Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 37


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



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

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

OCR for page 36
Reports on Concurrent Roundtable Discussions Potential Solutions to Challenges Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern California Thomas M. Downs, Eno Transportation Foundation Anne Canby, Surface Transportation Policy Project Richard Gilbert, Centre for Sustainable Transportation C onference participants assembled in a general ses- should be incorporated into the transportation planning sion to discuss key points, areas of general agree- process as soon as possible. ment, and areas for further research identified in the concurrent sessions on the potential solutions to the challenges in each of the four topic areas: technology, tools CONCURRENT SESSION II-2: and institutions, policy, and behavior. These concurrent TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS sessions were conducted in roundtable format. A rappor- teur provided an overview of each concurrent session. Thomas M. Downs, Rapporteur The discussion focused on finding solutions to several of CONCURRENT SESSION II-1: TECHNOLOGY the challenges raised in Concurrent Session I-2. The group discussed the need for a national initiative that Genevieve Giuliano, Rapporteur recognizes and legitimizes sustainability in planning. The slow pace of change within the federal government and Participants discussed whether there was a role for tech- its impacts on achieving sustainable transportation were nology in each of the dimensions of sustainability. For also discussed. The difficulty faced in the recent trans- each dimension in which technology could have a role, the portation funding reauthorization is a prime example of participants discussed how strong that role could be, what this slow pace of change. policies are needed to implement the role, and at what Primary challenges brought to light as a result of Con- level of government the responsibility for that technology current Session I-2 include cultural resistance within institu- would reside. Technology was determined to have a major tional planning agencies and the lack of a national initiative role in the areas of future fuels, greenhouse gases, air pol- legitimizing the sustainability movement. Participants dis- lution, safety, and noise. Technology was seen to have a cussed how the existing institutional structure is capable of medium role in the areas of mobility and congestion and a facilitating sustainable transportation planning within local, small role in biological impacts and equity. regional, and state planning agencies. It is believed that the The session participants concluded with three major systems of decision making and allocation are in place to points. First, aggressive research and development allow for change within the planning process and that gov- across an array of technologies are needed to meet the ernments have the flexibility and the jurisdiction to inte- sustainability goal. Second, there is a need for research grate sustainability into the current framework. A lack of and development and policy analysis to prepare for understanding about what practices work and do not work, future fuel transition. Finally, adaptation to climate however, has created a cultural resistance to the inclusion of change and its impacts on the transportation system sustainability considerations in the planning process. 26