Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future (2014)

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.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 750 Strategic Issues Facing Transportation Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future Paul Sorensen RAND CoRpoRAtioN Santa Monica, CA w i t h a s s i s t a n c e f r o m Tom Light Constantine Samaras Liisa Ecola Endy M. Daehner David S. Ortiz Martin Wachs RAND CoRpoRAtioN Santa Monica, CA Evan Enarson-Hering Steven Pickrell CAmbRiDge SyStemAtiCS, iNC. Cambridge, MA Subscriber Categories Highways • Energy • Planning and Forecasting TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 750, VOLUME 5 Project 20-83(04) ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-28392-2 Library of Congress Control Number 2013932452 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Front cover, image used in fourth circle from the top: © Oregon Department of Transpor- tation. Used under Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0).

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 750, VOLUME 5 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Lori L. Sundstrom, Senior Program Officer Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-83(04) PANEL Area of Special Projects Linos J. Jacovides, Michigan State University, MI (Chair) Shannon Baxter, South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance, Columbia, SC Robert W. Cervantes, Caltrans (retired), Carmichael, CA Jeff Doyle, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA Sonna Lynn Fernandez, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID John M. German, International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC Paul Khanna, Nexen Energy ULC, Calgary, AB Virginia D. McConnell, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC Thomas E. McQueen, Georgia DOT, Atlanta, GA Robert P. Romig, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL Jean Wallace, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul, MN Robert Kafalenos, FHWA Liaison April Marchese, FHWA Liaison Duncan M. Brown, Duncan Brown Associates Alan T. Crane, National Research Council, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison Thomas R. Menzies, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D This report examines how the mandate, role, funding, and operations of state departments of transportation (DOTs) will likely be affected by changes in energy supply and demand in the next 30 to 50 years, and identifies potential strategies and actions that DOTs can employ to plan and prepare for these effects. The report describes how robust decision- making techniques can be used to help navigate the potential risks and rewards of different policy and management responses under differing surface transportation energy supply- and-demand scenarios. The report will be useful to senior policy analysts and long-range planning officials who want to more effectively understand and manage energy uncertainty as part of policy development and long-range planning activities. Major trends affecting the future of the United States and the world will dramatically reshape transportation priorities and needs. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials established the NCHRP Project 20-83 research series to exam- ine global and domestic long-range strategic issues and their implications for departments of transportation (DOTs) to help prepare the DOTs for the challenges and benefits cre- ated by these trends. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future is the fifth report in this series. Growth in global energy consumption, especially within the transportation sector, is expected to increase demand for oil. Given that the entire transportation sector accounted for more than 90% of all liquid fuel consumption in 2006, it is clear that changes in energy infrastructure and energy sources will affect transportation activities. Because fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases from all sources are expected to continue to increase, contributing to air pollution and climate change, the push to move toward energy efficiency and alternative fuels in the transportation sector is expected to continue. World population growth and energy demand are inextricably linked, but the fossil- based energy supply is finite. Alternative technologies are emerging in the marketplace, and these could prompt enormous changes over time in how DOTs operate. Implementation of alternative fuels will also necessitate a change in highway funding strategies. Most of the revenue that DOTs currently use for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the highway system comes from federal and individual state gas taxes assessed on traditional motor vehicle fuels. The ability to finance future transportation programs has already been negatively affected by various technological, economic, and social changes, and these affects will be magnified over time. Under NCHRP Project 20-83(04), The RAND Corporation was asked to identify short- and long-range actions and strategies that state DOTs can use to plan, respond to, and otherwise By Lori L. Sundstrom Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

manage under a broad range of plausible future energy scenarios, and to assess the likely consequences associated with potential policy responses and management strategies. The research (1) identified driving forces, leading indicators, critical interdependencies, and their relative importance to future energy use and alternative fuel scenarios; (2) developed representative scenarios regarding the future use of energy and alternative fuels that may result from the driving forces; and (3) analyzed how the mandate, role, funding, and opera- tions of state DOTs may be affected by various plausible future energy supply-and-demand scenarios. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 5 contains a significant compilation of information from a variety of industry and public sources that may be used to inform long-range transportation planning processes. The scenario planning conducted as part of the research should also be of interest to transportation planners and policy analysts—both for the information gener- ated from the scenarios and for the way in which scenario planning was used. An extended summary of the full report is included that briefly describes the results of the research. A 4-page brochure and a 2-page brochure that further summarize the research results are available for downloading from the project webpage at http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRB NetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2632.

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 1 S.1. Study Approach and Scope 2 S.2. Evolving State DOT Roles, Mandates, Funding, and Operations 2 S.3. Future Transportation Energy Scenarios 4 S.4. Potential Impacts on State DOTs 5 S.5. Developing Robust Long-Range Plans to Address Impacts 8 S.6. Tailoring Strategic Plans for State Context 9 Chapter 1 Introduction 9 1.1. Motivation 10 1.2. Approach 10 1.3. Scope 11 1.4. Organization of the Report 12 References 13 Chapter 2 State DOT Roles, Mandates, Funding, and Operations 13 2.1. Historical Effects of Energy Trends on State DOTs 14 2.2. State DOT Roles 15 2.3. Federal and State Mandates on State DOTs 20 2.4. State Transportation Funding 23 2.5. State DOT Operations 25 2.6. The Changing State DOT 26 References 28 Chapter 3 Emerging Fuels and Vehicle Technologies 28 3.1. Conventional Fuels 30 3.2. Natural Gas 31 3.3. Biofuels 33 3.4. Electricity 36 3.5. Hydrogen 38 3.6. Summary of Prospects for Light-Duty Vehicles 39 3.7. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Applications 42 References 44 Chapter 4 Population, Economy, Land Use, and Policy Factors 44 4.1. Population, Economy, and Land Use Trends 46 4.2. Energy, Climate, and Transportation Funding Policy Debates 51 4.3. Implications for Transportation Energy Futures 53 References 56 Chapter 5 Plausible Future Transportation Energy Scenarios 56 5.1. Structure and Approach to Developing Scenarios 59 5.2. Scenarios for Fuel and Vehicle Technology Elements

64 5.3. Scenarios for Travel Elements 68 5.4. Scenarios for Federal Policy Elements 70 References 71 Chapter 6 Scenario Impacts on State DOTs 71 6.1. Recurring Themes in the State DOT Interviews 72 6.2. Potential Scenario Impacts on State DOTs 77 References 78 Chapter 7 Potential Strategic Directions for State DOTs 78 7.1. Defining Strategic Directions 79 7.2. Strategies Considered 82 7.3. Framework for Assessing Strategies 83 7.4. Summary of Strategy Assessments 90 Chapter 8 Framework for Robust Long-Term Plans 90 8.1. Developing the Framework for Robust Long-Term Plans 93 8.2. Strategies to Mitigate Revenue and Cost Impacts 95 8.3. Strategies to Reduce Traffic Congestion 97 8.4. Strategies to Improve Traffic Safety 98 8.5. Strategies to Reduce Harmful Emissions 100 8.6. Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes 101 8.7. Strategies for Shaping Future Energy Outcomes 102 8.8. Integration of Robust Strategies 103 Reference 104 Chapter 9 Developing State-Specific Plans 105 9.1. Translating the Framework into a Strategic Long-Range Plan 105 9.2. Tailoring a Plan for State-Specific Needs 109 9.3. Considering Additional Future Outcomes of Interest 110 9.4. Developing Contingency Plans 112 Chapter 10 Promising Directions for Future Research 114 Appendix A Conventional Fuels and Vehicles 125 Appendix B Natural Gas and Liquid Petroleum Gas 136 Appendix C Liquid Biofuels 145 Appendix D Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles 161 Appendix E Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles 170 Appendix F Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles 181 Appendix G Population, Economy, and Land Use 193 Appendix H Energy, Climate, and Transportation Funding Policies 209 Appendix I Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue 226 Appendix J Strategies to Reduce Costs 231 Appendix K Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel

252 Appendix L Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes 262 Appendix M Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AAA American Automobile Association AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AB Assembly bill ABP Assumption-based planning AEO Annual Energy Outlook AFV Alternative-fuel vehicle ANL Argonne National Laboratory AP Associated Press API American Petroleum Institute APTA American Public Transit Association ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARTBA American Road and Transportation Builders Association ATA American Trucking Association AVL Automatic vehicle location bcm Billion cubic meters BD20 Fuel blends including 20% biodiesel BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BEV Battery electric vehicle BLM Bureau of Land Management BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory BP British Petroleum BRT Bus rapid transit BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics Btu British thermal unit CAA Clean Air Act CAFE Corporate average fuel economy Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBD Central business district CBO Congressional Budget Office CCS Carbon capture and sequestration CEC California Energy Commission CEDIGAZ Centre International d’Information sur le Gaz CFCP California Fuel Cell Partnership CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNG Compressed natural gas CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent Connecticut DOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CPI Consumer Price Index CSG Council of State Governments CSP Concentrating solar power CV Conventional vehicle DoD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOT (State) Department of Transportation DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency E/EPH/E Economy/environment and public health/equity E10 Fuel blends including 10% ethanol E15 Fuel blends including 15% ethanol E85 Fuel blends including 85% ethanol E90 Fuel blends including 90% ethanol E100 Pure ethanol EC European Commission EEA Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. EERE (Office of) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EGS Enhanced geothermal systems EGR Exhaust gas recirculation EIA Energy Information Administration EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act ERP Electronic road pricing ESA Economics and Statistics Administration ETC Electronic toll collection ETSAP Energy Technology System Analysis Program EV Electric vehicle EVSE Electric vehicle supply equipment F2F Freeways to Fuel FCV Fuel-cell vehicle FDA Formal decision analysis FFV Flex-fuel vehicle FHWA Federal Highway Administration Florida DOT Florida Department of Transportation FMO Office of Freight Management and Operations FT Fischer-Tropsch GAO Government Accountability Office GDI Gasoline direct injection GDP Gross domestic product gge Gallon of gasoline equivalent GHG Greenhouse gas GI Government Issue GM General Motors GPS Global positioning system GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation GVW Gross vehicle weight

HCCI Homogeneous charge compression ignition HEV Hybrid-electric vehicle HFCV Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle HOT High-occupancy/toll HOV High-occupancy vehicle HSR High-speed rail HTF Highway Trust Fund ICE Internal combustion engine ICM Integrated corridor management IEA International Energy Agency IMEX Intermodal Move Exchange INL Idaho National Laboratories ITS Intelligent transportation system kbd Thousand barrels per day kg Kilogram kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LCFS Low-carbon fuel standard LED Light-emitting diode LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LNG Liquid natural gas LPG Liquid petroleum gas LTPA Long-term policy analysis MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 Maryland DOT Maryland Department of Transportation Massachusetts DOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation mbd Million barrels per day MBUF Mileage-based user fee MHDV Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology mpg Miles per gallon mpgge Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent mpkg Miles per kilogram MPO Metropolitan planning organization MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MTBE Methyl-tertiary butylether NAE National Academy of Engineering NAHB National Association of Home Builders NBI New Building Institute NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures NEMS National Energy Modeling System NESCCAF Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NEV Neighborhood electric vehicle New Jersey DOT New Jersey Department of Transportation NG Natural gas NGVA Natural Gas Vehicle America NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration North Carolina DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NOx Nitrogen oxides NPC National Petroleum Council NRC National Research Council NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NSF National Science Foundation NSTIFC National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission NSTPRSC National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OEM Original equipment manufacturer OFE Office of Fossil Energy OHPI Office of Highway Policy Information OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Oregon DOT Oregon Department of Transportation ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality P3 Public–private partnership (also known as PPP) PAYD Pay as you drive PCGCC Pew Center on Global Climate Change PEM Proton exchange membrane PGC Potential Gas Committee PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PHEV Plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle PM10 Particulate matter, 10 microns PM2.5 Particulate matter, 2.5 microns POLB Port of Long Beach ppm Parts per million PPP Public–private partnership (also known as P3) psi Pounds per square inch PTC Positive train control PV Photovoltaic R&D Research and development RDM Robust decision making RFS Renewable fuel standard RFS2 (The current federal) renewable fuel standard RIN Renewable identification number RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration ROW Right-of-way RPS Renewable portfolio standard RVO Renewable volume obligation SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SB Senate Bill SBP Scenario-based planning SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States S-GDI Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SOx Sulfur oxides SR State route SUV Sport utility vehicle SVM Small-volume manufacturer tcm Trillion cubic meters TCPA Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts TDM Transportation demand management TfL Transport for London TIF Tax increment financing TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act TMA Transportation management association TSG Transport Studies Group TSM&O Transportation system management and operations TTI Texas Transportation Institute TWh Terawatt hour UCS Union of Concerned Scientists UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule ULSD Ultra-low-sulfur diesel U.S.C. United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission V-I Vehicle-to-infrastructure V-V Vehicle-to-vehicle VII Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration VIUS Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey VMT Vehicle miles of travel VOCs Volatile organic compounds VPPP Value Pricing Pilot Program VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation W Watt Washington State DOT Washington State Department of Transportation WCGH West Coast Green Highway WGA Western Governors Association Wh Watt hour ZEV Zero emissions vehicle

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team would first like to acknowledge its gratitude to the AASHTO for funding this study as part of a series of research projects on long-range strategic issues that will confront the transportation industry in the coming decades. The decision to support transportation decision makers in their ability to develop more informed and effective long-range plans is likely to be a sound investment that pays dividends for many years to come. Next, the research team would like to thank the project panel for their continuing support, attention, and helpful feedback throughout all stages of the project. Members of the panel reviewed countless pages of material—not all of it well-polished—in a series of interim and draft project reports, and their thought- ful comments and attention to detail helped improve the final product immensely. In the early stages of the work, the research team conducted a series of interviews with experts in the areas of transportation fuels and vehicle propulsion technologies; trends in economy, population growth, and land use; and federal policies involving energy, climate, and transportation funding. The team appre- ciates the generosity of these experts in sharing their time and thoughtful insights, which proved very help- ful in developing plausible transportation energy futures. The experts interviewed included Doug Arent of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Allison Premo Black of the American Road and Trans- portation Builders Association; Larry Burns of the University of Michigan, formerly of General Motors; Robert Cervero of the University of California, Berkeley; Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis; Reid Ewing of the University of Utah; Emil Frankel of the Bipartisan Policy Center; David Fried- man of the Union of Concerned Scientists; David Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory; W. Michael Griffin of Carnegie Mellon University; Jim Harger of Clean Energy; Scott Hassell of CB Richard Ellis; John Heywood of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; John Horsley of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Paulina Jaramillo of Carnegie Mellon University; John Juriga of Hyundai/Kia American Technical Center; Richard Karp of Chevron; W. Ross Morrow of Iowa State University; Arthur Nelson of the University of Utah; Steven Plotkin of Argonne National Labora- tory; Randall Pozdena of ECONorthwest; Mike Ramage, formerly of Exxon; David Raney, formerly of Honda North America; Lee Schipper, formerly of Stanford University; Dan Sperling of the University of California, Davis; Brian Taylor of the University of California, Los Angeles; Luke Tonachel of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratory; and James Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. The team also acknowledges the early technical contributions from Andrew Burke and Marshall Miller from the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. In later stages of the research, the team engaged in a series of interviews, followed by a workshop, with representatives of state departments of transportation from across the country. The interviews and work- shop provided for a greater understanding of how the plausible transportation energy futures developed for the project might affect state departments of transportation and what types of strategies states would consider in response. They also yielded helpful feedback on the utility of robust decision making as a framework for assisting states to develop robust long-term plans. The team is quite grateful to all of the state department of transportation staff, several of whom later joined the project panel, who contributed their time and energy to participate in the initial interviews or subsequent workshop. These included Kristen Keener Busby from Arizona; Austin Hicks, Mahmoud Mahdavi, and Vahid Nowshiravan from California; Robert Romig from Florida; Tom McQueen from Georgia; Steve Massey and Susan Stitt from Illinois; Clinton Bench, Ned Codd, and Jeffrey Mullan from Massachusetts; Niles Annelin, Denise Jackson, and Polly Kent from Michigan; Jean Wallace from Minnesota; Jackie Duckworth and Melinda McGrath from Mississippi; James Barna and Jennifer Townley from Ohio; Barbara Fraser from Oregon; Natasha Fackler and Toby Fauver from Pennsylvania; James Bass from Texas; Todd Harrison, Kathy Leotta, Brian Smith, Seth Stark, and Megan White from Washington; Eric Crawford, Robert Pennington, Tim Sedosky, and Rob Watson from West Virginia; and John Davis, Martin Kidner, and Mark Wingate from Wyoming.