materials and excessive devel- opment densities; traffic congestion has worsened steadily, approaching gridlock conditions in some locations during the summer months; thousands of acres of shellfish beds have been closed due to pollution; open space and scenic vistas have been lost to residential subdivisions, and the architectural quality and economic viability of the Cape’s historic villages have been undermined by commercial sprawl.” (67) In response to what residents considered to be ominous trends in population growth, the Cape Cod Commission was established in 1990 to guide the development on the Cape while preserving natural and undeveloped areas. The commission reviews and regulates developments of regional impact (DRI), recommends designating areas as “districts of critical planning concern,” and prepares and oversees the implementation of a regional land-use policy plan. The regional policy plan, updated every five years, establishes broad goals that are to guide the development of more specific policies and plans, such as Cape Cod’s transportation plan. In addition, the plan includes mini- mum performance standards that future development is required to meet. The 2001 update of the regional policy plan adopted a different emphasis from that found in previous plans. Although previous plans outlined standards of environ- mental protection and desired public investment, the new plan is based on the concept of the “capacity” of Cape Cod to handle new population. In this case, capacity was related to water supply, transportation, natural systems, and munic- ipal fiscal resources. As noted in the plan, “the ‘ecological footprint’ made by sprawl ultimately limits the population that can be accommodated within the Cape’s capacity con- straints.” Part of this approach is to protect sensitive resources such as quality ground and surface water, wet- lands, and plant and wildlife habitats. One way of doing this was to establish minimum performance standards that reg- ulated how development should occur. The policy plan goals and corresponding performance standards shown in Table 5 illustrate how environmental considerations are integrated into this plan.

Eugene/Lane County, Oregon The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area is the second largest metropolitan area in the state of Oregon, consisting of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The region has an estimated 275,000 people and is anticipating significant population and employment growth over the next decade (the region’s population is expected to grow by 41% over the next 12 years). The Lane Council of Governments (LaneCOG), the region’s MPO, is a voluntary association of 25 local govern- ments and agencies. Because state law requires there to be a strong linkage between state goals, local comprehensive plan- ning, and other jurisdictional plans, LaneCOG’s transportation plan is closely allied with land-use and environmental goals expressed in the general plan for the metropolitan area (68). Given that transportation decisions are subsidiary to land use decisions, the objective of regional transportation planning is 43 to offer several transportation choices for meeting travel needs in the most efficient and environmentally friendly manner, consistent with previously determined land use decisions. The region’s transportation plan, called TransPlan, was designed to meet two major goals • Provide an integrated transportation and land-use sys- tem that supports choices in travel modes and develop- ment patterns that will reduce reliance on the auto and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the qual- ity of life; and • Enhance the metropolitan area’s quality of life and eco- nomic opportunity by providing a transportation system that is balanced, accessible, efficient, safe, intercon- nected, environmentally responsible, supportive of responsible and sustainable development, responsive to community needs and neighborhood effects, and eco- nomically viable and financially stable. Goal Example Minimum Performance Standard Encourage growth and development consistent with the Cape’s carrying capacity. New development shall be located and designed to promote redevelopment and infill. Protect open space and minimize environmental and community impacts. All residential and commercial subdivisions of land shall cluster the proposed development. Development shall be directed away from Significant Natural Resource Areas. Maintain the overall quality and quantity of the Cape’s ground water. All development shall not exceed a 5 ppm nitrogen loading standard for impact on ground water. Preserve and restore the quality and quantity of inland and coastal wetlands. Wetland alteration shall not be permitted except when there is a finding of no feasible alternative. Preserve and enhance the availability of open space and provide wildlife habitats. Development shall provide permanently restricted upland open space in proportions defined in the Plan. Reduce and/or offset expected increase in motor vehicle trips. All development shall implement adequate and acceptable measures to reduce by 25% expected increase in summer site traffic on a daily basis. Development shall consider and accommodate the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users. Maintain travel times and level of service on regional roads and intersections. Development shall not be allowed if the project is estimated to add new traffic such that within 5 years generally accepted warrants for road and intersection widening are expected to be met at any location within historic districts, on scenic roads, or if natural resources are to be affected. Encourage energy conservation and improved energy efficiency. Carpooling, mass transit, bicycling, and walking shall be encouraged as an alternative; where appropriate, bikeways and footpath connections between commercial and residential uses shall be provided. Encourage development that respects the traditions and distinctive character of historic village centers and outlying areas. For new development outside designated growth centers, the footprint of an individual structure shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. TABLE 5 Sample policy goals and performance standards, Cape Cod Source: Cape Cod Commission, 2001 (67).

TransPlan included a performance and monitoring pro- gram to assess how TransPlan performs over time. Key per- formance measures included the following: • Demographic variables such as population and employ- ment, congestion, vehicle miles traveled (VMT); • Trip length variables such as internal VMT per capita, average trip length and percent of person trips under one mile, mode shares for all trips; • Environmental variables such as average fuel efficiency and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; • Land-use measures such as acres of zoned nodal devel- opment, percent of dwelling units built in nodes, and percent of new total employment in modes; and • System characteristic measures such as percent of road- way miles with sidewalks, percent of roadways in fair or better condition, percent of households within quarter-mile of a transit stop, transit service hours per capita, percent of households with access to 10-minute transit service, percent of employment with access to 10-minute transit service, and bikeway miles and fatalities. These data are collected for the transportation system and compared with projections that come from the regional plan. The Eugene/Lane County experience with tying trans- portation planning to land-use and quality-of-life goals is not surprising given the tradition of planning found in most com- munities in Oregon. What is particularly interesting is the list of performance measures that are being used to monitor the progress being made by implementing projects and strategies from the transportation plan. Included in this list of perfor- mance measures are environmental variables, measures of land-use density, and transit accessibility. The system per- formance measures in this community closely reflect the concern to preserve the natural environment. Transportation systems planning is designed with this as a basic point of departure. Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland has several laws that promote a strong consid- eration of environmental factors in transportation planning. • As noted previously, in 1992 Maryland enacted the Eco- nomic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act, which established seven guiding visions for growth in Maryland, all geared toward ensuring that local plans were consistent with state goals. • In 1997, Maryland’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act and Executive Order directed growth to areas where it was most environmentally suitable, while protecting some of the state’s most ecologically and environmentally valuable landscapes. This legisla- tion called for transportation investments that satisfied 44 current and projected travel demands while supporting smarter growth patterns. • The 2000 Transportation Performance Act required the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) to apply performance measurements to the long-range transportation plan and the consolidated transportation program (or capital improvement program). Beginning with the 2002 State Report on Transportation, an Annual Attainment Report of Transportation System Performance accompanied the long-range plan and con- solidated transportation program. Also, to prevent the adverse effects of storm water runoff, the state of Maryland developed 14 performance standards that must be met at all development sites. In response to such state laws, the MDOT established poli- cies that support the early consideration of environmental factors in systems planning. For example, two of the 10 goals of the 2002 Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP) are related to the environment, as follows: • Develop transportation investments and facilities that support smart growth, and • Provide responsible stewardship of natural, community, and cultural resources. Two other goals indirectly affect the environment • Protect the current investment in the state’s transporta- tion system before investing in system expansion (which induces sprawl); and • Provide people with transportation choices for conve- nient, accessible, and effective mobility to key destina- tions (which effects congestion and air quality). Each goal has at least one policy objective that provides more detailed information about the actions that the depart- ment will take to accomplish the goal. For example, the three policy objectives for smart growth are • Direct transportation funding to priority funding areas and support the Governor’s Smart Growth Executive Order; • Design and coordinate transportation projects, facilities, programs, and services to reinforce local land-use plans and economic development initiatives that support smart growth principles; and • Work with local communities to increase their under- standing of smart growth principles and opportunities to incorporate smart growth into local plans and visions. There is one policy objective for responsible environmen- tal stewardship: Minimize effects on, and strive to enhance, Maryland’s resources. The environmental factors included in Maryland’s sys- tem planning are considered at a strategic policy level.

Collectively, the goals and policy objectives may be viewed as guiding principles for Maryland’s transportation plan- ning process. Similar to the experience in New York, Maryland trans- portation officials stated that it was very important to empha- size the significance of environmental considerations at the beginning of planning and project development in order to guide infrastructure and policy decisions away from environ- mentally unsatisfactory results. Maryland’s State Highway Administration has assumed a national leadership role in fos- tering context-sensitive solutions in project development. This could not have occurred if policy sensitivity to environ- mental quality was not an organizational standard. In addi- tion, Maryland’s very strong growth management law has provided a context within which environmental quality can be linked to community development goals and objectives. Minnesota Department of Transportation The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has a long history of statewide transportation planning that is recognized nationally as being at the forefront of planning and methodology. For example, with the passage of ISTEA, Mn/DOT refined its statewide transportation planning to incorporate several new concepts (the most important being the use of performance measures to monitor progress of the statewide, district, and business plans of the agency) as well as the identification of and the targeting of resources on a statewide system of interregional corridors. Both concepts are considered key elements to the approach for updating the statewide transportation plan that is underway. Mn/DOT’s planning and programming consists of several key elements. 45 • Strategic plan—Defines Mn/DOT’s mission and vision for meeting customers’ needs. • Statewide transportation plan—A policy document that outlines the directions and policies that are to be used in achieving the strategic plan and in attaining desired per- formance goals. • Modal plans, district long-range plans, interregional corridor plans—More specific plans covering system and service deficiencies, these plans identify the improve- ments needed to meet goals. • Capital programs—Programs of capital and service improvements needed over the next 2 to 10 years. • State transportation improvement program (STIP)— The 1-to 3-year capital program for state investments. One of the goals for Mn/DOT mandated by state law is “to ensure that the planning and implementation of all modes of transportation are consistent with the environment and energy goals of the state.” Accordingly, Mn/DOT has given considerable attention to environmental considerations when transportation policies, plans and performance measures are being developed. A recent update of the statewide plan focused on better linking Mn/DOT’s vision with the policies/goals that were to guide the development of the plan. Table 6 shows how Mn/DOT officials viewed this linkage. Three strategic direc- tions were identified: safeguard the transportation system that exists, make the network operate better, and make Mn/DOT work better. Ten policies or goals were established to guide investment decisions. Environmental protection is found in the strategic direction category of “make Mn/DOT work better.” One of the more innovative aspects of Minnesota’s statewide planning activities is the use of performance St ra te gi c D ire ct io ns Safeguard What Exists Make the Network Operate Better Make Mn/DOT Work Better Pl an P ol ic ie s 1. Preserve essential elements of existing transportation systems. 2. Support land-use decisions that preserve mobility and enhance the safety of transportation systems. 3. Effectively manage the operation of existing transportation systems to provide maximum service to customers. 4. Provide transportation options for people and freight. 5. Enhance mobility in interregional transportation corridors linking regional trade centers. 6. Enhance mobility within major regional trade centers. 7. Ensure the safety and security of the transportation systems and their users. 8. Continually improve Mn/DOT’s internal management and program delivery. 9. Inform and involve all potentially affected stakeholders in transportation plans and investment decision processes. 10. Protect the environment and support community values. TABLE 6 Mn/DOT plan policy link with strategic directions Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2000 (69).

measures to monitor the change in important characteristics of transportation system performance and other important effect categories. In the mid-1990s, Mn/DOT adopted a “family of measures” concept that reflected a range of effects and outcomes that could be affected by transportation system performance. The initial list of outcomes and measures included six items. • Time-directness—To meet customer expectations, a predictable travel time for length of trip is maintained by monitoring – Number of freeway miles congested, – Average travel time and distance, and – Percentage of Minnesotans satisfied with trip time. • Safety—Incidents and crash rates are minimized to Mn/DOT’s current and potential ability to influence infrastructure, partnerships/education, full range of solu- tions, and driver behavior. Data gathered includes – Motor vehicle crash rates and fatal crashes by road- way design type, – Percentage of Minnesotans feeling safe while driving in work zones, and – Percentage of Minnesotans satisfied with the safety of roadways. • Condition of infrastructure—An infrastructure that meets customer expectations is maintained by monitoring – Pavement quality index, – Bridge structural rating, and – Bridge functional rating. • Access/basic levels of service—Services are provided to meet personal travel and shipping needs by measuring – Percentage of Minnesotans with satisfactory transit options, – Posted bridges and bridge load carrying capacity, – Miles of trunk highway spring weight restrictions, and – Percentage of Minnesotans satisfied with travel information. • Environment—Mn/DOT is a proactive, responsible, environmental steward that checks Percentage of residential areas in incorporated areas exposed to excessive noise and – Number of wetland acres impacted and replaced by Mn/DOT. • Socioeconomics—To ensure that transportation invest- ments will yield the highest possible economic return to the region and are tempered by an evaluation of com- munity values and social effects, Mn/DOT measures – Total VMT and freight ton miles, – Maintenance and construction expenditures per VMT, and – Percentage of highway funds going to construction. In 2000, Mn/DOT shifted the focus of its performance measurement. A primary measurement framework now emphasized four strategic objectives: interregional corridors, 46 multimodal investment, program delivery, and information dissemination. Many of the measures developed in the 1990s were still used in this new framework. In fact, many became even more important in that performance targets were now set for many of the measures. A draft set of outcome measures for the policies shown in Table 6 includes similar types of measures as those described above. It is interesting to note in the environmen- tal area that, instead of performance measures, Mn/DOT officials are considering the use of indicators to monitor environmental system conditions and performance. Indica- tors are defined as “a set of consistent trend data reported over time that provides important historical or predictive information on a changing condition of strategic impor- tance.” Monitoring key environmental condition indicators gives an indication of whether these conditions are improv- ing or worsening. However, such changes might not be directly related to departmental activities. An Mn/DOT advisory committee has identified the follow- ing five areas where indicators are considered appropriate: • Air—Air quality, fleet emissions; • Water—Water quality, water quantity, wetlands and erosion control; • Land—Habitat/wildlife, special parks/wildlife and recreation areas, vegetation quality/sustainability; • Community and quality of life—Context-sensitive solu- tions, environmental justice, noise; and • Operations—Construction sustainability, maintenance waste materials management. Mn/DOT officials are still developing a final set of indi- cators for these categories. An example of the type of indi- cators being considered includes “ambient concentrations of pollutants and greenhouse gases” for air quality. The Mn/DOT example illustrates one of the most exten- sive efforts in the United States by a DOT to develop and use performance measures in its management of the statewide transportation program. Environmental stewardship is part of the list of measures that provide such guidance. In addition, Mn/DOT is considering the use of environmental indicators to provide reference points of progress in meeting statewide and regional goals in environmental quality. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) developed a long-range multimodal transporta- tion plan for 2000 to 2025 based on an extensive public involvement program to identify the critical issues or major themes that reflect the state’s transportation needs and desires. PennPlan, as the plan is called, is a cooperative venture involv- ing PennDOT; MPOs; local development districts (LDDs); county planning commissions; and local, state, and federal

environmental resource and regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Historic Preservation Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; as well as the general public. This process resulted in the identification of 10 goals that have been translated into 30 tasks or objectives, each with tar- gets to measure the state’s progress toward success. Through an annual achievement report, PennDOT systematically mon- itors and reports on the implementation of the plan objectives and progress toward meeting targets. PennPlan includes all modes of transportation: highways, public transit, passenger rail, freight rail, air, water, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as well as the intermodal connections between these modes. The plan is usually updated when there is a change of admin- istration, (i.e., usually on four-or eight-year cycles). PennDOT conducted extensive public surveys in develop- ing its vision for the 2025 plan. In addition, PennDOT reviewed the transportation plans of the state’s metropolitan and rural transportation planning organizations. From this information, 10 statewide goals for transportation planning emerged. Of the 10 goals, one emphasized improving the environment. Four other goals indirectly related to preserv- ing or improving the environment, including • Make transportation decisions that support land-use objectives, • Develop transportation alternatives and manage demand, • Provide smooth and easy connections between trans- portation alternatives, and • Inform and involve the public and improve customer service. 47 Some of PennDOT’s 30 objectives were directly related to the environment, including • Develop and implement a program to analyze environ- mental impacts in conjunction with the PennPlan corri- dor analysis program; • Consistently meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and achieve compliance with all relevant environ- mental laws and regulations; • Incorporate strategies identified under the Pennsylvania Greenways Partnership Commission Action Plan and the 21st Century Commission Report into the project development and design processes; • Promote the enactment of airport hazard zoning ordi- nances; • Increase urban and rural transit systems ridership; • Reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles; • Promote telecommuting as an alternative to traditional work travel; and • Implement the objectives contained in the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. PennDOT has developed one or more performance mea- sures for each objective, as well as quantitative targets to be met within designated time frames. Table 7 shows examples of such performance measures and targets for selected objectives. Each year, PennDOT reports on its progress toward achieving the preset targets or objectives. It also provides an assessment of whether it is on track with meeting the overall objective at the end of the allotted time frame. (# er Plan (#29 (#22) p (#17) ysis program (#5) Target Develop and implement a program to analyze environmental impact in conjunction with the PennPlan corridor anal Number of environmental impact analyses completed Two analyses completed per year Increase urban and rural transit systems ridershi Percentage increase in transit ridership, using 1997 as the base year Ridership increased by: 9% (2003) 16% (2010) 26% (2020) Reduce dependence on single- occupancy vehicles Increase vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) VOR increased by: 5% (2003) 10% (2010) 20% (2020) Promote telecommuting as an alternative to traditional work travel Increase telecommuting as reported in the national censuses, with 2000 census as base Telecommuting increased by: 15% (2010) 22% (2020) Implement the objectives contained in the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Mast ) Number of objectives implemented 100% of short-term objectives implemented by December 31, 2001 100% of mid-term objectives implemented by December 31, 2004 75% of long-term objectives implemented by December 31, 2010 Objective 17) TABLE 7 Sample PennPlan objectives, performance measures, and targets Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2001(70).

Southern California Southern California is the largest metropolitan area in the country. Encompassing 38,000 square miles, and home to more than 17 million people (approximately one half of Cal- ifornia’s population), Southern California has one of the largest concentrations of employment, income, business, industry, and finance in the world. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for six Southern California counties and 184 cities. Like many of the larger MPOs in the country, SCAG faces several challenges and opportunities in providing effective transportation services and infrastructure in such a multijuris- dictional environment. While Southern California is one of the most prosperous and productive metropolitan areas in the world, the metro area is currently grappling with urban congestion and air quality issues. Projected growth over the next two decades has the potential to exacerbate these already critical issues SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan has identified six regional goals and several corresponding supporting policies (71). One of the goals states that the plan will “ensure that transportation investments are cost effective, protect the envi- ronment (including air quality), promote energy efficiency, and enhance the quality of life.” In addition, two other goals reinforce priorities that will protect the environment • Encourage land-use and growth patterns that enhance the livability of our communities and maximize the pro- ductivity of transportation investments, and • Develop regional transportation solutions that comple- ment the subregional transportation systems and the land-use plans of communities within the subregions. SCAG also has adopted a performance-oriented approach toward systems planning and decision making. Environ- ment-oriented measures that SCAG monitors on a periodic basis include • Measures for vehicle emissions and particulate matter, • Mobility measures that capture such system attributes as the average work trip travel times and percent of P.M. peak travel in delay, • Accessibility measures that capture such user-based attributes as work opportunities within 45 minutes of door-to-door travel time and average transit access time, • Equity measures that capture various benefits and bur- dens by income and racial groups, • Reliability measures that capture average on-time arrivals per mode, and • Cost-effectiveness measures that capture return on total investment. Other measures being considered include livable commu- nities and transportation sustainability measures. In addition, SCAG publishes an annual state-of-the-region report that 48 tracks a series of indicators related to major issues in the region. The report includes user-based, as well as system- based, indicators. An annual state-of-the-commute survey collects information on commuters’ travel behavior and atti- tudes toward their commutes (e.g., traffic congestion and alternative travel modes), as well as demographic character- istics of commuters in the six-county region. Lake Tahoe Region Like Cape Cod, the Lake Tahoe Region is among the most environmentally sensitive areas in the United States In the 1960s, after many years of rapid growth and public concern about the effect of this growth on the natural environment, the states of California and Nevada created a bi-state compact, later ratified by the U.S. Congress, that formed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA was the first multistate envi- ronmental planning agency formed in the United States. One of the innovative aspects of this compact was that the starting point for urban and infrastructure planning was first to define environmental thresholds that reflected the capacity of the nat- ural environment to support development. Only then would infrastructure investments be considered that resulted in envi- ronmental performance within the threshold values. TRPA was also given regulatory powers to distribute new residential and commercial development in the region in such a way as to meet environmental targets. In the 1980s, when TRPA first began to develop the comprehensive plan and environmental program for the region, TRPA board members used these powers to declare a 32-month morato- rium on new land development until the plan was developed. Only recently did the U.S. Supreme Court declare that the moratorium was not considered a “taking of private prop- erty” and thus subject to compensation. A regional plan, adopted in 1987, outlined the goals for the region, including a Code of Ordinances to regulate land use, density, rate of growth, land coverage, excavation, and scenic impacts. The regional plan also included a comprehensive monitoring program that followed progress in meeting thresh- old values in the following categories: water quality, soil con- servation, air quality, vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, scenic resources/community design, recreation, and noise. All other planning efforts (e.g., that relating to the regional transportation plan) are targeted to meet environmental car- rying capacities. For example, the following goals were identified for the regional transportation plan. Note the prominence given to environmental capacity in the overall transportation strategy as follows: • It is the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan to ful- fill the requirements of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact; • It is the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan to attain and maintain the Environmental Threshold

Carrying Capacities and federal, state, and local trans- portation standards; • It is the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan to establish a safe, efficient, and integrated transportation system which reduces reliance on the private automo- bile, provides for alternative modes of transportation, and serves the basic transportation needs of the citizens of the Tahoe Region, supports the economic base of the region in the movement of goods and people, and min- imizes adverse effects on man and the environment; • It is the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan to pro- vide for the reactivation of the Tahoe Transportation 49 District to enable the TTD to fulfill its role as defined by the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact; and • It is the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan to research potential funding sources as referenced in the RTP-AQP Capital Improvement Program and as refer- enced in the Lake Tahoe Transportation Summit Final Report, dated June 20, 1991. As noted earlier, TRPA monitors progress toward achiev- ing environmental capacities by measuring a selected set of environmental indicators. These indicators are shown in Table 8. The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact requires that SEZ on/SEZ PAO PAO PAO Unitle OHV ty rec CNEL d Park/US–50 vol Indicator Unit of Benefit Air Quality Carbon monoxide Ozone Particulates Visibility US–50 traffic volume Air quality/wood smoke Vehicle miles traveled Atmospheric nutrient loading Improved level of service Hydrocarbon, NOx emissions Stationary burning dust control Dust control; SO2 emissions ume reductions Wood heater emissions/burn time VMT reduced NO3 emission reductions Fisheries Lake habitat Other habitat Stream habitat Stream habitat Stream habitat In-stream flow Acres improved Acres improved Miles improved to excellent Miles improved to good Miles improved to marginal Base flow maintained Noise Single event (aircraft) Single event (other) Community dBa improved dBa improved Ba improved Recreation High quali experience Multi-use trails Multi-use trails trails Dispersed recreation Capacity for general public Winter day use Summer day use Overnight use ss Miles paved Miles unpaved Miles acquired Acres acquired Capacity Ts Ts Ts Soil Conservati Impervious cover Disturbed land Hard coverage Roadway Soft coverage Sensitive land Naturally functioning Square feet of land coverage Acres revegetated Acres retired Miles obliterated Acres retired Acres acquired Acres restored TABLE 8 Measures of environmental benefit for Lake Tahoe Region (continued )

TRPA assess the progress toward these indicators at least once every 5 years. Toledo, Ohio The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) is a voluntary association of local governments in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan responsible for intergovernmental cooperation and planning. Planning responsibilities include the adoption of areawide plans and policies for transportation, land use, water quality, and the environment. To establish a direction for the 2025 regional transporta- tion plan, the TMACOG Transportation and Land Use 50 Committee adopted a statement of goals and objectives based on a vision statement for the region’s transportation system that was developed at annual regional meetings of trans- portation stakeholders (72). The four goals were • Enhance the region’s economic competitiveness in the worldwide economy, • Be an integrated intermodal transportation system, • Be a sustainable system, and • Enhance the region’s quality of life. Table 9 shows 12 supporting objectives for the established goals. These goals and objectives provide an interesting exam- ple of how goals can be given different levels of importance in the decision-making process. As shown, two goals, those relat- < N.P. Fe di M d/n d/n Phytoplankton PPR er clarity (trail BMP d BMPs) Ps) er clarity (CIP) z Scenic Resources Travel route ratings—roadway units Travel route ratings—Shore one units Scenic quality ratings Public recreation area ratings Community design Units > 15 in attainment + points Units > 7 in attainment + points Maintain/improve numerical ratings Maintain/improve numerical ratings Consistency with standards/guides Vegetation Relative abundance and pattern Prescribed burns Forests Revegetation Uncommon plant communities Sensitive Special species Area/location Acres treated Acres mechanically treated Acres revegetated Species cover/area Number of population sites Acres protected Wildlife Special-interest species Critical wildlife habitat Habitats of special significance Forest habitat Meadow habitat Riparian habitat Number of population sites Acres acquired/improved Acres improved/acquired Acres improved/acquired Acres improved/acquired Acres improved/acquired Water Quality Turbidity Pelagic Lake Tahoe winter clarity (Secchi depth) Pelagic Lake Tahoe wint Winter clarity—(% of private properties BM Pelagic Lake Tahoe winter clarity (roa Pelagic Lake Tahoe wint s) Pelagic Lake Tahoe winter clarity (slope stable) Pelagic Lake Tahoe winter clarity (runoff treated) Tributary water Runoff volume Runoff water Groundwater Other lakes Reduced se utr discharge Reduced se utr discharge Acres treated; source control Miles of road B P Miles improved Miles improved Acres improved Miles conveyance treated scharge Percent of watershed treated Percent of runoff treated Acres intervening treated Volume runoff infiltrated Maintain 1991 study level TABLE 8 (Continued) Measures of environmental benefit for Lake Tahoe Region Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2003 (74).

ing to economic competitiveness and the intermodal nature of the transportation system, are considered to be primary or “driving” considerations in the decisions for selecting projects and strategies. Two other goals are considered to be “screen- ing” goals, that is, goals relating to concerns about the effects associated with transportation system performance. The con- cept of sustainability is also incorporated into the environ- mental goal, where it is defined primarily as an effort to min- imize the environmental impact of the transportation system. The Analysis Process As noted earlier, a more detailed discussion of the analysis tools and methods that could be used for environmental assess- ment at the systems planning level will be presented in Chap- ter 4. However, three concepts merit attention at this point. The first is the effort of identifying environmentally sensitive and critical areas very early in systems planning so that decision makers know at the beginning of the process where important natural and community resources are located. The second concept is the range of alternative strategies that can be considered as part of the planning and project 51 development process. Transportation agencies focus their efforts on identifying transportation alternatives, with lit- tle thought given early in the process to the type of strate- gies that might be needed to enhance the environment. As shown in this section, a wide range of strategies can be considered as part of project development and planning that are aimed at improving environmental quality in general. The third concept is the definition of an “environmental alternative” as one of the alternatives to be examined as part of the analysis of alternatives. An environmental alternative is defined in a way that purposely avoids environmentally sensitive areas. This might mean redirecting investment to other parts of a study area, possibly substituting one form of transportation for another (e.g., meeting travel demand through transit or telecommunication substitution for auto- mobile travel), or reducing travel demand through travel demand management (TDM) strategies. These three concepts are very much related because the goal of an environmental alternative is to avoid sensitive environmental areas as much as possible, or at least to miti- gate negative effects. Such an effort relies on an analyst’s ability to locate sensitive environmental resources. Type of Goal Goal Supporting Objectives 1. Our transportation system must enhance our region's economic competitiveness in the global economy. -Maximize job potential through transportation improvements that support economic development including revitalizing the regional core (Toledo CBD). -Maximize economic efficiency and safety for movement of goods and people. -Enhance “connections” into interregional and international transportation systems. -Maintain the existing system. Primary or driving 2. Our transportation system must be “an integrated intermodal transportation system.” -Minimize delays for movement of goods and people. -Maximize ease of intermodal transfers. -Enhance viability of nonhighway modes to achieve balanced system and provide for choice of modes for many trips (both freight and passenger). 3. Our transportation system must be a “sustainable system.” -Minimize negative environmental impacts on open space, natural areas, wetlands, floodplains, etc. -Maximize achievement of long-term environmental objectives (e.g., air quality goals, reduction of fossil fuels used). Filter or screening 4. Our transportation system must “enhance the region's quality of life.” -Fulfill environmental objectives as described in 3 above. -Maximize reasonable access to jobs and services for all citizens of our region without regard to age, income, race, or disability, especially those in environmental justice target areas. -Help create safe and pleasant living environments in the region and avoid disproportionate impact on minority and poverty areas targeted for environmental justice issues. TABLE 9 Goals and objectives for the TMACOG Transportation Plan Source: Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, 2000 (72).

Identifying Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Resources The consideration of environmental factors early in systems planning requires that analysts be able to identify where pos- sible effects could occur. With the advent of geographic infor- mation systems (GIS), which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, the development of databases that include spa- tially located environmental resources is quite feasible. Using these databases, agencies examining effects at the system, or corridor, levels can conduct “red flag” analyses to identify sig- nificant environmental resources located in a particular study area that could be a barrier to implementing a transportation improvement. The following examples illustrate the concept of identifying such environmentally sensitive areas. Cape Cod, Massachusetts The Cape Cod Commission has identified a long list of regionally important resources that may be vulnerable to damage from development. These resources include: water recharge areas, wetlands, ponds, floodplains, habitat areas, conservation lands, open space, historic resources, regional facilities, and water supply/distribution systems. All of these critical resources have been mapped on a GIS. In addition to simply identifying resources of regional 52 importance, Cape Cod Commission staff use the GIS to rec- ommend the creation of Districts of Critical Planning Concern that possess “significant natural, coastal, scientific, cultural, architectural, historic, economic, or recreational resources or values of regional, statewide, or national significance.” Four such areas have been designated, all focusing on groundwater, natural resource, and wildlife habitat protection. Additional development restrictions have been imposed in these areas. The GIS capability was used with great results when the regional transportation plan was being developed. Given the policy of preserving environmentally sensitive areas, trans- portation officials began planning by identifying where such areas existed on Cape Cod. The final plan included a figure that showed important natural resources, including unfrag- mented forested habitat, bodies of water, a 350-foot buffer around vernal pools, wetlands, water supply areas, wetland wildlife habitats, and priority sites for rare species, ecologi- cal communities, and critical upland areas. Also identified were National Register Historic Districts and regional/local historic districts. Figure 9 shows the significant natural resource areas on Cape Cod. This type of information becomes an important input into the early stages of trans- portation planning. Figure 9. Environmentally sensitive areas mapped using GIS, Cape Cod.

Florida Department of Transportation The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been a national leader in the use of GIS databases for planning and project development activities. FDOT has developed an environmen- tal screening approach used during system planning that, with the aid of a GIS database, shows all of the environmental resources in a proposed study area. Called the Environmental Screening Tool, this Internet-accessible GIS application allows all agency representatives that are part of planning to access the same information. Environmental resource agencies have agreed to use the system to provide their comments on the scope and magnitude of likely environmental impacts that will be found in particular areas, or are related to specific proj- ects. The GIS database is housed at the University of Florida, which has been developing a comprehensive environmental resource database for many years. With this capability, participants can conduct simple analyses to determine which environmental resources are likely to be affected by investments in a study area, as well as the likely significance of these effects. In addition to allowing individual GIS analyses, the Environmental Screening Tool collects and reports the comments of each participant, and provides read-only information for the pub- lic. This tool will be further described in Chapter 4. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) In 2002, NCDOT spearheaded the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, a multiagency effort to reduce envi- ronmental impacts, streamline project development, and implement the most environmentally beneficial mitigations available for ecosystems that were to be affected by trans- portation projects. In addition to NCDOT, the agencies involved with this partnership included the state’s Depart- ment of Environment and Natural Resources and Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The motivation for this cooperative effort was an expected significant increase in wetland (6,000 acres) and watershed (over one million feet of streams) effects that would occur over the next seven years with many new state highway projects to be built on new alignment. The intent of this effort was to disassociate compensatory ecosystem mitigation from permit approval processes and proj- ect reviews. Unavoidable influences to ecosystems would be offset by developing a statewide program of compensatory ecosystem mitigation projects that would be in place before project-level influences were identified. This effort, in essence, would result in a net increase in wetland and riparian functions in the affected watershed, as well as in the state. According to NCDOT officials, the benefits of this pro- gram are • Compensatory mitigation is removed from the critical path of transportation project development by having such replacement functions already constructed before project development; 53 • Project effects and proposed mitigation can be “bun- dled” to deal with cumulative effects in a comprehen- sive watershed perspective; • Given a watershed-level approach, the greatest ecolog- ical benefit will accrue with the comprehensive nature of the compensatory mitigation; • NCDOT will be able to provide a proactive approach toward environmental stewardship that is consistent with the goals of other state and federal agencies; and • Less staff time will be needed for project-level permit approval processes. The basic analysis approach to developing adequate com- pensatory watershed mitigation is the use of a watershed assessment methodology that will define the loss of ecosys- tem function that might occur with different types of trans- portation project construction. This methodology will be used to develop watershed restoration plans. These plans will be based on standard protocols for establishing goals and objectives for each watershed, as well as identifying desired mitigation strategies. It is expected that the watershed assess- ments will be integrated into a state GIS layer that can then be used by NCDOT planners in the early stages of project planning. Riverside County, California The Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) is one of the best examples of land- use planning, environmental assessment, and transportation infrastructure. Riverside County, one of the fastest growing counties in California and in the United States, is expected to double in population (from 1.5 to 3 million) in the next 15 to 20 years. This surge in population was expected to place sig- nificant pressure on the county’s environmentally sensitive habitats, especially with the need to add new transportation infrastructure to meet future demand. In 1999, county offi- cials, in cooperation with federal and state counterparts, initiated a planning effort designed to integrate land use, transportation, and conservation planning before infrastruc- ture- and project-specific plans were developed. Instead of the traditional approach of mitigating effects after project planning had occurred, the RCIP was an effort to put such planning into a much broader context that would not only result in better project decisions, but also in decisions that could be expedited to implementation. RCIP consisted of several elements as follows: • An updated General Plan for that portion of the county expected to face the most development pressures. • A Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) that focused on reserving habitat for 146 species. • A Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) that identified four future transportation corridors targeted for further envi- ronmental assessment. A two-tiered environmental process has been used to reserve necessary right-of-way for future transportation services. (This program

element was selected by U.S. DOT as a priority project for its program in environmental stewardship and trans- portation infrastructure project reviews.) • A Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which is a targeted planning effort aimed at aquatic resource pro- tection that can be used by resource permitting agencies in their review of development permits. (It is expected that this effort will result in a U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers expedited regulatory permit program.) The critical environmental assessment effort in the RCIP is the development of the MSHCP, created to serve as an official Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Plan Act of 2001. The purpose of this plan was to “enhance and maintain biolog- ical diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth.” (73) The MSHCP is creating a conservation area of over 500,000 acres focusing on 146 species. Once adopted, the MSHCP will require no further species surveys for 75% of the 1,146 species covered by the plan. Three goals were defined for plan recommendations 1. Biological Goal—Conserve targeted species and their habitats. 2. Economic Goal—Improve the future economic devel- opment in Riverside County by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which the county can proceed. The plan will develop a clearly defined blueprint detailing where future development should and should not occur. 3. Social Goal—Provide for permanent open space, com- munity edges, and recreational opportunities that con- tribute to maintaining community character. The County Board of Supervisors also specified policy directions for developing and implementing plan recommen- dations. These directions included the following: • Minimize the need for new local ordinances; • Use existing state environmental processes to the extent possible; • Include a range of incentives to facilitate land assembly; • Produce a product that would not require endangered species permits for future infrastructure development in the conservation area; • Provide for up to 10,000 acres of uncultivated land to be cultivated in the plan time horizon; • Include measurable goals and criteria easily adminis- tered by local jurisdictions; and • Provide implementing mechanisms that minimize the potential for wildlife agencies to suspend the county’s permit as a result of local jurisdiction action on an indi- vidual project, and minimize the role of wildlife agen- cies in future project decisions. 54 Approximately $30 million has been spent to date on the development of the RCIP and early implementation. The effort has included most of the important environmental, planning, and transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Critical to the success of this multiagency, multijurisdictional effort was the existence of a local politi- cal champion, who initiated the idea and nurtured it through the institutional approval structure. The success of the effort was apparent in 2002 when county voters approved an ini- tiative to tax themselves to fund both transportation and habitat conservation projects. The many different elements of the RCIP that make it unique, and successful, are shown in Figure 10. A Range of Strategies The analysis for a typical major transportation investment decision usually focuses on a few alternatives. However, as seen in the following two cases, the types of strategies that can be considered by transportation agencies to mitigate or enhance environmental quality can range widely. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) NYSDOT has emphasized the enhancement of the natural environmental as part of project construction and implementation for many years. The types of environ- mental initiative actions that have been incorporated into NYSDOT’s standard operating procedures are not the type of alternatives that can necessarily replace the need for mobility or safety improvements, but they do represent an organizational commitment to go beyond the usual project requirement for mitigation. These actions are designed not to simply reduce environmental effects, but to enhance the quality of the environment surrounding a project. NYSDOT has also made a strong commitment to a context-sensitive solutions program that emphasizes the con- sideration of many of the types of strategies shown below as part of the community-based design process. Consideration of these strategies, which occurs very early in the project planning process, becomes a significant part of the commu- nity effort to enhance the surrounding environment, not just mitigate project effects. There are three types of NYSDOT environmental initiative actions (63) 1. Examples of practices or features that should be incor- porated into NYSDOT capital and maintenance projects, as appropriate • The practice of context-sensitive design; • Street ambience enhancements (e.g., benches, decorative paving, etc.); • Restoration of historic highway related features (e.g., lighting, stone walls, guide rails, etc.); • Measures to retain the integrity of historic parkways and bridges; • Increased wildflower plantings;

• Additional landscaping to enhance the appearance of noise barriers; • Increased landscape plantings to improve roadside appearance and streetscapes; • New or rehabilitated fishing access and trail-head parking areas; • New or rehabilitated boat and canoe launch sites; • New or rehabilitated historic markers and interpre- tive signing; • Increased signing of important waterways and water- sheds; • New or rehabilitated scenic overlooks; • Retrofits of existing highway drainage systems with created wetlands and storm water management facil- ities; • Soil bioengineered stream banks; • Plantings, boulders, deflectors, and other techniques to improve fisheries habitat; • Culverts for wildlife crossings; • New or rehabilitated wildlife viewing sites; • Wildlife habitat improvements; • Mitigation and enhancement for past wetland effects; • Restored and enhanced wetlands; • Acquisition of endangered species habitat; 55 • Acquisition for preservation of regionally important wetlands and upland habitat; • Acquisition of scenic easements; • Improvements to highway entrances of public parks, wildlife management areas, and historic sites; and • Replacement of fixed-time traffic signals with vehi- cle-actuated signals. 2. Examples of some of the practices and programs that should be considered to improve NYSDOT’s current environmental performance • Continue to identify improved ways to use deicing materials and abrasives; • Improve efforts to sweep/collect/recycle the road- side abrasives in the spring; • Continue efforts to reduce herbicide use; • Clean up wastes previously generated at DOT proj- ects and facilities; • Encourage and implement transportation demand management, transportation system management, and Intelligent Traffic System practices; • Encourage alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commuting; • Expand Ozone Alert Day initiatives; • Promote alternative fueled vehicles; • Increase support for mass transit; CETAP: Community and Environmental Acceptability Process CVAG: Coachella Valley Advisory Group MSHCP: Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan RCIP: Riverside County Integrated Project WRCOG: Western Riverside Council of Governments Figure 10. Integrated environmental, community, and transportation planning in Riverside, CA. Source: Riverside County, 2002 (73).

• Pilot and promote the use of recycled tires in high- way embankments, glass, plastics, and aggregate in pavements, and plastic, rubber, and aggregate in noise walls; • Preserve historic structures; and • Promote state bike routes and greenways. 3. Examples of technology transfer and data sharing activities with other local, state, and federal resource and highway agencies to advance environmental stew- ardship in the transportation industry • Provide and/or participate in joint training; • Share standard details, specifications, and best man- agement practices; • Share guidance manuals and handbooks; • Conduct joint research and share results; • Exchange GIS data sets; • Identify agency points of contact and subject matter experts; • Exchange staff phone numbers and e-mail addresses; and • Participate and present at relevant state and national conferences. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) The types of strategies considered as part of TRPA’s planning and enforce- ment program are likely the widest ranging in the United States (74). The environmental strategy for the region is defined in a document called the environmental improvement program (EIP). The EIP is viewed as the implementation strategy for the TRPA regional plan. The EIP, which identi- fies capital projects targeted at improving the condition of environmental resources, includes transportation projects (the 2001 update of the EIP identified $908 million in project needs over 10 years; $1.3 billion over 20 years). The EIP also includes strategies relating to research and study needs, program and technical assistance, and operations and mainte- nance costs. In addition to the range of strategies found in the EIP, TRPA’s regulatory authority allows it to allocate residential and commercial units for new development, employ mitiga- tion fees for expected effects on water and air quality, and con- duct environmental threshold evaluations to determine the level of regulatory activity that might be necessary. TRPA has divided the region into 175 plan areas and has prepared a state- ment for each on how that area should be regulated with respect to development and environmental improvement. A sample statement would include the following sections: • Plan designation (including land use designation, the type of environmental management strategy that is being applied to the area, and any special designations under the TRPA authority), • Description of the plan area, • Planning statement (a concept of what planning purpose this area serves, e.g., it could be a receiving area for 56 transfer of residential development from elsewhere in the region), • Planning considerations (special planning aspects for the area, e.g., senior citizen housing should be encour- aged), • Special policies (any special considerations that need to be acknowledged up front), • Permissible uses, • Maximum densities, • Maximum community noise equivalent levels, • Additional developed outdoor recreation facilities, and • Applicable environmental improvement programs. By developing a statement for each plan area, TRPA has helped frame the types of alternatives and strategies that can be considered by local officials and the public. In some cases, the range of alternatives is large because the environmental carrying capacity of the plan area can handle various proj- ects. In others, the number of alternatives is limited, reflect- ing the concept that environmental quality must come first, and little disturbance in an area is allowed. Defining an Environmental Alternative The concept of an environmental alternative implies that planning for future infrastructure must account for environ- mental consequences, and attempt to avoid these consequences as much as possible. While there are few examples of such an approach in the United States, the public’s growing concern for environmental quality could make the adoption of an environ- mental alternative an important part of planning in the future. Two examples of such an approach were found in this research. Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, Atlanta, GA The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) was created in 1999 by the state legislature and governor to provide leadership in meeting the air quality challenges in all nonattainment areas in the state of Georgia. At the time of GRTA’s creation, this meant only the Atlanta metropolitan region. GRTA was provided not only with bonding authority to construct transportation facilities in the region, but it also had planning powers and was able to disapprove local land- use decisions for developments of regional effect. One of GRTA’s first activities was to initiate major planning studies of portions of the Atlanta region where development pres- sures and deteriorating transportation system performance were contributing to poor air quality. One of these areas was the northern portion of the region, which had experienced one of the fastest growth rates for comparable areas in the United States over the past decade. With a population of over 1.3 mil- lion and employment of 800,000, this northern area was con- sidered the economic center of the region. The study began with an effort to identify strategic themes through an extensive public participation effort. Different transportation and land-use scenarios were

defined to emphasize the characteristics of each theme. One of the themes was the desire to preserve and enhance the environmental quality in the study area, as well as the region. Accordingly, the study defined an environmental scenario that consisted of transportation infrastructure and service improvements, land-use/development policies, and policies targeted at reducing travel demand. Other scenar- ios included meeting transportation needs, promoting growth in existing urban centers, emphasizing transit ser- vice, promoting equity in transportation investment and resulting burdens, and implementing all of the plans pre- pared by local communities (regardless of their relationship to the regional plan). Figure 11 shows the environmental scenario that resulted from the analysis process. In the southern part of the study region, future growth was clustered along existing trans- portation corridors and around existing urban areas to avoid influencing environmentally sensitive areas. The northern part of the study area was targeted for managed growth, which used such strategies as conservation subdivision ordinances, cluster housing, and higher densities to minimize effect on the natural environment. Increased emphasis was placed on tran- sit investment to support high-density development sites, and major freeway corridors included high-speed, high-capacity transit services in dedicated rights-of-way. The environmental scenario showed the smallest effect on the 10 environmental criteria that were part of the evaluation process. Common elements of each of the scenarios, includ- ing many elements from the environmental alternative, were 57 combined into three system alternatives that proceeded into more detailed analysis. Lake Tahoe Region One of the earliest examples of an envi- ronmental alternative occurred in 1989 with the development of the Truckee Meadows-Washoe County regional plan in the Lake Tahoe Region (75). This plan, mandated by state legisla- tion, required city and county master plans to comply with the development and environmental goals for a region. One of the first steps in developing the regional plan was to establish com- munity consensus on future development patterns for the region, as well as on desired environmental quality and com- munity quality of life. The evolution toward an agreed-upon urban form included consideration of different alternatives, each of which focused on a theme that emerged from a com- prehensive public outreach effort. The best and most desirable elements of each alternative were then combined into a recom- mended urban growth concept for the region. Major alternatives included the following: 1. Current Trends Concept: This alternative illustrated the consequences of continuing the development trends that had occurred over the past decades. These trends resulted in the continued decline of existing centers, the degradation of environmental quality, increased traffic congestion, increased fiscal stress associated with gov- ernments trying to “keep up” with demands, and the loss of open space. 2. Capital-Driven Concept: This alternative focused on fiscal efficiency for government programs and the Figure 11. Environmental scenario in Atlanta.

phasing of new infrastructure. Existing infrastructure was to be used as much as possible, thus directing new development into existing urban areas. 3. Quality-of-Life Concept: This alternative examined how infrastructure and service policies, including land acquisition, zoning, tax incentives, development con- trols, environmental controls, and capital improve- ments could be applied to meet desired performance targets for regionally important issues such as air qual- ity and traffic congestion 4. Critical Areas Concept (or the Environmental Alterna- tive): This alternative focused on preserving sensitive environmental areas (such as floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, and wetlands) while still providing areas for future growth. Infrastructure expansion and govern- ment policies were used to channel future development into parts of the region that could support new growth without significantly harming environmental resources. Figure 12 shows the critical areas and the current trends concepts. Note that the biggest difference between the two is the location of urban area boundaries, which is a surrogate for the provision of the infrastructure that will support future development. 58 The Evaluation Process One of the most important linkages between transportation planning and decision making is the use of evaluation crite- ria to define performance categories that are of interest to decision makers. For projects with possible effects on envi- ronmentally sensitive resources, the criteria of greatest inter- est to decision makers often relate to federal and state envi- ronmental assessment requirements. To a lesser extent, other environmental and quality-of-life effects that decision mak- ers feel are important to their decision are also considered. For example, the types of environmental impacts that are evaluated by FDOT as part of its environmental screening include: • Social resources – Land use, – Community cohesion, – Community impact assessment, – Economic resources, – Safety, – Mobility, – Civil rights, – Relocations, Figure 12. The environmental alternative in Washoe County, NV. Source: Freilich, 1999 (75).

– Noise, and – Air quality. • Natural environmental resources – Wetlands, – Wildlife and habitat, – Water quality and quantity, – Aquatic preserves, – Outstanding Florida waters, – Sole-source aquifers, – Wild and scenic rivers, – Floodplains, – Coastal zone consistency, – Coastal Barrier Islands, and – Contaminated sites. • Cultural Resources – Section 4(f) lands, – Historic sites/districts, – Archaeological sites, and – Recreation areas. Not all of these impact categories would be necessary in the evaluation process, but because this screening tool is designed for use in all parts of the state, the state database must have data that relates to each of these categories. The use of environmental criteria in the evaluation of plans and projects is illustrated by several case studies. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans has been a national leader in designing environ- mentally sensitive transportation projects. Caltrans was also one of the first DOTs to enter into memoranda of agreement with environmental resource agencies to expedite project delivery. In recognition of the need for project design to reflect community values as well as to respond to federal and state law, Caltrans has embarked on several innovative proj- ect planning efforts that have actively involved a range of stakeholders early in the project planning process. The phrase used to describe the partnering in these joint planning projects is “forming an alliance relationship.” (76) The intent is to bring diverse interests together in a common forum to frame the issues and develop a common understanding of what the project is intended to accomplish. In addition, for those issues on which there is disagreement, joint analysis of the underlying facts may allow some softening of positions. As noted in conjunction with a freeway project in Monterey County, California, the benefits of these alliance relation- ships were determined to be 1. Identification of shared values, 2. Joint fact-finding, 3. Collaborative innovation, 4. Indispensability (i.e., wanting to feel like you are an important part of the solution), 5. Decision sustainability, 6. Lasting relationships, and 7. Shared success. 59 Alliance relationships result in more than just psycholog- ical and process benefits. Experience has shown that the need and purpose statements that result from such an effort reflect a more diverse set of values and are accepted more readily by environmental constituencies; project scopes and budgets are more reflective of the types of work that must actually occur; and the participants in the alliance relationship develop a shared ownership over project implementation, that often leads to success. One of the important steps in this process is defining the evaluation criteria that will be used to assess the relative importance of different alternatives. Part of the alliance rela- tionship effort is to jointly define such criteria and to establish the relative weight that each will have in project planning. Fig- ure 13 shows the results for one freeway project. Participants in project planning were asked to identify what they thought were the most important evaluation criteria associated with the project. Each participant was allowed to assign points to each criterion, and the average of all the assigned points for a par- ticular criterion was used to determine a weight for that factor. As can be seen in Figure 13, only one criterion—accident reduction—was considered more important than minimizing environmental impacts. This result led to efforts to design the project in the most environmentally benign manner possible, while still meeting mobility and safety concerns. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) To implement its policy of enhancing environmental quality, FDOT has adopted several approaches to improve its plan- ning and design procedures. It has • Adopted a policy on transportation design for livable communities that is intended to promote a more bal- anced approach toward project design. • Developed a chapter on this design process that has been incorporated into the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual so that more flexible design standards may be considered. • Developed and incorporated into its planning activities a nationally recognized approach toward community impact analysis. • Established an efficient transportation decision-making (ETDM) process that will reduce time, cost, and dupli- cation in the project development process. This is done through the Environmental Screening Tool and by involving agencies and public groups early in the process. The ETDM process is of particular interest to the evalua- tion component of transportation planning and decision mak- ing. Many different agencies are allowed to judge whether significant environmental resources for particular study areas or project impact areas are likely to be affected. Screening is used early in planning to identify whether additional envi- ronmental studies will be likely. According to FDOT’s ETDM description (77)

The ETDM process creates linkages between land use, transportation, and environmental resource planning initia- tives through early, interactive agency and community involvement, which is expected to improve decisions and greatly reduce the time, effort, and cost to affect transporta- tion decisions. Efficiency is gained by two screening events and an efficient permitting process built into the current transportation planning and project development process. The screening events are the “planning” and “program- ming” screens. A DOT-led working group concluded that screening had to be conducted by representatives of concerned transporta- tion and environmental resource agencies. This screening is undertaken by an Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) consisting of 24 signatory agencies. ETAT mem- bership is offered to federal agencies (transportation as well as environmental), state environmental agencies, the MPO within the FDOT district where the plan or project is being proposed, local planning agencies, water management dis- tricts, and Native American tribal governments. For the planning screen, the DOT or MPO proposing a plan uploads plan information and a general needs assess- ment onto a secure web page and the ETAT is notified when this information is available for review. This information is presented at the systems, or corridor, level. For this level of screening, ETAT members provide information concerning key environmental resources located in the study area that need to be avoided or heavily mitigated if projects are to be proposed near these sites. In addition, secondary and cumu- lative effects are evaluated to understand land use and other critical systemwide changes that may occur as a result of the project. The planning screen is expected to happen once 60 every 3 years for nonattainment areas and no more than every 5 years for other planning regions. The programming screen occurs before a project enters the FDOT work program. The ETAT review at this level satisfies the “agency scoping” requirements of NEPA but is much more specific as to the types of effects that are likely to occur for a particular project. In addition, the ETAT identifies the types of technical studies necessary to satisfy federal and state envi- ronmental laws. Depending on the scope of the project pro- posed, ETAT members also may determine that their agency no longer needs to be involved in project development. After the screening (or evaluation) has been conducted, one of the important tasks in this process is ETAT agencies’ acceptance of the Purpose and Need Statement for specific corridors. ETAT members can provide comments or suggest modification to this statement. However, by putting this statement into the process for both the planning and pro- gramming screen, as project development begins FDOT expects to save considerable time to come to agreement con- cerning the definition of purpose and need. San Francisco Bay Area The Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC) is responsible for long-range transportation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area, a nine-county region with a population of over seven million. “Environment” is one of six broad policy goals identified in the 2001 regional transportation plan (RTP), alongside other goals such as mobility (of persons and freight), safety, equity, economic vitality, and community vitality. The RTP’s environmental goal is to plan and develop trans- portation facilities and services in a way that protects and enhances the environment. Several environmental concerns have historically been issues in the Bay Area, including air Accident Reduction A a a a a a a a a a 9.0 20% Local Circulation B b/c b b b g h b b 5.5 12% Congestion Level C c c c g h c c 5.5 12% Local vs Thru Traffic D d d g h d d 4.0 9% Support of Business E e g h e e 3.0 7% Support of Mass Transit F g h f f 2.0 4% Environmental Impacts G g g g 8.0 18% Emergency Response H h h 7.0 16% Constructibility I i 1.0 2% Schedule J 0.0 0% 45.0 100% PERFORMANCE CRITERIA MATRIX CALTRANS Prunedale Freeway Project Total % a More important a/b Equal importance Figure 13. Evaluation criteria for freeway project planning in California. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2002 (77).

emissions, noise from transportation sources, effects on the Bay and wetlands, visual effects of projects, community dis- ruption, and seismic safety. The RTP identifies several objec- tives for protecting and enhancing environmental quality, including the following: • Evaluate the regional environmental effects of the RTP, • Ensure that project-level effects are addressed and miti- gated before MTC approval of state and federal funding, • Ensure that MTC’s plans and programs conform to the federal ozone attainment plan and support reductions in mobile source emissions required in the State Clean Air Plan, • Support programs directed at improving traffic flow on local streets and freeways to minimize vehicle emis- sions and excess fuel consumption, and • Provide alternatives to traveling in single-occupant vehicles and incentives to carpool or take transit. The MTC is responsible for preparing and adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the RTP, a systems- level analysis of the RTP required by the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act (CEQA). The intent of the EIR is to assess the range of effects that the proposed measures in the plan are likely to have on regional environmental quality and quality of life. Conducted as a program-level environmental assessment, the EIR evaluates the proposed RTP, identifies any significant adverse regional effects, and proposes mea- sures to mitigate them. 61 An EIR of the 2001 RTP examined four transportation system alternatives in addition to the proposed system plan in the RTP. The analysis focused on regional, corridor-level, and cumulative effects. The alternatives were evaluated for their influence on air quality, energy, geology and seismic- ity, biology, water, visual and cultural resources, noise, pop- ulation, housing and the social environment, and land use. With each alternative, significant effects and mitigation mea- sures were identified for each environmental characteristic. The alternatives were then comparatively evaluated against the proposed RTP using a multiattribute scorecard as shown in Table 10. The evaluation shown in Table 10 illustrates the type of environmental evaluations that occur at a systems level of planning. Because many of the project-specific effects are not yet known, much of the assessment is subjective. How- ever, as shown in the Florida ETDM process described in the previous section, this subjective assessment could be under- taken by environmental resource agencies that have a great deal of expertise in determining the level and extent of poten- tial effects. This subjective assessment could carry important weight when identifying critical steps needed to address environmental issues during the more detailed planning that follows. Toledo, Ohio To establish a direction for the 2025 regional transportation plan, the TMACOG Transportation and Land Use Committee adopted a statement of goals and objectives based on a vision statement for the region’s transportation system that was developed with input from transportation stake- Impact Area No Project (Alternative 1) System Management (Alternative 2) Blueprint 1 Alternative (Alternative 3) Blueprint 2 Alternative (Alternative 4) Transportation Air Quality Energy Geology/Seismicity Water Resources Biological Resources Noise Visual Resources Cultural Resources Population, Housing, and Social Environment Land Use 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 Total 25 27 40 43 Average 2.7 2.5 3.6 3.9 TABLE 10 Comparison of alternatives to 2001 regional transportation plan, San Francisco Bay Area Note: 1 = much more favorable; 2 = more favorable; 3 = comparable; 4 = less favorable; 5 = much less favorable. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001 (78).

holders. The committee used these goals—as well as input from the public involvement process—to identify problems, develop possible projects and policies, and evaluate and rank improve- ments. Transportation leaders identified 250 projects and policy concepts that were considered important to meet identified prob- lems. Committee members organized these potential improve- ments into four clusters: economic development, congestion, person movement, and goods movement. Based on an original 13 transportation planning objectives, the committee developed 23 measures that would be used to evaluate the system alterna- tives that corresponded to the four clusters. Each member of the committee was asked to assign a weight to each objective to capture its relative importance. Then, using an ordinal scale of 0 to 5 for each of the 23 measures, commit- tee members evaluated each cluster of projects on a project-by- project basis. In other words, a multiattribute scorecard was used to rank order the projects in each cluster. The project clus- ter with the highest cumulative value was selected as the most desired alternative. In this case, the congestion cluster produced the most desirable combination of projects. Once the congestion cluster was selected, project selection was refined by examining the relative effect of projects from other clusters when added to the set from the congestion clus- 62 ter. Table 11 shows the environmental attributes used to evalu- ate the four alternatives to determine how well each cluster of projects contributed to an environmentally sustainable system. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Wisconsin’s legal requirement for a systems-level environmental evalua- tion (SEE) of all statewide transportation plans created a significant challenge to WisDOT officials. How could one provide substantive information on the likely environmental impacts of plans defined at very high levels of aggregation that focused on the use of alternative policies to influence transportation demand and financing? The approach adopted for the SEE was conceptually sim- ilar to the environmental analysis that might be conducted for a project. For example, in a recent update of the state’s high- way plan, the SEE compared the environmental conse- quences of the recommended highway plan alternative to those associated with three other alternatives considered dur- ing the planning process. The alternatives included • Base Case (Alternative 1)—High priority given to pave- ment/bridge preservation and safety improvements; low priority given to traffic movement and economic devel- opment goals. SCORECARDS FOR EVALUATION OF CLUSTERS Goal II – Environmentally Sustainable System YOUR RANKING OF THE CLUSTERS (Use values from 0 to 5) GOAL Objectives Economic Development Cluster Congestion Cluster Person Movement Cluster Goods Movement Cluster Minimize Negative Environmental Impact Environmentally Sustainable Systems Maximize Long-Term Environmental Objectives HELPFUL EVALUATION INFORMATION CLUSTERS Objective Measure Base* Condition Economic Congestion Person Movement Goods Movement Change from base condition in tons per day of hydrocarbon emissions produced systemwide 0 0.642 0.999 0.398 0.336 Acres of farmland, wetlands, open space, and forests damaged or converted 3083 2860 480 3928 Minimize Negative Environmental Impacts Number of lane miles of pavement as a measure of emission runoff 3863 4306 4208 3911 3928 Total fuel consumed systemwide 483,938 497,931 493,553 478,163 491,698 Maximize Long- Term Environmental Objectives Is use of existing transportation facilities maximized to serve needs? Based on your judgment TABLE 11 Multiattribute scorecard for evaluation of Toledo system alternatives *Note: Base condition = year 2025 travel conditions if no new projects or policies were completed. Source: Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, 2000 (72).

• Alternative 2—Priority given to investments in strategic corridors; lower priority given to noncorridor roads. • Alternative 3—Priority given to all goals for the entire State Trunk Highway System. The types of environmental criteria considered for each of the system alternatives included: air quality, energy consump- tion, sensitive land and water resources, indirect land-use effects, economic development consequences, and community and neighborhood effects. For each of the impact categories, the SEE analysis provided a description of the types of miti- gation that would be likely to be implemented for the different projects and effects being considered. In each case, previous WisDOT experience with the mitigation strategy was high- lighted. Table 12 shows the results of this evaluation. 63 The level of detail that often accompanies systems-level environmental assessment, especially when the plan consists primarily of policies, and not specific projects, is shown in Table 12. In this case, WisDOT officials attempted to show a subjective assessment of how one system alternative com- pared to each of the others. The Project Development Process The final part of the conceptual framework is the project development process. Traditionally, environmental factors, and the proposal of specific mitigation strategies to avoid or minimize environmental impacts, have been considered in much greater detail during the project development Impact Category Plan Base Case (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Traffic Congestion Congestion levels under the plan may be lower than under the Base Case, similar to levels under Alternative 2, and marginally higher than levels under Alternative 3. Congestion under the Base Case would likely be more severe than other scenarios because it gives priority to preservation of existing pavements with no new major highway projects initiated. Congestion under Alternative 2 would probably be marginally better than under the Base Case, but slightly worse than under Alternative 3 and the plan. Congestion under Alternative 3 would probably be lower than other scenarios. It would be somewhat lower that under the Base Case, but very similar to congestion with the plan. Energy Energy consumption may be slightly less than under the Base Case, almost equal to Alternative 2, and marginally higher than Alternative 3. However, energy consumption levels for all four scenarios are within 1% of each other. The Base Case energy consumption is within 1% of estimates of other scenarios. With fewer highway projects completed, there will likely be more congestion and somewhat more overall energy consumption. Alternative 2 is forecasted to result in about the same amount of energy consumption in year 2020 as would the plan. Alternative 3 requires the least amount of energy consumption in year 2020. Again, energy consumption levels for all four scenarios are within 1% of each other. Air Quality The plan is estimated to have total year 2020 emission levels that would be nearly 14% lower than levels estimated for year 2000. The Base Case is forecasted to provide the smallest overall reduction in emission levels, with projected year 2020 emissions about 12% lower than year 2000 levels. Alternative 2 is forecasted to provide an overall emission level about 13% lower than year 2000 estimates. Alternative 3 could result in the most significant overall emission reduction. Year 2020 emissions are projected to be 14% below year 2000 emission levels. Land Use Indirect land-use impacts are likely to be greater than under the Base Case, including more commercial development in urban and fringe areas and added rural freeway capacity may encourage development in outlying communities. Under the Base Case, land development should be less dispersed because of fewer expansions of major roads. The likelihood of new development along interchanges in the urban fringe is small. Similarly, fewer development impacts are likely to occur in the rural areas. Alternative 2 may result in greater indirect land-use impacts than the Base Case and slightly more than the plan. The greatest difference in indirect land-use impacts is likely to occur in urban areas. Less development will occur near or adjacent to interchanges under this alternative. Development would probably increase the most under Alternative 3 due to additional bypasses, interchanges, and the funding of most emerging major projects. Development along rural corridors may be encouraged. Additionally, this alternative would convert the most land from farming to transportation uses. TABLE 12 Environmental comparison of Wisconsin State Highway Plan alternatives (continued)

element of the process than in any other element shown in the conceptual framework. Although this research project focused on incorporating environmental factors into trans- portation systems planning, many of the case studies showed various efforts to make project development more efficient as well. Minnesota Department of Transportation’ two major efforts that illustrate Mn/DOT’s commitment to incorporate environmental considerations into project development and design focus on streamlining project delivery and develop- ing an organizational procedure for fostering context- sensitive solutions. 64 Project delivery streamlining: Not only was TEA 21 an impetus for looking seriously at streamlining the project development process, but Mn/DOT was also facing pressures from the construction industry, the legislature, and the pub- lic to deliver transportation projects and services in a more timely manner. In response, the Mn/DOT Commissioner cre- ated a task force of internal DOT staff with a charge to iden- tify (1) current streamlining activities that needed support and recognition, (2) high-payoff processes that could be implemented within one year, and (3) high-payoff, longer- term changes to the program delivery structure. This task force recommended to the Commissioner that several steps historical sites, neighborhood business districts, and additional noise in urban and urban fringe areas. impacts such as reducing traffic, and improving safety and access to urban core businesses. to some community separation. improvements that are included. Sensitive Land & Water Under the plan, sensitive land and water would be affected by the conversion of 22,000 to 25,000 acres of land to transportation uses by year 2020. Under the Base Case, between 8,000 and 11,000 acres would be converted to transportation uses by year 2020. This is the lowest total of the four scenarios. Under Alternative 2, between 20,000 and 23,000 acres of land would be converted to transportation uses by year 2020. Alternative 3 calls for between 26,000 and 30,000 acres of land to be converted to transportation uses by year 2020. This would be the most land conversion of the four scenarios. Total Costs (to 2020) $20.4 billion $15.2 billion $19.4 billion $23.8 billion Other Benefits Mobility would probably be better than under the Base Case, similar to traffic movement under Alternative 2, but worse than under Alternative 3. In general, there is a slightly lower environmental cost with the Base Case as compared to the other scenarios. Also, delay in completing major projects would delay potential environmental effects. This alternative results in improved traffic movement on the Corridors 2020 highway system. This alternative results in improved mobility on the entire State Trunk Highway System. Economic Development The plan could provide significantly better traffic movement and access than would the Base Case. Therefore, economic development benefits associated with improved traffic movement and access are likely to be significantly greater under the plan than under the Base Case. Overall, the Base Case is likely to provide the least economic development benefit when compared with potential benefits of the plan and Alternatives 2 and 3. Additionally, major projects will not be completed until year 2020, delaying associated economic benefits. Alternative 2 could facilitate economic development already occurring on the Corridors 2020 system. Additionally, the completion of currently enumerated major projects will probably help serve economic development along new or expanded corridors. Alternative 3 would probably provide the most potential benefit to economic development by placing the highest emphasis on statewide traffic movement through completing currently enumerated major projects, funding emerging major projects, and constructing the greatest number of bypasses and interchanges. Community Impacts Because the plan recommends significantly more improvements than the Base Case, the plan would probably have more potential effects. These include impacts to archeological and The Base Case may result in fewer negative urban community and archeological impacts than the plan. However, the Base Case may also offer fewer potential positive urban community Community impacts under Alternative 2 would be generally similar to those under the plan. The construction of some bypasses and interchanges under Alternative 2 may lead The types of community impacts under Alternative 3 are generally similar to those under the plan. However, the magnitude of potential impacts under Alternative 3 would probably be greater due to the additional Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2000 (88). TABLE 12 (Continued) Environmental comparison of Wisconsin State Highway Plan alternatives

be taken to improve program delivery. These recommenda- tions were categorized into the following areas: • Concurrent activities—Where feasible, develop a “foot- print concept” of the project early so that several project development steps could begin at the same time (e.g., right of way, environmental analysis, preliminary engineering). • Project management—Monitor project phase mile- stones; shorten the time needed to obtain municipal agreements for projects; expand use of partnership agreements; use more timely mapping options; use the same project manager for all pre-construction activities; establish project decision-making teams and processes. • Environmental process/document—Develop letters of understanding with resource agencies; use concise report format for environmental assessments (EAs) and impact statements (EISs). • Decentralization—To the extent feasible, decentralize reviews and approvals to district offices. • Right of way—Use consultants to develop total right-of- way or total pre-construction packages for projects; implement other right-of-way recommendations that were developed by an internal DOT group. • Organization change—Create a full-time manager and “champion” for project delivery streamlining within the DOT, supported with three-to-five staff members and consultant resources; set aside funds to support this activity; create task forces to focus on more spe- cific improvements to the process; jointly establish measurable goals, objectives, and time frames for streamlining activities; consider adding project devel- opment liaison engineers in the central office and envi- ronmental managers in the district offices; and con- sider combining preliminary and detailed design activities into one process. • Planning/program—Develop a strategic plan and action plan for program delivery streamlining; incorporate pro- visions for streamlining into Mn/DOT business plan- ning; and conduct a streamlining workshop as part of scoping for every new major project. • Communications—Develop a communications strategy for disseminating information on streamlining activities to stakeholders; implement pilot projects; develop an annual conference that highlights good practice. • Training—Develop training programs on project streamlining. Mn/DOT acted on these recommendations by reforming the original task force as an “Oversight Committee,” and included representatives from FHWA and the construction industry. Several Mn/DOT staff members were assigned, on a full–time basis, to the streamlining activity. Three task forces were created to focus on project development issues in the environmental analysis, design, and right-of-way functions. The recommendations from these three task forces 65 were extensive and covered every aspect of preconstruction activities. The recommendations that relate most to this research were as follows: • Central office review of roadway plans will be focused on critical plan errors only. • A certification process will be used to validate a con- sultant’s or district office’s capability to conduct traffic forecasts without central office oversight. • Project memoranda that do not require FHWA approvals should be the responsibility of the district offices; in the future, the FHWA-approved projects could also be shifted to the districts. • A project liaison unit with responsibility for expediting project delivery and becoming a program delivery advo- cate for preconstruction activities should be established. • The current initiative of funding environmental resource agency staff should be evaluated before expanded to other agencies. • Environmental coordinator positions should be estab- lished in all district offices. • Early agency coordination and letters of understanding should be used more in developing interagency cooper- ation on project development. • Programmatic agreements with the State Historic Preservation Office and Native American tribes should be concluded as soon as possible. • Concise environmental impact statements should be used where feasible. Figure 14 shows the expected savings for three types of projects—major construction, reconditioning, and resurfac- ing—that would occur if these recommendations were implemented. The reduction in project delivery time com- pared to existing processes was 30% for major construction projects, 33% for reconditioning projects, and 17% for resur- facing projects. Of the 42 different streamlining initiatives considered, 22 were expected to result in less work, 17 were expected to result in fewer document handoffs, 12 reduced review and approval time, 5 automated project development steps, 12 made such steps concurrent, 7 changed the way consultants were used, and 10 resulted in earlier involvement of environmental agencies, thus reducing the amount of rework later in the process. Context-sensitive solutions: Mn/DOT officials wanted to know what caused some projects to be successful (defined as being implemented on time and with public approval), while others seemed to experience significant problems. Ten factors identified that had shaped past success included effective planning and public involvement, perseverance of the individual project leader, visionary leadership on the proj- ect team, maximizing funding opportunities, integrating interdisciplinary experts, flexible and innovative design sen- sitivity, learning from others’ success and failures, visual and environmental quality without excessive cost, presenting and

66 Figure 14. Streamlining time-savings estimates (preconstruction) for Mn/DOT. Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2000 (69).

promoting results, and exuding an attitude and tradition of excellence. Since a project design that is sensitive to the community and surrounding environment was recognized as an impor- tant ingredient to success, it is not surprising that Mn/DOT has been a national leader in fostering the concept of context- sensitive solutions/design. Mn/DOT defines context-sensitive design (CSD) as “the art of creating public works projects that are well accepted by both the users and the neighboring communities. It integrates projects into the context or setting in a sensitive manner through careful planning, consideration of different perspectives, and tailoring designs to particular project circumstances.” (68) According to Mn/DOT guidance on CSD, the six core principles that serve as the basis for CSD include • Balance safety, mobility, community, and environmen- tal goals in all projects. • Involve the public and effected agencies or stakeholders early and continuously. • Address all modes of travel. • Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs. • Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. • Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. In addition to incorporating CSD into the Department’s Highway Project Development Process Handbook, Mn/DOT has aggressively pursued CSD training workshops for con- sultants and its own staff. Mn/DOT officials viewed many of the project development streamlining efforts as tools to better integrate environmental considerations into transportation decision making. In particular, they identified the following strategies as some of the more effective means of imple- menting changes to the project development process: letters of agreement, programmatic agreements, partnership agree- ments, concise environmental impact statements, funding environmental agency resource staff personnel, establishing project/environmental coordinators in the district offices, training, and incorporating CSD into the design procedures of the agency. Oregon Department of Transportation Two initiatives illustrate the important linkage between the environment and transportation that is found in project development in Oregon. The Collaborative Environmental and Transporta- tion Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) is a formal agreement for streamlining environmental decisions in transportation planning. CETAS, an agreement made by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), resource agencies involved in approving Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), land-use planning agencies, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), strives for full communication, participation, and early involvement in major transportation projects of all agencies that have a role in environmental quality. 67 ODOT identified six major elements of an agency initia- tive that enhance efficient project delivery while promoting environmental quality. These six elements include • Environmental management system—process for exam- ining the life-cycle effects of ODOT’s activities, • Habitat mitigation program—purchasing or creating wildlife habitats in anticipation of future project effects, • Natural and cultural resource mapping program— using GIS and a database from resource agencies to map sensitive natural and cultural resources, • Expanded programmatic approvals—using program- matic agreements with resource agencies to provide expeditious approvals of agreed-upon impact categories, • Local government and contractor performance—training staff and consultants on environmental management practices, and • Expanding CETAS partnerships—entering into agree- ments with other federal, state, and local agencies to become part of the CETAS program. ODOT officials anticipate that the CETAS approach will result in improved cooperation and efficiency among agencies, greater protection of sensitive environmental resources, and projects completed within budget and on time. The second ODOT initiative relates to the NEPA plan- ning process. By the early 1990s, ODOT staff had deter- mined that major investment studies (MISs), the major approach for the planning of significant federally supported transportation projects at that time, did not provide a suffi- cient basis for removing alternatives from further consider- ation. This led to the concept of a tiered EIS, in which an EIS is performed at different levels of detail during various stages of planning and project development. The tiered EIS process is typically applied to major transportation projects that are expected to have notable effects on the environ- ment. A location environmental assessment (EA) is pre- pared early in project planning using existing data found at a fairly coarse level to address such issues as what project effects might occur in sensitive environmental areas. Later in the project development process, a design EIS is pre- pared at a more detailed level appropriate to the design pro- posed in the corridor. ODOT has conducted one location EA. This location EA examined a nine-mile stretch of highway that included three rural communities and one of the most popular tourist des- tinations in Oregon. The highway is also the primary route to the central Oregon coast from the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas. The highway had two lanes with at- grade intersections and direct access to adjacent properties. The location EA proposed a series of actions over the next 20 or more years to convert the highway to a four-lane divided highway, replace most of the major intersections with interchanges, and remove highway access from adja-

cent properties by developing a system of local access roads linked to the interchanges. According to ODOT officials, preparing a location EA for this project resulted in the following benefits: • ODOT was able to evaluate the cumulative environ- mental impacts of highway improvements planned for the corridor over a time frame of 20 or more years. • ODOT was able to make basic location and design deci- sions for improvements that will not be developed for many years, but which allowed them to be incorporated into the local long-range plan. This provided some level of certainty for property owners who wanted to know future plans. • ODOT was able to conduct the location EA with much less design detail than was used for design-level documents. This resulted in substantial savings in time and money, and will permit future design efforts on individual segments to focus on only a single design concept and location. The Oregon NEPA planning also involves a continuous transition between the transportation systems planning and project development processes. The process is intended to provide a continuum between system-level plans and the proj- ects that are proposed to accomplish system-level goals. In Oregon’s NEPA planning (Figure 15), many of the NEPA steps (such as defining purpose and need, identifying a range of alternatives, the evaluation criteria, etc.) are moved into system planning activities through the use of a location EIS. 68 Before the projects are programmed, a concurrence is sought from the CETAS participants on the Purpose and Need State- ment. When project development is initiated on a project, the agreed-upon range of alternatives, criteria, and even a pre- ferred alternative are used as the basic point of departure. ODOT officials strongly believe that this process is saving them substantial amounts of time in project development. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Following passage of ISTEA, PennDOT implemented a coordinated environmental review for all major transportation projects that might be affected by this law. PennDOT developed a 10-step transportation process flow diagram, which involved concurrent reviews by agencies and public/agency concur- rence points throughout the process and provided a system- atic process to ensure that transportation projects are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner that reflects agency and public input. PennDOT’s 10-step trans- portation process (79) is described as follows: • Steps 1-3 focus on establishing project need. Informa- tion is gathered and an analysis of the need for the proj- ect is competed and reviewed with resource agencies and the public. • Step 4 considers a full range of alternatives and estab- lishes the preliminary alternatives that will be evaluated in greater detail in Step 5. • Step 5 seeks agreement on detailed alternatives and is characterized by detailed engineering and environ- mental analysis of the smaller number of alternatives Refinement Plan Location EIS CETAS MTPA Applied Concurrence on • Purpose and Need • Range of Alts • Criteria • Preferred Alt. System Planning Project Development Transportation System Plans and Corridor Plans Management Systems (Bridge,etc) Other Major Projects Projects CETAS Purpose and Need Concurrence S T IP F u n d in g ACTS Projects Development or Construction Project CETAS MTPA Applied Concurrence on • Range of Alts • Criteria • Preferred Alt Design EIS or EAProtective ROW Purchase ROW Figure 15. Oregon’s NEPA process with streamlining.

identified for further development in Step 4. In this step, the alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the draft EIS are identified. • Steps 6 and 7 involve preparation of the draft EIS, as well as circulation of the document for agency and pub- lic review, as well as a public hearing. During these steps consensus is sought for a preferred alternative. • Step 8 involves the preparation and distribution of the final EIS, which documents and addresses comments received from agencies and the public on the draft EIS. • Steps 9 and 10 include the preparation and issuance of a record of decision, which documents the final decision on the selected alternative and completion of a mitiga- tion report for use in final design and construction of the project. The mitigation report outlines the measures that will be taken to lessen the effects of the project. As part of the overall coordination effort, FHWA autho- rized, and PennDOT’s Program Management Committee (PMC) approved, the use of Surface Transportation Pro- gram funds for Interagency Funding Agreements with seven state and federal resource/regulatory agencies to sup- port 10 staff members who would expedite project reviews and provide technical assistance to the DOT. In 1998, the PMC approved funding for two additional positions to address the growing number of threatened and endangered species issues effecting department projects. In 1999, the PMC approved the funding of four additional positions to support major projects in one PennDOT district that was facing significant environmental project challenges. A total of 16 positions in nine state and federal agencies have been funded at an 80/20 federal-state match, with PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission splitting the 20% local contribution (80). Other PennDOT activities that promote improved or expe- dited consideration of environmental issues in transportation decision-making include • Environmental streamlining—PennDOT conducts agency coordination meetings with state and federal resource and regulatory agencies to review projects, identify effects, and develop mitigation plans for projects. These meetings are attended by all federal and state agencies that either play a regulatory or advisory role relative to environmental or social resources, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. • Secondary and cumulative effects of projects—PennDOT works closely with regional and local governments to identify the potential secondary and cumulative effects of projects and to develop strategies that can be used to control the long-term problems that could result from projects. 69 • Innovative tools/procedures—PennDOT has contracted with a state university to develop a catalog of major cultural and historical sites in the state. PennDOT is also developing an electronic expert system to guide users through project development (81). The 10-step process flow diagram ensures that transportation projects are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner that reflects agency and public input. Washington State Department of Transportation Like all DOTs, WSDOT funds mitigation efforts to identify less harmful alternatives or to minimize and mitigate adverse effects. However, the proportion of funding dedicated to this purpose in Washington shows this DOT’s high level of commitment to such efforts. At present, WSDOT spends approximately 16% of its total project funds on environmen- tal protection and mitigation. WSDOT has also developed an environmental retrofit initiative to reduce the effect of exist- ing transportation facilities and services on air, water, habi- tat, and watershed quality; minimize the use of resources; and increase the use of recycled materials. WSDOT expects to spend approximately $8.1 billion to address environmen- tal issues over the next 20 years (66). With respect to the project development process, WSDOT officials have identified 38 federal and state regulations and local ordinances that can affect their operations (82). WSDOT maintains an environmental procedures manual to clarify the rules and regulations that pertain to each part of the project development process. A 2001 law, the Transportation Permitting Efficiency and Accountability Act, streamlines the environmental permit process for transportation projects. This act links planning and project development so as to reduce the redundancies in the processing of environmental documentation. In particular, WSDOT has been granted the authority to prepare certain per- mits, although permitting agencies retain approval authority. A Transportation Permitting Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC) has been created consisting of 17 mem- bers that include legislators; representatives from the Depart- ments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation; local governments; and other interest groups. TPEAC’s tasks include identifying and integrating processes to streamline the permitting process for pilot transportation projects, projects of statewide significance, and programmatic projects. TPEAC objectives include • Development of a GIS application for environmental issue detection to red-flag environmental issues in the 20-year plan, • Development of environmental cost-benefit models to improve decision support systems related to environ- mental mitigation and project delivery, • Development of training materials, and • Modification of transportation models to include envi- ronmental assessment components.

Through TPEAC, WSDOT has formed formal collabora- tions with several resource agencies to implement environ- mental streamlining procedures. TPEAC currently includes a liaison program to fund 31 staff members in natural resource agencies. This is similar to the previous example in Pennsylvania. To simplify and clarify the permitting process for projects effecting water resources, several agencies further developed the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA). JARPA consolidates seven aquatic resource permit applica- tion forms from federal, state, and local agencies into a sin- gle form, including the following: • Section 404 permit of the Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), • required permit of the Rivers and Harbors Act (U.S. Coast Guard), • Hydraulic Project Approvals (Washington State Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife), and • Water Quality Certifications and Short-Term Modifica- tions of Water Quality Standards (Washington State Department of Ecology). Finally, WSDOT is studying a state highway as one of three national pilot projects chosen by FHWA to test a new process for streamlining the review and approval of trans- portation projects. The pilot project moves completion of NEPA requirements into the early project planning stage (83). SUMMARY This chapter presented a conceptual framework that was used to illustrate how environmental factors could be con- sidered in the early stages of transportation systems planning, as well as in the initial steps of project development. The rel- evant case studies presented provide important lessons on how some DOTs and MPOs have been developing institu- tional strategies for promoting this early consideration. The Caltrans case study illustrates the importance of a vision in guiding the activities of a state DOT. This vision includes important concepts relating to sustainability, envi- ronmental preservation, and social equity. The Cape Cod Commission has been at the forefront of using GIS for inventorying and analyzing environmental resources. As such, it provides a good example of the types of environmental impacts that can be incorporated into such an approach and how this information can be used. The Regional Policy Plan that guides all other planning efforts on Cape Cod is also a good example of how policy-level guid- ance can provide greater sensitivity to environmental con- siderations as they relate to development and infrastructure decisions. The Eugene/Lane Council of Governments example shows an MPO using a well integrated approach to land use, 70 transportation, and environmental planning that occurs within a broader state-defined legislative framework. This framework requires statewide comprehensive planning, with transportation as just one element of the overall comprehen- sive plan. The case study highlights the evaluation of alter- native plan scenarios based on well articulated criteria to enhance accessibility, support predetermined land-use choices, protect the environment, and preserve regional qual- ity of life. These attributes are tracked through multiple mea- sures of performance. This case study also illustrates a process in which environmental quality is achieved primar- ily through land-use strategies. Transportation planning is viewed as a supporting activity for land-use goals. The Florida case study described a long-term involve- ment on the part of a DOT in linking environmental factors to transportation planning and programming. FDOT has been a national leader in context-sensitive solutions and community impact assessment. These efforts have been integrated into a new approach for screening plans and proj- ects early in planning and project development to identify critical environmental and community effects. An extensive involvement of transportation and environmental agency staff in developing the ETDM process is an indication of the level of effort that might be necessary to develop a similar process statewide. The important role of technology in fostering the exchange of information is also well illustrated by this case study. It is not likely that resource agencies would participate in the ETDM process if they did not have access to the web-based GIS Environmental Screening Tool. The rapid exchange of information and the visualization capabilities of identifying the extent of potential environmental impacts have provided an important enabler for the type of process that FDOT is spearheading. The Maryland case study is a good example of evolving transportation planning in the context of a smart growth framework where increasing emphasis is placed on trans- portation improvements that will support smart growth from the outset rather than focusing solely on project mitigation at the end of project development. The Minnesota case study illustrates the use of perfor- mance measures/indicators in transportation planning, as well as how environmental considerations can be included in such an approach. In addition, Mn/DOT’s experience with project delivery streamlining and context-sensitive design is directly relevant to the different types of strategies that could be used for better linking planning and environmental factors. The New York State example illustrates the significant progress that can be made in linking environmental quality to the everyday activities of a DOT. This has been done by modifying the mission of the organization and establishing a new value system among DOT employees. The internal NYSDOT engineering procedures have been modified to reflect this new environmental ethic and to provide an insti- tutionalized means of keeping this approach in place over the

long term. New staff capabilities were introduced into the organization, and new approaches to planning and design were employed. The results have shown that not only does an environmentally sensitive approach toward planning, design, and operations provide for better decisions, but it also expedites project delivery. The Oregon DOT experience highlights the critical impor- tance of a legislative framework to support integrated plan- ning and a proactive approach to preserving and protecting the environment in planning. It illustrates how a formal linkage can be created between land use and transportation planning. Oregon’s CETAS process demonstrates how inter- agency partnerships can be used to accomplish environmen- tal consideration early in the planning process. ODOT’s model for integrating NEPA with planning is one of the first in the country to formalize and advance environmental con- siderations in transportation planning. The Pennsylvania case study shows how a DOT can aggressively pursue coordination in project development based on many innovative partnerships with environmental resource agencies. PennDOT has a public-driven process for generating the overall policies for the long-range transporta- tion plan. In addition, there is a clear link between trans- portation system policies and goals and the measurable objectives and targets developed to achieve these goals within specified time frames. Furthermore, there is a compo- nent of accountability in the process in which PennDOT annually presents an achievement report on its progress toward the system objectives and targets clearly defined in the long-range plan to the public. The Portland Metro case study highlights an integrated approach to land use, as well as environmental and trans- portation planning supported by a legislative framework that enables comprehensive planning. The case study shows how transportation planning is used as a tool to achieve predeter- mined goals for managed growth that protects and preserves a region’s environment and other natural resources. The San Francisco Bay case study shows how a metropol- itan area can consider the environment at the systems plan level in response to a state environmental law. This MPO has been proactive in implementing various programs to arrest major environmental problems in the metro area, including air quality, noise, loss and degradation of wetlands, and com- munity disruption. The agency’s ITS Program and Livable Communities Program; involvement in the area’s Smart Growth Initiative; and efforts to address the transportation needs of minority, low-income, elderly, and disabled popu- lations all point to continuing efforts to address environmen- tal quality in transportation planning. The Seattle case study provides a good example of address- ing environmental factors in planning. Planning is aimed at managing regional growth as well as providing long-range transportation planning. The PSRC showcases land-use con- 71 strained transportation planning, which produces transporta- tion decision-making supportive of land-use choices that pro- tect and preserve the environment and other natural resources. The Southern California case study illustrates that the tra- ditional institutional framework for transportation and land- use decision making faces significant challenges in attempt- ing to solve regional growth and quality of life problems in a large metropolitan area that is struggling to keep up with growth. The activities of SCAG illustrate how a transporta- tion planning agency with such constraints can take the ini- tiative to forge interagency partnerships that allow them to influence land-use decisions that have a direct effect on transportation. The Tahoe Region case study probably represents the most extensive application of environmental principles to compre- hensive planning of any region in the United States. Starting with the vision of the region and ending with the ordinances that are used to implement and enforce the comprehensive plan, environmental quality is a driving force in the planning and decision-making process. In addition, this case study illustrates the concept of environmental carrying capacity and the use of environmental performance measures. The Toledo case study, which represents a typical MPO approach toward transportation planning and environmental concerns, introduces the use of a formalized multiattribute framework for the analysis of plan alternatives. The trans- portation plan was developed through extensive public involvement and with important input from the public and private sectors. One of the four goals that guided plan devel- opment was to create a “sustainable transportation system” (i.e., to reduce transportation effects on the natural environ- ment). In addition, enhancing environmental quality was part of another plan goal aimed at improving the quality of life in the region. These goals were applied as various environmen- tal attributes in the multiattribute scorecard. The Washington State DOT case study highlights the important role that legislation can play in elevating environ- mental considerations to a high priority level in planning. In addition, it demonstrates the importance of funding to develop the required tools and human resources to support new planning procedures and techniques. It also illustrates the importance of formalizing institutional arrangements to advance environmental considerations in transportation planning and achieving environmental stewardship in a cost- effective manner. Finally, the Wisconsin DOT case study shows the effect of a state rule that requires environmental assessment of trans- portation system plans, and the level of analysis that accom- panies such an assessment. The most important benefit of the TRANS 400 process, as identified by WisDOT officials, was the early involvement of other agencies and interest groups in the environmental issues associated with transportation investment.