National Academies Press: OpenBook

Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process (2005)

Chapter: General and Concurrent Sessions

« Previous: Committee Findings and Recommendations
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"General and Concurrent Sessions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 38

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.

GENERAL AND CONCURRENT SESSIONS

1 1 Welcoming Remarks and Charge to the Conference Jim Shrouds, Federal Highway Administration David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory The Conference on Integrating Sustainability intothe Transportation Planning Process began with ageneral session that included welcoming remarks from the conference sponsor and the conference com- mittee chair. Jim Shrouds, Director of the Office of Natural and Human Environment, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), offered welcoming remarks on behalf of the conference sponsor. He compared the challenges of sus- tainable transportation to those of “the perfect storm.” The three storm systems that unite to create these chal- lenges are growth in population and employment, growth in travel and congestion, and growth in concern for the environment. FHWA sees sustainable mobility as a systemwide issue and is undertaking various efforts in this area. In particu- lar, cost-effective and sustainable mitigation research and development, ecosystem initiatives, and FHWA’s Center for Global Climate Change, which researches ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to the impacts on transportation infrastructure from climate changes such as a rise in sea level, were noted. Three of the challenges that FHWA faces are (a) pro- viding better linkages between transportation planning and environmental requirements in project develop- ment, (b) engaging stakeholders early and continuously in the transportation planning process, and (c) improv- ing integration of transportation and land use planning at the local level. By facilitating discussion and expand- ing the horizons of participants, the conference is help- ing to meet those challenges. David L. Greene, conference chair, welcomed partic- ipants to the conference and provided an overview of its structure and objectives. He charged participants to take ownership of the conference and, through their partici- pation, to contribute to the overall success of the ses- sions and of the conference. The role of the conference committee members is to advise the U.S. government on how to incorporate sustainability into transportation planning on the basis of the results of this conference. Dr. Greene requested that the participants provide infor- mation and advice to committee members to assist them in meeting this charge. Examples of working definitions of sustainability were provided, including the definitions supported by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) and the definition provided in a joint statement of 63 of the world’s scientific academies. Society cannot be sustain- able if its parts are not sustainable, and transportation not only must be sustainable but also must contribute to the sustainability of society. Dr. Greene noted that the conference has brought together an outstanding group of participants and excellent speakers for a program focused on obtaining participant input for the conference sponsors.

1 2 Keynote Address Thomas B. Deen, Consultant T homas B. Deen began his keynote address by dis-cussing previous efforts that have been under-taken on issues of sustainable transportation. Many of the participants in this conference were active 10 years ago, when work in this area was just begin- ning. Today, through this conference, participants are taking the concept of sustainability one step further and asking how to operationalize it and make it effective. There are four broad human aspirations: peace, free- dom, economic well-being, and a good physical envi- ronment. The last two of these are linked in that new industry (or economic well-being) often leads to envi- ronmental degradation. This is the crux of sustainable development—how to have economic growth without environmental decay. In the short term, jobs and growth tend to trump environmental concerns. Examples are the increase in the percentage of workers driving alone, the decline in carpooling, the drop in transit share, the increased length of the peak hour, the decline in urban density, and ever-increasing energy imports. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Deen cannot see how one can argue that sustainability has any traction in the real world; even the most optimistic would say that we must do better. The daunting task of this conference is to move beyond endorsing sustainability in principle and to obtain political traction to influence transportation pol- icy and activities. Mr. Deen provided the conference par- ticipants with some optimism. While a single definition of sustainability eludes diverse groups, it is not the first powerful concept that suffers from the lack of a precise definition. Precise definitions also elude art and religion, but progress in these areas has been made. Soon a point will be reached where even critics will see the limits of the earth’s resources and man’s effects on them, and change will be forced. The job of the conference participants is to figure out how to put sustainability objectives into the real world and make changes. It is necessary to be prepared for the time when crisis demands ideas that can be implemented.

1 3 Presentations on Transportation Sustainability Indicators Mark DeLuchi, University of California (presented by David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) Mike MacCracken, Climate Institute Daniel Sperling, University of California, Davis David G. Burwell, Prague Institute for Global Urban Development Elizabeth Deakin, University of California, Berkeley Richard Forman, Harvard University HEALTH Mark DeLuchi David Greene presented on behalf of Mark DeLuchi, who was unable to attend the conference. The presenta- tion, External Costs of Motor Vehicle Use: Status and Trends, discussed transportation’s external costs as well as its impacts on human health. The external costs examined in the presentation included accidents, con- gestion, oil use and energy security (military expendi- tures, macroeconomic costs, pecuniary costs), air pollution (human health, visibility, crops, forests), and noise. The presentation provided estimates of these costs as well as trends in impacts and costs. Since 1990, all of the external costs of transportation except those resulting from air pollution have increased substantially. The cost increases have occurred because of a steady increase in vehicle miles traveled despite some areas of improvement such as a reduced involvement of alcohol, increased use of seat belts, and improved vehicle safety. The difficulty of reducing the growth of vehicle miles traveled suggests that health, safety, noise, conges- tion, and energy security costs of motor vehicle use may have to be mitigated by reducing impacts per mile. Such mitigation, however, faces many challenges, and it is not likely that spotty management of per mile impacts will result in a sustainable transportation system. Transportation sustainability depends on the develop- ment of personal transportation choices that reduce the externalities of transportation without compromising any of the benefits of private motor vehicle use. This will require new visions of integrated development of towns, transportation infrastructure, and transportation modes. CLIMATE CHANGE Mike MacCracken Mike MacCracken began his presentation, Climate Change and Sustainable Transportation: The Need to End Our Addiction to Fossil Fuels, by dividing the cli- mate change issue into the following three questions: 1. How is the climate expected to change, and are we already seeing the early signs of these changes? 2. What are the likely environmental and societal impacts of changes in carbon dioxide concentration and the climate, and to what extent can adaptation ameliorate the projected negative consequences? 3. What are the options for limiting the human- caused factors inducing these changes, and how rapidly and economically can they be implemented? Answering these key questions is complicated by sev- eral unusual factors including long time horizons; the fact that all that can be expected given the complexity of society and the environment is a projection of a range of possibilities; and the fact that the causes, impacts, and control of the climate change issue are necessarily inter- national. Dr. MacCracken then summarized fossil fuels’ benefits to society as well as the major effects they have on the environment. He demonstrated that the rise in

carbon dioxide concentration is unusual and that aver- age temperatures are in fact higher because of human activity. Other climate measures are projected to change because of fossil fuel use: precipitation and the rate of evaporation will increase and sea level will rise. It is important to be aware that changes in these measures may not be smooth; abrupt changes are possible. Adaptation will be essential regardless of choices made concerning mitigation. Past emissions have already initiated climate change, and implementation of mitigation will merely determine the rate of climate change. With regard to the impacts of climate change on particular regions, only generalized projections are pos- sible. However, tools have been developed to indicate levels of likelihood and confidence, and particular regions and sectors should use these tools to enhance long-term planning. The presentation concluded with the message that transportation is not only responsible for emissions of greenhouse gases but will also be affected by the chang- ing climate. To be sustainable, the transportation system must address adaptation as well as mitigation. ENERGY Daniel Sperling Daniel Sperling’s presentation on transportation energy sustainability began by outlining the upward trends in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Rapid increases in worldwide energy use are expected to con- tinue, and carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, with an increasing proportion from transport. Potential methods to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions and oil use were discussed. Suggestions included changes in behavior such as driving less and use of effi- cient, low-carbon modes of transportation; changes in transportation and land use formats such as new modes (car sharing, smart paratransit, dynamic ridesharing), specialized vehicles, and more efficient land use pat- terns; and changes in technology and fuels such as more energy-efficient vehicles and use of low-carbon fuels. Large reductions in greenhouse gases are possible with electric drive and alternative fuels. Although previous alternative fuels, such as synfuels, methanol, ethanol, and compressed natural gas, failed because of cost and lack of large societal benefits, more promising alterna- tive fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, battery electric vehi- cles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have high efficiency and reliability and zero to near-zero emissions. Dr. Sperling recommended that signals be sent to con- sumers and industry to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases. More efficient use of transport, improvements in conventional vehicles and hybrid elec- tric vehicles in the near term, and longer-term investments in advanced technologies should be encouraged. Research into and development of clean and renewable energy sources should be expanded, as should experimentation with new vehicles and services. EQUITY David G. Burwell David G. Burwell discussed the relationships between equity, social stability, and sustainable transportation. Traditionally, the equity and social issues of trans- portation were thought to affect only the poor. More recently, however, these issues have been recognized as affecting a much broader range of the demographic, including low-income and minority groups, seniors and the elderly, children, and the physically disabled. The extent of the impact also is much broader and includes access to transportation services, lifestyle (active versus sedentary as well as social isolation), and community cohesion. Community cohesion is required to be con- sidered in all transportation plans and is defined by the extent of civic institutions, trust of political institu- tions, density of acquaintances, and degree of family and friendship networks. The equity and social impacts of transportation place challenges on transportation planning. The challenges will require better planning management that accom- modates notions of social equity across population groups with respect to access, quality of life, and com- munity cohesion. Current transportation services, in conjunction with present settlement patterns, generate too many social burdens and insufficient social benefits across interest groups. People have been designed out of many urban areas, which contributes to increases in obesity, increases in Type 2 diabetes in minority children, reductions in the independent mobility of children (e.g., parents must drive children to school), and reductions in senior citi- zen travel. Transportation, if properly planned, could build social stability by renewing neighborhoods, nur- turing a sense of community, improving safety and secu- rity, improving access, promoting public health, and shaping growth to minimize sprawl. The following activities should be undertaken to move toward including the impacts on equity and social stability in transportation planning: • Study community cohesion as a planning factor, as required by 23 U.S.C. 109(h)(2); • Improve accountability of agencies and commu- nity partners in addressing transportation, equity, and social stability; 1 4 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

• Place intense focus on community engagement in all planning efforts to understand equity and social sta- bility impacts; and • Strengthen transportation and land use partner- ships as a primary strategy for good equity and social stability outcomes. LAND AND COMMUNITY Elizabeth Deakin Elizabeth Deakin began her presentation on land use, development, and sustainable transportation by high- lighting key strategies for sustainable development and transportation in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The following are among the key strategies for sustainable urban and suburban development: • Investment and reinvestment in existing districts and neighborhoods, including preservation, renovation, and reuse of structures; • Upgrades to infrastructure (sewer, water, streets and highways, telecommunications, parks); • Upgrades to services (schools, police, fire); • Development of higher-density communities, espe- cially near transit; • Development of mixed-use real estate, especially in downtowns and city centers; and • Infill of urban areas to create contiguous growth. These urban and suburban development strategies should be coupled with transportation strategies such as sidewalk improvements, transit service improvements, signal timing favoring person trips rather than vehicle movements, and clean and well-paved streets. In rural areas, the key strategies for sustainable development are slightly different and include the fol- lowing: • Preservation and renewal of main streets and vil- lage centers; • Preservation of rural landscapes and views; • Conservation of agriculture and open spaces; • Cluster development; and • Economic development and job training to main- tain, increase, diversify, and improve jobs. As with urban and suburban areas, rural sustainable development strategies should be coupled with trans- portation strategies as follows: • Traffic calming on entering towns, • Sidewalks and bike lanes in towns and walking trails and bike paths through the countryside, • Road location and design that take advantage of scenic vistas and historic sites and that protect environ- mentally sensitive areas, and • Road ecology. The following are among the challenges facing sus- tainable transportation and development: • It is easier to keep doing what you know than to try something new. • Reuse, rehabilitation, renovation, and infill can be costly and may generate opposition. • Infrastructure provision, pricing, and funding policies sometimes favor new areas. • Design standards for arterials and highways emphasize vehicle throughput to the detriment of other street functions. • Funding for sidewalks or street trees is lacking. • It is difficult to meet transportation needs in low- density suburbs and rural areas for those without cars. • There is not enough funding for operations and maintenance. Despite these challenges, successes are found all over the country. The successes, however, are not yet trans- lating into an overall development trend. Some regions are building on project successes to devise a regional strategy, and some state departments of transportation are reforming their policies to integrate land use and community values. The differences between the success stories and the sto- ries of those who have tried and failed were summarized. Environmental quality, equity, and economic develop- ment are fundamental objectives of planning processes, not post hoc evaluation criteria. In instances of success, planners are not just forecasting but also backcasting to figure out how to get to a future that people want. HABITATS AND ECOSYSTEMS Richard Forman Richard Forman began his presentation by stating that the objective of sustainable transportation with regard to habitats and ecosystems should be to mesh safe and efficient mobility with natural processes and biodiver- sity. Society should aim to improve natural systems along the road network while reestablishing a connec- tivity of natural areas and green corridors that the road network has cut into small parcels. The presentation then focused on seven aspects of road ecology: 1. Road kill. This is generally a minor issue excep- tion when animals that reproduce slowly are affected. 1 5PRESENTATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

2. Traffic disturbance and wildlife. A study was dis- cussed that found that low-volume roads do not have any statistical effect on the breeding or existence of birds sur- rounding the roadway. As volume on roads increases, however, the study showed a significant effect on the breeding and existence of birds. The size of the affected area also increases as traffic volumes increase. Solutions to the impacts of traffic on wildlife may include improved vehicle and pavement designs that reduce noise. 3. Roadside vegetation. A primary function of road- side vegetation is safety. If roadside trees narrow the vision ahead, drivers slow down. Roads in the United States, however, are designed for speed, with grassy open areas along the roads. Trees planted up to the side of the road could improve safety by reducing speeds and at the same time provide habitat for wildlife. 4. Connectivity of land. The existing road network severs the land and affects the habitats and migration patterns of wildlife. Overpasses to increase connectivity, not only for animals but also for farmers and hikers, should be used. 5. Water and aquatic ecosystems. Sedimentation, road salt, and other pollutant runoff from roads affect water quality. Such impacts, however, can be mitigated by disconnecting roads from water bodies and by using soil as a filtering substance for runoff. 6. Road density. The current road network’s insensi- tivity to ecology was discussed, and an ecosystem- friendly transportation infrastructure that maintains large road-free areas and concentrates traffic on a few large roads was described. 7. Regional transportation planning. Currently, air quality is the only environmental impact of transporta- tion that is adequately modeled on a regional basis. Sim- ilar modeling should be conducted for other major environmental issues. 1 6 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

1 7 Concurrent Sessions What Are the Challenges? William R. Black, Indiana University Joan Ogden, University of California, Davis Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory Kevin E. Heanue, Consultant Bob Johnston, University of California, Davis John P. Poorman, Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany Arthur (Chris) Nelson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Steve Lockwood, PB Consult Tom Sanchez, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Christina Casgar, U.S. Department of Transportation Lee Schipper, World Resources Institute Martin Lee-Gosselin, University of Laval, Canada This section provides a synthesis of the presenta-tions and discussions that occurred in the initialsessions of four concurrent sessions on the fol- lowing topic areas: technology, tools and institutions, policy, and behavior. In each concurrent session, two presentations were followed by a facilitated discussion. The purpose of the initial concurrent sessions was to discuss the challenges facing sustainable transportation in each of the four topic areas. CONCURRENT SESSION I-1: TECHNOLOGY William R. Black, Facilitator Joan Ogden and Michael Wang, Presenters Presentations Joan Ogden discussed the potential role for hydrogen in a sustainable transportation system. She outlined several reasons why hydrogen should be considered as a transportation fuel, including its zero or near-zero emissions at point of use, low to zero well-to-wheels emissions of both air pollutants and greenhouse gases with some supply pathways, ability to be made from diverse sources (fossil, renewable, nuclear), wide use today, the rapid progress in hydrogen and fuel cell tech- nologies, and potential to enable new products and ser- vices that would transform the way energy is used and produced. In addition, hydrogen could reduce green- house gas and air pollutant emissions and utilize diverse energy supplies. Barriers to a hydrogen economy include the need to develop emerging technologies while adapting current hydrogen technologies for a hydrogen energy economy (e.g., fuel cells, hydrogen storage for vehicles), the cur- rent high cost of hydrogen end use technologies, the cur- rent lack of infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to consumers, and the lack of consistent policies reflecting the external costs of energy. Hydrogen also presents technical challenges. For instance, current automotive fuel cells are many times more expensive than gasoline, the lifetime of fuel cells is currently too short, there are unresolved system issues with heat and water manage- ment, hydrogen is bulkier and heavier than liquid fuels, and no current hydrogen storage technology satisfies automobile company requirements with regard to cost, range, and refueling time. The technology to produce hydrogen at a large scale and low cost from fossil fuels

is well established. Small-scale production of hydrogen at refueling sites, however, is under development and is facing issues such as cost, efficiency, and system integra- tion. For hydrogen to be sustainable, pathways must be zero carbon and zero emissions. Even under optimistic scenarios, it will be several decades before hydrogen can affect emissions on a global scale. Dr. Ogden recommended the following actions to support hydrogen: research and development on hydrogen technologies, public–private partnerships to demonstrate hydrogen technologies, the institution of federal and state governments as early adopters of hydrogen technologies, the establishment of codes and standards for safe operation in energy applications, and analysis to better understand the societal costs of energy and the role of hydrogen in the future energy system. Michael Wang discussed the life-cycle effects of vehicle and fuel technologies. The gap between U.S. oil demand and domestic oil supply will continue to grow, new-vehicle fuel economy in the United States has not improved measurably since 1985, and the United States will continue to have the highest total green- house gas emissions. The reduction in criteria pollu- tant emissions has been a bright spot in the United States. The life cycle of fuel can be defined as “well to wheels” or “well to pump + pump to wheels,” and the entire life cycle needs to be considered in energy and environmental assessments. Oil use and greenhouse gases are major chal- lenges for a sustainable transportation system. However, efficiency improvements, combined with fuel switches, could significantly reduce oil use and greenhouse gas emis- sions of motor vehicles. As tailpipe emissions continue to decline, well-to-pump emissions of criteria pollutants could become a significant share of total well-to-wheel emissions, and this portion of the life cycle should not be ignored. Advanced vehicle and fuel systems need to be carefully examined to ensure achievement of intended energy and emission benefits. Discussion After the two presentations, William Black facilitated a discussion. Topics included ways in which hydrogen might interact with other infrastructure and trends, the need to design transportation infrastructure now for future hydrogen compatibility, and the ability to apply transportation planning tools to the hydrogen economy. The need for technological change must be communi- cated effectively to the public. To motivate political action, a global understanding of the long-term problem and the need to make decisions now to affect results 50 years in the future is necessary. CONCURRENT SESSION I-2: TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS Kevin Heanue, Facilitator Bob Johnston and John Poorman, Presenters Presentations Bob Johnston discussed the sustainable transportation planning tools available to metropolitan planning organi- zations and state departments of transportation. Current sustainable transportation planning is a medium-range process that ignores most impacts. A policy analysis framework that requires long-range comprehensive plan- ning should be developed and implemented. Once such a policy framework is in place, existing tools and models can be used to facilitate the sustain- able transportation process. Within agencies possessing adequate resources, there is a technical capacity to engage in land use and transportation modeling. Dr. Johnston provided an overview of models currently in use throughout the United States and noted the cost- effectiveness and appropriate scale of use of each model. John Poorman offered insight into the current state of transportation planning’s institutional framework and culture. Missed opportunities in the sustainable transportation movement were discussed. The recent transportation funding reauthorization debate was one such missed opportunity to promote sustainability in transportation. The current institutional structure for transportation planning is capable of supporting sustainable planning. However, the institutional culture of planning organiza- tions inhibits advancement toward the integration of sustainable concepts. Transportation planning is a slow process that is constantly in transition. There is a lack of institutional understanding about the future and a need for metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of transportation to embrace uncertainty in the planning process. Metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of transportation must approach trans- portation planning as a multipurpose process and not limit their perspective to only one mode. Finally, long- range transportation planning and community forma- tion and land use planning require improved funding. Discussion Kevin Heanue facilitated this session’s discussion. The discussion focused on the many challenges facing the implementation of planning tools and models within the 1 8 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

sustainable transportation movement. The discussion identified the following issues: • Lack of a sustainability requirement in the plan- ning process; • Cultural resistance to the sustainability movement; • Lack of resources for the sustainability movement; • Existence of political pressures; • Lack of accountability within the transportation planning process; • Lack of performance measures; • Variation in forecasting methods—state, local, and federal; • Differences in metropolitan economics and gov- erning; • Overemphasis on model running and lack of emphasis on data feeding; and • Difficulties in modeling equity impacts. CONCURRENT SESSION I-3: POLICY Arthur (Chris) Nelson, Facilitator Steve Lockwood and Tom Sanchez, Presenters Presentations Steve Lockwood mentioned some of the challenges facing policy with regard to sustainability. They include posi- tional/political sustainability, institutional/financial sus- tainability, program sustainability via accountability (i.e., systems development, output efficiency, and mobility and safety outcomes), and environmental sustainability (i.e., regulatory requirements and program externalities). To complicate matters further, sustainability goals encompass several overlapping policy arenas including technology, demand management, and supply management. In addi- tion, issues of sustainability lie within the span of control of all levels of government—federal, state, regional, and local. Mr. Lockwood discussed the role of system opera- tions in a sustainable transportation system. He summa- rized the effect of system operations and management on roadway operating regimes for both recurring and non- recurring causes of delay. In general, potential reductions in delay are minimal except for incident management of breakdowns and crashes. In that case, a reduction of 20 percent is possible. With regard to the impact of opera- tions on emissions, even the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies do little for mobility or congestion (except pricing). Trends in system operations were discussed, including reductions in system expansion coupled with a focus on the efficiency of available capacity, significant improve- ments in speed–flow regimes, improvements in safety and security, reductions in modal distinctions, and possi- bly the integration of operations into the planning process. Transportation providers are moving from pro- viding a network and developing projects to improving mobility through system operations and management. Tom Sanchez discussed the equity considerations and concerns of sustainable transportation. From a research perspective, it is important to identify the constraints that prevent people from participating adequately in all aspects of society, including education, employment, housing, and public services. There are several areas of concern in transportation equity research: demographic trends, personal transportation costs, indirect economic and social effects, health effects, language barriers, citi- zen participation, and employment and business oppor- tunities within the transportation industry. Discussion After the two presentations, Arthur Nelson summarized the statistics of anticipated development over the next 30 years and the implications that this development may have for highways. Among the implications are increased vehicles, vehicle miles traveled, and lane miles. He posed the following policy questions: • Where should this development be built? • How should this development be configured? • How should transportation systems be designed to serve this future development? • What policies and policy processes are needed to achieve this at the federal level? Among the policy challenges facing sustainable trans- portation are the lack of broad consensus on national targets for sustainability; the absence of nationally gal- vanizing goals for sustainability; and the lack of broad public understanding of the issues, challenges, choices, and implications of choices with regard to sustainability. CONCURRENT SESSION I-4: BEHAVIOR Christina Casgar, Facilitator Lee Schipper and Martin Lee-Gosselin, Presenters Presentations Lee Schipper addressed the role that behavior plays in achieving sustainable transport. He focused on the role 1 9CONCURRENT SESSIONS: WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES?

that the United States plays in shaping the worldwide view of sustainable transport and the steps being taken toward implementing sustainable transport in the United States. Unpredictable changes in behavior hamper the sus- tainability process. Intervention could enable the sus- tainable transportation movement at three levels of behavior: the macro level (politicians), the meso level (administrators and transport professionals), and the micro level (individual travelers). Key areas where further research is needed linking transportation and behavior were identified. There is a need for a shift from typical destination studies to an analysis of the transportation decision-making process. To achieve sustainable transport in the United States, Americans need to develop cultural recognition and cost internalization of the basic ingredients of sustainability. Martin Lee-Gosselin discussed the reasons behavior is seen as a problem in sustainable transportation plan- ning and policy. He also spoke to ways researchers are responding to the complexity of evolving transportation behavior. Dr. Lee-Gosselin first defined the externalities and unanticipated consequences (good and bad) that result from the choices of travelers. He then described the six inconveniences of behavior, including the difference between preference and choice and the complexities that arise from the fact that mode and route choices depend on more than just a traveler’s work commute. Several short- and long-term actions being taken by researchers to address the complexity of behavior were identified. It is helpful to understand which decisions are important to whom (individuals, firms, public agen- cies). There is a need to understand both conventional data sources and how travelers interpret and use infor- mation on travel options. Dr. Lee-Gosselin proposed that the transportation industry design behavior indicators and establish a bal- ance between persuasion, pricing, and regulation. Behav- ior change in favor of sustainable transportation will require feedback at the local, regional, and national levels. Discussion Christina Casgar facilitated the discussion during this ses- sion. The discussion focused on the limitations of human cognitive ability and how these limitations affect the plan- ning process. The inability of the individual to grasp the idea of sustainability was attributed to the restriction of thought to short-term versus long-term thinking. The par- ticipants also made an attempt to determine the extent to which changes in behavior had to occur before changes in transportation could be achieved. 2 0 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

2 1 Reports on the Concurrent Sessions What Are the 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 Conference participants assembled in a general ses-sion to discuss key points and areas of generalagreement identified in the initial concurrent ses- sions on the challenges facing sustainability in each of the four topic areas: technology, tools and institutions, policy, and behavior. A rapporteur provided an overview of each initial concurrent session. CONCURRENT SESSION I-1: TECHNOLOGY Genevieve Giuliano, Rapporteur Participants primarily discussed the technology of future energy sources with regard to production, distri- bution, and storage. A 30- to 70-year time frame is required for the implementation of new transportation technologies. To make informed policy decisions about future energy sources and their sustainability, a full “well-to-wheel” evaluation is required. In the short term, future energy sources are likely to include hybrids, natural gas, ethanol, and unconven- tional oil. In the long term, hydrogen appears to be the most promising energy source, but other options such as nuclear, electric, and sequestration also need to be con- sidered. Hydrogen has the most potential, on the basis of its diverse sources of production, near-zero emissions, and rapid technological advances. The technological challenges associated with hydrogen include its high cost, limited fuel cell lifetime, heat and water manage- ment, on-vehicle storage, production systems, and risk and uncertainty of some production sources. The transi- tion to hydrogen also presents such obstacles as con- sumer acceptance and development of compatible pro- duction, storage, and distribution systems. Whether to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels as an interim phase to production via electricity is another question. In addition to the development of future energy sources and the reduction of greenhouse gases, areas where technology could be successful in meeting sus- tainable transportation challenges include adaptation to climate change, improved safety, noise reduction through sound-absorbing pavements and quiet cars, congestion relief through improved system manage- ment, and facilitation of mobility. The participants con- cluded that technology research should be focused where solutions are the most promising with regard to their positive impact on sustainability. CONCURRENT SESSION I-2: TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS Thomas M. Downs, Rapporteur Participants discussed numerous challenges to integrat- ing concepts of sustainability into the tools and institu- tions of the planning process. To start, sustainability is not a requirement in the planning process, and political pressures and a lack of resources inhibit the movement toward sustainability. Additional challenges are a lack of accountability in planning organizations; the absence of performance measures; the variety of forecasting methods across fed-

eral, regional, state, and local levels; a culture of being in the lead rather than a culture of collaboration; dif- ferences in metropolitan economics and governing; overemphasis on model running and lack of emphasis on data feeding; absence of a 50-year planning require- ment; inability to assess equity or public involvement; lack of cross-disciplinary training; and the need to establish sustainability as an important issue at the national level. CONCURRENT SESSION I-3: POLICY Anne Canby, Rapporteur The participants in this session discussed how to set priorities, fund programs, and establish rules to implement policy that furthers the goal of sustainable transportation. The lack of a uniform definition of sustainability combined with the complexity and uncertainty of the issues limits the ability to address these issues. The importance of credibility in engaging others and garnering broad support for the issues of sustainability was also discussed. Surrogate issues can be used to reach desired outcomes with regard to some aspects of sustainability such as climate change. The building of coalitions around these issues will develop support for sustainability that can be drawn on when the time is right for policy development. It should be possible to build support for change in the following areas: 1. Energy availability at a reasonable price, 2. Safety, 3. Health (asthma, obesity), 4. Environment (ecosystems, biodiversity, air and water pollution), and 5. Equity. The participants discussed congestion and mobility in addition to the fives areas listed above but questioned whether these issues fit within the framework of sus- tainability. Flexibility in the transportation system and its institu- tions is important, since it is not known what will trigger the need to address sustainability. Currently, the trans- portation system and its providers are not prepared to address sustainability. Institutional and financial rigidities prevent steps toward sustainability from being taken. The session participants discussed the need for better ways to measure project and agency performance, fiscal flexibility to enable addressing changing circumstances, and coali- tions to build the conditions to address solutions. CONCURRENT SESSION I-4: BEHAVIOR Richard Gilbert, Rapporteur Participants discussed approaches to behavior (i.e., what people do), whether they are travelers, shippers, decision makers, or others. Two general approaches were described. One is the Confucian approach, also embraced by American behaviorists, which looks for the causes of behavior in the environment or context in which it occurs. The other is the Aristotelian approach, which holds that behavior is the result of people’s choices, the product of will or mind. Confucians would change behavior, if they were so inclined, by changing its circumstances or consequences. Aristotelians seek to change behavior by persuasion, perhaps backed up by changes in its context. The limited evidence concerning what it takes to change transport activity suggests that Confucians may have better answers. Desirable out- comes are more likely to be achieved by judicious use of incentives and disincentives and by otherwise struc- turing environments to favor what is required than by convincing people that change is necessary. Five challenges were identified: 1. Giving appropriate feedback. Transport indicators are not good enough to support provision of effective consequences of good or bad transport activity. 2. Achieving effective balances of regulation, pricing, and persuasion. Each has its role. 3. Recognizing that transport behavior is among the most complex things that people do. 4. Recognizing the importance of the meso level (i.e., administrative and expert behavior) versus the macro level (politicians) and the micro level (travelers and ship- pers). 5. Coping with longer time scales (i.e., beyond the next fiscal year). Participants identified 12 research areas related to behavior and sustainability: 1. Determining the extent to which it is necessary to change hearts as well as heads; 2. Empowering stakeholders; 3. Establishing the importance of alternatives; 4. Understanding individual transport behavior bet- ter; 5. Understanding freight trends and who is responsi- ble for them; 6. How to get at kids in school, from kindergarten to Grade 12; 7. Operationalizing meso planning; 2 2 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

8. Developing indicators of necessary versus discre- tionary change; 9. Making use of fairness in transport planning; 10. Making better use of natural experiments; 11. Determining a “reasonable level of mobility”; and 12. Integrating environmental management and transport management at regional levels. 2 3REPORTS ON THE CONCURRENT SESSIONS: WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES?

2 4 Panel Discussion Potential Solutions to Challenges Kevin E. Heanue, Consultant (Moderator) Anne Canby, Surface Transportation Policy Project John Horsley, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Hal Kassoff, Parsons Brinckerhoff John Pucher, Rutgers University G. Alexander Taft, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (retired) On the second day of the conference, a round-table discussion was held by a distinguishedpanel. The participants discussed potential solu- tions to the sustainability challenge. Anne Canby indicated that her view of sustainability includes the minimization of environmental degrada- tion, the minimization of energy consumption, the strengthening of communities and their residents to self- sufficiency, and the reduction of public and personal health risks from transportation. Sustainability requires examining transportation in a broader context that gets beyond a project perspective. Approaches for redirecting transportation investment toward sustainable objectives were outlined. Approaches dealing specifically with the planning process included the creation of valid planning processes in state highway agencies; the expansion of the long-range planning process to include collaboration and integration with energy, environment, public health, and community development policies; and the integration of operations and services/modes in the planning process. Collabora- tion with public stakeholders should be expanded during planning before projects have been identified, and mea- sures of sustainability should be incorporated into the National Environmental Policy Act process. Two of the approaches deal specifically with funding. Ms. Canby recommended a change in the factors used to distribute federal funding and in the way public-sec- tor transportation investment is funded. The decision- making authority over how to allocate funds among state highway agencies, regional transit operators, and regional planning entities should be shared. Among other approaches are broadening the trans- portation perspective to encompass desired outcomes in nontransportation areas as well as transportation, explic- itly including strategies to reduce accident rates and fatal- ities and reward those who reduce accidents, and changing the way priorities are set to incorporate urban revitalization and minimization of land consumption. John Horsley summarized the situation facing state departments of transportation (DOTs). State DOTs do not have the resources to meet requested mobility needs. They are unable to buy right-of-way because it is already developed, they cannot build the network of highways that the current development pattern expects of them, and they cannot generate the resources to maintain the existing network. Advocacy for sustainable transportation must come from the grass roots. Participation in conferences like this should be broadened to include the land use com- munity, citizen activists, the developer community, and city and county officials with land development respon- sibility. Given the current market, where developers are reporting greater sales per foot from urban development than from big box retail shopping centers, the engineer- ing solution to transportation cannot be the only answer. The U.S. Department of Transportation should col- laborate with other federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These fed- eral institutions need to break down silos to address the crosscutting issue of sustainability.

Hal Kassoff began by discussing whether the concept of sustainable highways is an oxymoron or an opportu- nity. Highways are typically viewed as part of the prob- lem and labeled antisustainable, whereas transit, freight railroads, bicycling, and walking are parts of the solu- tion. Vehicles, however, can be made more sustainable through alternatives to fossil fuels, and similarly, there are opportunities to make the highway infrastructure part of the solution. Most state DOTs embrace environmental steward- ship and agree that while meeting functional require- ments is the primary objective, it is not the only objective. Meeting the functional requirements while being environmental stewards results in sustainable highways. In addition, most highway projects are improvements to existing roads. Since the existing roads were not built in accordance with today’s demanding environmental standards, such projects present oppor- tunities to meet the current stringent environmental and equity requirements. There are significant opportunities for highway infrastructure to help meet sustainability objectives in the areas of noise, water quality, ecology, equity, recycling, safety, and mobility. A possible definition for sustainable highways is “highways that, from conception to completion, through maintenance and operations, satisfy life-cycle functional requirements while improving the natural, built, and social environment.” Highways will remain an enduring component of our transportation system with a recurring need for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and, at times, expansion. Rehabilitation, reconstruc- tion, and expansion projects present opportunities for improving not just the functionality of highways but their ability to contribute to sustainability goals. John Pucher began by questioning what is meant by mobility. It is important to distinguish between mobility and access. There is a trade-off between mobility and sustainability, whereas it is possible to provide sustain- able accessibility. With regard to mobility, the trans- portation system of the United States is reaching a point of diminishing returns. The focus should be on provid- ing better accessibility as opposed to more mobility. Current lifestyle and land use patterns are addicted to mobility, but Dr. Pucher questions how much mobility will be enough. Dr. Pucher also discussed the apparent dismissal of walking and biking as modes of transport. These modes, which are often ignored by planners and engineers, are perfect from a sustainability perspective and need to be taken more seriously. A broader view should be taken of health problems related to transportation. Personal health is a major component of the sustainability solu- tion, and individuals should be encouraged to walk and bike for purposes of their health. Walking and biking also increase social interaction and independence. True intermodalism is required for sustainability. Intermodal- ism would coordinate all modes and integrate walking and cycling with other modes enabling longer trips. Alex Taft provided his perspective on metropolitan planning and sustainability. The two keys to moving toward sustainable transportation are a planning process infused with public participation and the development of an overarching vision for the community. Comment peri- ods should be extended, all neighborhoods and busi- nesses should be involved, and consensus should be reached on a plan that has strategies and projects consis- tent with its theme and objectives. All projects, including nonmotorized and transit projects, should be prioritized in conformance with the plan’s theme and objectives. To avoid simply continuing what has been done in the past, public participation must be improved. It is impor- tant to demonstrate how public participation changed the plan. In addition, metropolitan planning organizations must work with the community to develop an overarch- ing vision for the area that integrates concepts of land use, environmental protection, and energy conservation. 2 5PANEL DISCUSSION: POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO CHALLENGES

2 6 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 Conference participants assembled in a general ses-sion to discuss key points, areas of general agree-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 and institutions, policy, and behavior. These concurrent sessions were conducted in roundtable format. A rappor- teur provided an overview of each concurrent session. CONCURRENT SESSION II-1: TECHNOLOGY Genevieve Giuliano, Rapporteur Participants discussed whether there was a role for tech- nology in each of the dimensions of sustainability. For each dimension in which technology could have a role, the participants discussed how strong that role could be, what policies are needed to implement the role, and at what level of government the responsibility for that technology would reside. Technology was determined to have a major role in the areas of future fuels, greenhouse gases, air pol- lution, safety, and noise. Technology was seen to have a medium role in the areas of mobility and congestion and a small role in biological impacts and equity. The session participants concluded with three major points. First, aggressive research and development across an array of technologies are needed to meet the sustainability goal. Second, there is a need for research and development and policy analysis to prepare for future fuel transition. Finally, adaptation to climate change and its impacts on the transportation system should be incorporated into the transportation planning process as soon as possible. CONCURRENT SESSION II-2: TOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS Thomas M. Downs, Rapporteur The discussion focused on finding solutions to several of the challenges raised in Concurrent Session I-2. The group discussed the need for a national initiative that recognizes and legitimizes sustainability in planning. The slow pace of change within the federal government and its impacts on achieving sustainable transportation were also discussed. The difficulty faced in the recent trans- portation funding reauthorization is a prime example of this slow pace of change. Primary challenges brought to light as a result of Con- current Session I-2 include cultural resistance within institu- tional planning agencies and the lack of a national initiative legitimizing the sustainability movement. Participants dis- cussed how the existing institutional structure is capable of facilitating sustainable transportation planning within local, regional, and state planning agencies. It is believed that the systems of decision making and allocation are in place to allow for change within the planning process and that gov- ernments have the flexibility and the jurisdiction to inte- grate sustainability into the current framework. A lack of understanding about what practices work and do not work, however, has created a cultural resistance to the inclusion of sustainability considerations in the planning process.

The participants recommended that a best practices handbook be compiled and issued to transportation pro- fessionals. It also was suggested that a sustainability training program be established for transportation plan- ners. The participants expressed a need to establish sus- tainability at the national level. The group recommended that sustainability issues be tackled via pilot projects and real-world experiments. The development of sustainabil- ity standards and a quantification of both the benefits and the negative aspects of sustainability were encour- aged. The implementation of these practices would be steps toward legitimizing the sustainability movement. CONCURRENT SESSION II-3: POLICY Anne Canby, Rapporteur The participants discussed the changing housing market and how the current trends for urban higher-density living will shape the future of transportation. They also noted that federal, state, and regional levels of government all must play significant roles in policy initiatives. To address sustainability concerns, the participants encouraged policy development in the following areas: • Broaden curricula to cover demands that will be placed on future planners and transportation profes- sionals, including the addition of human sciences to the engineering curriculum. • Perform research into how mode choice, vehicle use, and energy consumption change with respect to density, location, and land use configuration given changing demographic trends, residential preferences, and office–retail dynamics. • Facilitate market forces favoring transportation sustainability. • Establish an interdepartmental working group on sustainability (including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Treasury, and the Department of Health and Human Services, among others). • Create a national dialogue and build consensus on the need for sustainability. • Identify the barriers within institutions and poli- cies to achievement of a sustainability program. CONCURRENT SESSION II-4: BEHAVIOR Richard Gilbert, Rapporteur The complexity and the limitations of human cognitive ability, which may underscore inability to engage in long- term decision making, were discussed. Several issues deemed to be important to the sustainability movement were thought to have been overlooked in the planning process. Two examples of unaddressed issues are (a) con- sideration of the time scale needed for longer-range plan- ning and (b) insufficient provision of information to people affected by the planning process. Achieving bal- ance between regulation and pricing also was seen as crit- ical to attaining sustainable transportation. Finally, the participants emphasized the importance of identifying the appropriate level or group within the transportation plan- ning process to lead the movement toward sustainability. Several educational and technical initiatives were identified as solutions to some of the challenges. Empha- sis was placed on the use of training and education to change human behavior. Children and transportation professionals were cited as target groups for educational initiatives. The possibilities for expanding the planning process to create a more inclusive atmosphere were also discussed. The planning process must engage hitherto unrepresented and underrepresented groups, including industry. Improved dialogue between government and industry must be encouraged. In previous sessions, expansion of the transportation planning process had been cited as critical to the successful integration of sustainability. It was agreed that expansion could involve several components, including visioning. The designation of funds for the visioning process at the metro- politan and state levels is necessary for its implementation. Finally, it was recommended that transportation profes- sionals include operations and capital investment issues in the transportation planning process. The group emphasized the need to build a conscious- ness of sustainability and discussed a strategy for achieving this goal. A hierarchy of implementation was formulated as a guide toward attaining sustainability. It was suggested that modules of sustainable education be introduced at all levels of education, beginning with elementary school. Par- ticipants recommended that assessments of staffing and educational needs be conducted at the state and metropol- itan levels. Implementation of a cost assessment strategy aimed at fully costing sustainable and nonsustainable transport was also recommended. The level appropriate for intervention—that is, the group through which to push change—was determined to be the meso level: experts and bureaucrats. The meso level could assist in making behav- ior changes in the macro level of politicians and at the micro level of individual travelers. The retraining of the meso group could help promote sustainable behavior among the users and regulators of transportation. In summary, the breakout group identified 10 solu- tion areas: 1. Focus on educating children for sustainability, both as transport’s “canaries” and as adults-to-be. 2 7REPORTS ON CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

2. Focus on the training of engineers and other transport professionals in sustainability. 3. Have empty seats in the planning process (say, an older person, a Bangalore resident, and a fish). 4. Require a visioning element as part of the metro- politan planning organization process; designate a set share of funds, say 7 percent. 5. Prepare a casebook of good and bad practices, mainly for educational purposes. 6. Prepare a casebook of good and bad situations (for example, which contexts sustain transit use and which do not). 7. Require transport planning processes to consider full-cost pricing. 8. Provide federal resources for more, different, and better staffing of metropolitan planning organizations. 9. Involve industry in planning for transport sus- tainability (e.g., hold a conference for chief executive officers). 10. Expand the metropolitan planning organization process to deal with operations issues as well as capital investment. 2 8 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

2 9 Luncheon Speakers Lewis Dale, General Motors Emil Frankel, U.S. Department of Transportation Lewis Dale offered luncheon remarks to partici-pants on the first day of the conference, and EmilFrankel offered remarks on the second day. A summary of each speaker’s remarks follows. Lewis Dale discussed the final report of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Sus- tainable Mobility Project. Mobility 2030: Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability reflects the collective efforts of more than 200 experts from a broad set of 12 indus- trial companies. The project was initiated because of the growth in population and in motorization, especially in developing countries. Mr. Dale identified several achievements of the report but noted that consensus was not achieved on every point. The members did agree that action is required on sustainable mobility challenges. The report presents a definition of sustainability agreed on by the participants and an assessment that concludes that current trends are not sustainable. The report also serves as a wake-up call for industry and identifies focus points for government and industry in moving toward sustainability. The report, which focuses on roads and motorized vehicle transport, adopted 12 indicators: access to mobility, user costs, travel time, reliability and comfort, safety, security, greenhouse gas emissions, impacts on the environment and public well-being, resource use, impacts on public revenues and expenditures, equity implications, and rate of return to private businesses. If present trends continue, some indicators, such as con- ventional emissions, safety, and affordability of goods mobility, look better. However, others, such as green- house gas emissions, congestion, and equity, look worse. The report outlines seven goals to reverse the indica- tors that are looking worse: • Reduce transport-related emissions to levels where they cannot be considered a serious public health con- cern anywhere in the world. • Limit transport-related greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels. • Significantly reduce the worldwide number of deaths and serious injuries from road crashes. • Reduce transport-related noise. • Mitigate transport-related congestion. • Narrow the mobility “divides” that exist today between the average citizen of the world’s poorest coun- tries and the average citizen of the wealthier countries and between disadvantaged groups and the average cit- izen within most countries. • Preserve and enhance mobility opportunities avail- able to the general population. Actions that companies can take are still under dis- cussion, but to start they should continue with the extensive activities that are planned or under way, serve as catalysts to advance the understanding of sustainable transportation within companies, continue the debate internally, and encourage other industries to undertake similar studies. Emil Frankel began with a brief update on the status of the federal transportation funding reauthorization. He noted that the issue of sustainability is not new to the Transportation Research Board and cited precursors to this conference. Continued efforts with regard to sus-

tainability are necessary because it is difficult to get a democratic society to act unless there is an impending crisis, and in the case of sustainability, once there is a crisis it will be too late. The U.S. Department of Transportation struggles to provide safe, efficient, and effective mobility while deal- ing with the intertwined issues of sprawl and urban growth patterns. The current pattern of development was enabled by the automobile, technology, and per- sonal choice. While the sustainability of this develop- ment pattern is often questioned, it is difficult to alter. In a democratic society it is nearly impossible to tell people that low-density suburban development and depen- dence on the automobile must change. As policies are made, trade-offs and the impacts on all aspects of sustainability must be measured. The role of the U.S. Department of Transportation is to establish a framework for decision making including financing, planning requirements and processes, and market and regulatory processes to achieve public policy goals. Mr. Frankel emphasized the importance of discussions and broader debate and dialogue on how to invest in trans- portation infrastructure. Capacity expansion is needed in all modes to handle goods coming into ports as well as for mobility of people and freight. Automobiles and trucks are the predominant modes of transportation and are here to stay. It is important to reduce their impacts on communities. The need to reduce these impacts places a burden on the transportation plan- ning process. Metropolitan planning organizations are key players in the planning process: they balance trade-offs, make decisions, and prioritize investments. However, they lack geographic reach and resources. Significant achieve- ments have been made in transportation planning with regard to integrating the National Environmental Policy Act and air quality conformity, but more improvements are needed. Environmental stewardship must be incorporated into all aspects of transportation planning. Planning must focus more on systems operations management, strive for intermodality, and link to land use decisions. Mr. Frankel emphasized the importance of technol- ogy to sustainable mobility. More efficient automobiles, new propulsion systems, greater use of hybrids, and other technological advances are moving toward sus- tainability objectives. The U.S. Department of Trans- portation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency all have roles to play in driving technological change. The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to and recognizes the significance of sustainable mobil- ity and sees transportation planning as an important tool in addressing it. Transportation planning in combi- nation with the use of priorities and indicators can assist in moving toward sustainability. 3 0 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

3 1 Poster Session On the first day of the conference, seven participantspresented posters on a range of topics relevant tointegrating sustainability into the transportation planning process: • Transportation and Land Use Planning, Nat Bot- tigheimer, Maryland Department of Transportation. • States, Freight, and Technical Tools: Review of Progress and New Projects at the Center for Clean Air Policy, Greg Dierkers, Center for Clean Air Policy. • Sustainable Transportation Planning in the Port- land Region, Jennifer Dill, Portland State University. • Travel Matters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sustainable Surface Transportation, Sharon Feigon, Center for Neighborhood Technology. • Sustainable Transportation Study in China, Yulin Jiang, China Academy of Transport Science, Ministry of Communication. • What Makes a Transportation Plan Sustainable? David Kriger, iTRANS Consulting, Inc. • Education and Sustainable Transportation, Joseph Szyliowicz, University of Denver.

3 2 Conference Closing David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory The conference chair, David Greene, began hisclosing remarks by summarizing the concept ofsustainability as “meeting the needs of the cur- rent generation without compromising the needs of future generations.” While this may seem like a basic concept, achieving sustainability is not a simple task. That the participants of the conference have struggled with identifying solutions to sustainability challenges is not surprising, given the uncertainty and multiple dimensions of the objective. Despite the uncertainties, sustainability is compelling and is seen by broad groups as important and right. It is no longer only environmentalists who fight for the cause, as demonstrated by the remarks of representatives from the automotive industry, the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, and state departments of transportation at this conference. Many recognize that the sustainability crisis is right now and that there is an urgent need to make future generations part of the transportation decision-making process. Dr. Greene thanked the conference participants for their hard work and for bringing forth their ideas and insights. The conference, through its report, has an opportunity to define the vision of a sustainable trans- portation system clearly and to identify next steps to integrate sustainability into transportation planning.

Next: Resource Papers »
Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB Conference Proceedings 37: Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process summarizes a July 11-13, 2004, conference in Baltimore, Maryland, that examined whether and how sustainability objectives can be introduced into the planning process for surface transportation facilities and operations. The report explores issues associated with sustainability, the vision of a sustainable transportation system, the state of the practice, and strategies for integrating sustainability concepts into transportation planning.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!