Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 4: Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies (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.

159 159 Demographic Factors (population size, characteristics, and magnitude) 163 Economic Growth and Public-Sector Spending on Transportation 170 Energy (includes transportation energy uses and fuel prices) 172 Climate Change, Environment, and Resource Use 174 Transportation Technology 177 Land Use 178 Future Transportation System Funding, Operation, and Control 184 References Demographic Factors (population size, characteristics, and magnitude) This driver involves the size, distribution, and characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and ethnicity) of the U.S. population. Significance The size, geographic distribution, and characteristics of the U.S. population are likely to be a major factor influencing the resources available to state transportation agencies, transportation demand, and the opportunities and challenges facing state transportation agencies. Trends The U.S. Bureau of the Census provides detailed projections of the U.S. population between 2000 and 2050. Figure A-1 shows the overall projection. As shown in the figure, the U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that the U.S. population will increase from approximately 282 million in 2000 to approximately 419 million in 2050. With the population currently estimated to be 308 million in 2010, this means that approximately 111 million people will be added between 2010 and 2050. These population projections were made using the cohort-component method, which makes assumptions about the components of population change (e.g., fertility, mortality, international migration) to project population by age and sex [for a more detailed discussion of the cohort-component method and the assumptions about the components of population A P P E N D I X A Detailed Descriptions of Drivers

160 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies change, see U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000)]. The following describes these assumptions briefly: • Fertility assumptions: The fertility assumptions use a total fertility rate (average number of lifetime births per 1,000 women implied by age-specific fertility rates) of 2,048 in 1999; 2,207 in 2025; and 2,219 in 2050 [Note: Fertility increases largely as a result of immigration, because immigrants tend to be younger and have larger families; U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000)]. • Mortality assumptions: The mortality values assume that average life expectancy at birth will increase gradually from the 1999 values of 74.1 years for the male population and 79.8 years for the female population to the 2050 values of 81.2 years for the male population and 86.7 years for the female population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). • Migration assumptions: The basic international migration assumptions made by the U.S. Bureau of the Census include assumptions about levels of immigration (both legal and illegal) of foreigners to the United States and about rates of emigration from the United States. Annual net immigration (i.e., immigration minus emigration) is estimated to be 996,000 in 2025 and 1,097,000 in 2050. In terms of the age distribution of the population, the U.S. Bureau of the Census predicts that the population will age over the period 2000 to 2050. As Figure A-2 and Table A-1 show, the population over 60 is expected to increase from 16 percent to 26 percent between 2000 and 2050. A major uncertainty in these population estimates is the distribution of population within the United States. The following section discusses this issue. Distribution of Population within the United States In terms of the distribution of population throughout the United States, there are a number of alternative scenarios. One of the most common assumptions about the distribution of the future population is the so-called “megaregion” model. Under this model, analysts note that if current economic and population trends continue, by 2050, more than 80 percent of the nation’s popula- tion, economic activity, and jobs will be centered in megaregions (Regional Plan Association, 2006). Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). 50,000 100,000 - 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Th ou sa nd s US Populaon Figure A-1. U.S. Bureau of the Census population projections, 2000–2050.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 161 A megaregion is a geographically clustered network of cities and suburban areas that are brought together via shared infrastructure, economic interests, settlement and land use patterns, and a common environmental, geographical, and topographical focus (Regional Plan Association, 2006). Megaregions are not megacities (i.e., a city with a population of greater than 10 million) or single, uninterrupted urban areas (Anonymous, 2006). In fact, a megaregion may contain a num- ber of cities and a mixture of different land uses (e.g., densely populated urban centers, suburban sprawl, exurban communities, small towns, and even rural areas). As an example, the northeast megaregion normally extends from Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C., or Richmond, Virginia. Within that region, there are many cities, towns, suburbs, and rural areas, but they can be considered a single region because they rely on key elements of common infrastructure and economic interests. In this case, the I-95 corridor, parallel rail networks, the electricity grid, and trade flows between the cities and towns tightly connect the people and environment of this megaregion. The existence of megaregions in some of the scenarios in this report does not mean that cities and regions not included in the megaregions will decline or cease to exist. In all of the developed scenarios for the future, megaregions are not expected to “take” more population from other parts of the United States, but, as magnets for trade and economic growth, they are likely to become richer and more interconnected at a faster rate than other areas. These ideas are consistent with the literature, which predicts that numerous cities and small towns outside the megaregions will continue to grow and maintain vibrant economies. There is dispute about the number and location of megaregions in the United States. Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute and the Regional Plan Association conducted the most well-known efforts to describe and define the megaregions using slightly different 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Less than 20 20 to 39 40 to 59 Greater than 60 Figure A-2. U.S. Bureau of the Census population projections—age structure. Year Proportion of Population in Age Cohort <20 20–39 40–59 >60 2010 29% 29% 26% 16% 2050 26% 25% 23% 26% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). Table A-1. Proportion of population in different age cohorts, 2000 and 2050.

162 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies methods (Regional Plan Association, 2006). Figure A-3 shows the megaregions identified by the Regional Plan Association; Figure A-4 shows megaregions identified by the Metropolitan Institute. As can be seen, there is a close correspondence between the megaregions identified by the two groups. A potential counter trend is that technology advances and sociocultural preference may lead to greater decentralization (Kotkin, 2010). Under this scenario, population growth will occur in small towns, suburbs, and secondary cities outside the megaregions. This scenario notes specifically that despite recent increases in central city population over the past 20 years, most of the growth in the United States has been in the suburbs that surround the growing cities of the South and West—in places that followed the Los Angeles sprawl model of urban planning, such as Houston, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona. Similarly, rural areas and small towns will continue to grow as technology allows people greater freedom in deciding where they live. Given that Americans have consistently shown a preference for single-family homes, ample yard space, and the suburban lifestyle (i.e., people seeking a more family-friendly environment with less congestion and crime than in inner cities, lower property prices, and decentralization of economic life), if technology and the economy allow people the freedom to continue this behavior, they likely will. In addition, the demand for biofuels, as well as for solar and wind energy, will make rural areas economically viable, presenting new opportunities for economic development outside the megaregions. Source: Regional Plan Association (2008). Figure A-3. Megaregions in 2050 as identified by the Regional Plan Association.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 163 Using these two scenarios, the research team identified two potential paths forward for the United States: • Megaregion Future: Population and economic activity continue to concentrate in mega­ regions that are bound together with increasing infrastructure and economic ties. • Decentralized Future: Population is distributed more evenly across the nation, with a revival in suburbs, small towns, and medium­size cities as technology allows people to live and work where they want. Combining these ideas with our projections of population growth, the research team created a matrix that shows different potential outcomes of different population growth and distribution trends (Table A­2) and describes how each potential outcome might look and the factors related to that outcome. Economic Growth and Public-Sector Spending on Transportation This driver involves the future patterns of economic growth (e.g., GDP, inflation, investment, employment, income growth) and public­sector spending (e.g., federal, state, and local) on transportation. Significance The broad increase in U.S. GDP is generally considered to be a major determinant of the resources that will be available to address the major challenges that federal, state, and local trans­ portation agencies will face between 2010 and 2050. Based on the record of the last century, rapid economic growth has transformed American society and culture, and radically defined its ability to address major societal challenges (Lindsey, 2007). Cascadia Southland Valley of the Sun I-35 Corridor Gulf Coast Peninsula Piedmont NortheastMidwestNorCal Source: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011). Figure A-4. Megaregions in 2050 as identified by the Metropolitan Institute.

164 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Other TRB reports relevant to this driver This section provides an overview of economic issues. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 1: Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Invest- ment provides a detailed discussion of economic issues as they affect freight, including potential broad economic changes and freight and transportation energy scenarios. At the time of this writing, these scenarios were not available to the research team. Readers should note that this section focuses on general economic trends as they affect the challenges and opportunities that state transportation agencies may face, rather than freight-specific changes. Size of Population by 2050* Population Distribution Megaregions Decentralized Low (399 million) Low economic growth in the United States relative to other countries leads to lower net migration. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Population continues to follow current spatial distribution tendencies, with population concentrated in megaregions. Low economic growth in the United States relative to other countries leads to lower net migration. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Technology allows increased freedom for individuals to live and work where they wish, leading to rapid decentralization and growth in small towns, smaller cities, and suburbs. Increased investment in rural industries (e.g., biofuels, extractive industries) leads to increased growth in rural areas. Medium (419 million) Economic growth continues along anticipated lines, causing net migration to follow anticipated patterns. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Population continues to follow current tendencies with population concentrated in megaregions. Economic growth continues along anticipated lines causing net migration to follow anticipated patterns. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Technology allows increased freedom for individuals to live and work where they wish, leading to rapid decentralization and growth in small towns, smaller cities, and suburbs. Increased investment in rural industries (e.g., biofuels, extractive industries) leads to increased growth in rural areas. High (458 million) Better-than-expected economic growth causes increases in net migration. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Population continues to follow current tendencies with population concentrated in megaregions. Better-than-expected economic growth causes increases in net migration. Fertility and mortality patterns follow expected trends. Technology allows increased freedom for individuals to live and work where they wish, leading to rapid decentralization and growth in small towns, smaller cities, and suburbs. Increased investment in rural industries (e.g., biofuels, extractive industries) leads to increased growth in rural areas. * Population estimates are from U.S. Bureau of the Census (n.d.). Table A-2. Potential outcomes related to population.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 165 Trends Based on historical growth in U.S. GDP over the past century and half, the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of more than 3 percent per year (Ridely, 2010). The consistent and robust strength of this trend gives the United States a reasonable starting point for future economic growth predictions. To create a picture of what future economic growth might look like, the research team used the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Energy Model- ing System (NEMS) to develop a series of economic scenarios. The team used NEMS because it made possible the combining of economic projections with energy supply/demand scenarios. The NEMS Macroeconomic Activity Module (MAM) considers a series of macroeconomic indi- cators, including GDP, disposable income, value of industrial shipments, new housing starts, sales of new light-duty vehicles, interest rates, and employment. Key energy indicators fed back to the MAM include aggregate energy prices and costs. Using NEMS, the DOE created a series of different economic growth cases that can act as a benchmark for developing different future economic performance scenarios: • High-growth case: Under this case, high growth rates for population (1.3 percent per year, compatible with the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s “high-population” estimate) and labor pro- ductivity (2.4 percent per year, representing a relatively rapid improvement in technology) result in higher nonfarm employment (1.2 percent per year) and low unemployment. With higher productivity gains and employment growth, inflation and interest rates remain low, and consequently economic output grows at a higher rate than in the reference case (2.4 per- cent). Disposable income per capita increases by 1.82 percent per year. Figure A-5 shows this case along with the moderate- and low-growth cases. • Moderate-growth case: This case builds projections from current anticipated economic conditions (compatible with the most recent U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office forecasts) that include the current recession and the prospects for a return to normal economic growth in the middle of the current decade. Under this case, nonfarm employment increases by 0.8 percent per year, and labor productivity by 2.0 percent per year. Economic output, as measured by real GDP, increases by 2.4 percent per year, and growth in real disposable income per capita averages 1.8 percent per year (see Figure A-5). Figure A-5. High, low, and medium economic growth case from NEMS. $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 2007 2017 2027 2037 2047 Bi lli on s o f 20 00 D ol la rs Moderate Growth Case Low Growth Case High Growth Case

166 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies • Low-growth case: The low economic growth rate case expresses a noncrisis scenario with overall depressed growth. This case assumes lower growth rates for popula - tion (compatible with low estimates from U.S. Bureau of the Census projections) and labor productivity (1.5 percent per year, representing a relatively slow improvement in technology), resulting in lower nonfarm employment (0.4 percent per year), higher prices and interest rates, and lower growth in industrial output. In the low economic growth case, economic output, as measured by real GDP, increases by 1.8 percent per year, and growth in real disposable income per capita averages 1.7 percent per year (see Figure A-5). These projections are by no means the only visions of future GDP. There is a broad body of literature that presents both more optimistic and more pessimistic scenarios. At the nega- tive extreme, numerous scenarios predict a future of ongoing depression or economic collapse (Levine, 2008). Specifically, resource exhaustion (e.g., peak oil), increasing environmental pres- sures, and/or failure to deal with long-term economic and social problems may lead to lower than expected growth and recurrent recessions. However, there is little hard analysis of the impact of these drivers. The analysis that does exist depends on numerous assumptions. For example, the Stern Report, developed by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern and undertaken on behalf of the United Kingdom (UK) government, estimates the cost of climate change could range from 5 percent to 20 percent of global GDP by 2050; however, stabilization at 500 to 550 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e, a mea- sure of the contribution of six key GHGs) will cost the global community approximately 1 percent of GDP by 2050 (Stern, 2006). More recent analyses of the impact of geography and population distribution have estimated it to be on the order of 1.7 percent to 3 percent of GDP by 2050 (Nordhaus, 2006). These analyses, however, consider only one major crisis— the impact of climate change. For example, one analysis of the impact of a peak oil reduction of 30 percent between 2006 and 2050 predicts an 11 percent decline in U.S. per capita GDP (Chefurka, 2007). All these analyses differ in terms of their methodology, assumptions, and drivers; how- ever, to include a credible worst case, the research team plotted a series of potential out- comes and then averaged these scenarios to create a worst-case outcome (approximately 8 percent). For comparison, at the depth of the current recession, GDP fell by 6.1 percent. This outcome suggests a decade-long economic recession in which every year is worse than the previous year. It should be stressed that a trend of this magnitude has never been seen in any developed country. Even depressions in emerging economies rarely experience long-term GDP declines, and they rarely last longer than 10 to 20 years. More typically, emerging economies experience rapid cycles of booms and busts (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2007). Thus, despite the widespread negative and pessimistic literature, the worst-case outcome here is unprecedented; nothing in U.S. history or the broader history of the industrialized world is remotely like this outcome. Figure A-6 presents these projections. As shown, these projections show an initial decline as the United States continues to experience effects from the financial crisis of 2008, and then a return to growth, which is subsequently interrupted by a range of challenges, from climate change to resource shortages. Alternatively, there are other visions where economic growth increases dramatically. For example, current world economic growth has created a situation in which world wealth

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 167 (adjusted for inflation) doubles every 15 years (Hanson, 2008). Given current trends in tech- nology (e.g., developments in artificial intelligence, computer processing speed, nanotech- nology, robotics, biotechnology, and automation); some futurists predict that society is on the verge of a great jump forward or rapid acceleration in economic growth (analogous to the Industrial or even the Agricultural Revolutions). This phenomenon, known in the literature as “the singularity,” predicts an increase in technology-driven economic growth such that world wealth would double every 5 years—or possibly every 2 weeks. Although it is possible that such phenomena could occur, it is not included in the outcome analysis because the various expert reviews the team conducted considered them too extreme and impractical for the analysis. GDP and personal income are only one measure of the resources that will be available to state transportation agencies. Another measure is the level of resources that will be devoted to public-sector activities, including transportation. Figure A-7 summarizes federal, state, and local spending on transportation between 1960 and 2015 (projected) in nominal dol- lars and as a percentage of GDP (Note: total figures include statutory federal transfers such as Medicare and Social Security). Table A-3 summarizes the percentage of GDP for each level of government invested in transportation between 1960 and 2015. As shown, despite numerous fluctuations, the proportion of U.S. GDP invested in transportation has remained relatively stable at 1.95 percent (never more than 2.4 percent; never less than 1.67 percent). Given the long-term nature of this trend and assuming that transportation remains in the same position relative to other public-sector priorities, it is likely that this trend will continue $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Bi lli on s o f 2 00 8 Do lla rs Annualized 1 percent reduction in GDP starting in 2020 from "low" projected growth in 2050 Annualized 3 percent reduction in GDP starting in 2020 from "low" projected growth in 2050 Annualized 11 percent reduction in GDP starting in 2020 from "low" projected growth in 2050 Annualized 20 percent reduction in GDP starting in 2020 from "low" projected growth in 2050 Average annualized reduction in GDP starting in 2020 from "low" projected growth in 2050 Figure A-6. Worst-case GDP outcomes.

168 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies into the future. Appendix B provides detailed backup data and assumptions related to this analysis. Several experts on the research team interviewed for the project suggested that past trends for federal, state, and local transportation spending are not useful predictors of future spending patterns. Specifically, they cited that a shift to user fees and congestion pric- ing mechanisms would transform the funding positions for state and local governments. This assumes that there will be public and political support for a shift to user fees. It is possible that this may occur; however, it is equally possible that public resistance to user fees and congestion pricing may prevent a shift to this form of transportation funding. It is also possible that user fees and congestion pricing will only offset the losses experienced by federal and state governments in collecting gas taxes from increasingly more fuel-efficient vehicles. Based on this analysis, the research team identified potential outcomes and trends for the period 2010 to 2050, as shown in Table A-4. Level of Government Percentage of GDP Federal Government 0.62% State Government 0.84% Local Government 0.84% Total (removes federal transfers to state and local governments) 1.95% Table A-3. Average percentage of GDP invested in transportation by all levels of government, 1960 to 2015 (estimated). Figure A-7. Transportation spending from federal, state, and local governments, 1960 to 2015 (estimated). 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Pe rc en ta ge o fU ni te d St at es G DP Federal Spending State Spending Local Spending Total Spending (less transfers) Source: Bloomberggovernment.com

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 169 Potential Outcome Growth of GDP Spending on Transportation User Fees and Congestion Pricing Public Accepts Public Rejects Economic Decline Case After 2020, GDP falls by 8% over the next 30 years. Spending on transportation for federal, state, and local governments stays at the historic average, with the federal government gradually reducing its role over time. Public and political acceptance of user fees and congestion pricing leads to a system where funding gaps are filled by user fees. Public and political rejection of user fees and congestion pricing prevents the emergence of a system where user fees cover funding gaps. Low-Growth Case Economic output, as measured by real GDP, increases by 1.8% per year. Note: 1.8% is an average from the entire period. This means that there might be rapid growth in one period that will be lost in later periods. Spending on transportation for federal, state, and local governments stays at the historic average, with the federal government gradually reducing its role over time. Public and political acceptance of user fees and congestion pricing leads to a system where funding gaps are filled by user fees. Public and political rejection of user fees and congestion pricing prevents the emergence of a system where user fees cover funding gaps. Moderate- Growth Case Economic output, as measured by real GDP, increases by 2.4% per year. Spending on transportation for federal, state, and local governments stays at the historic average. Public and political acceptance of user fees and congestion pricing leads to a system where funding gaps are filled by user fees. Public and political rejection of user fees and congestion pricing prevents the emergence of a system where user fees cover funding gaps. High-Growth Case Economic output increases by an average of 3.8% per year. Spending on transportation for federal, state, and local governments stays at the historic average. Public and political acceptance of user fees and congestion pricing leads to a system where funding gaps are filled by user fees. Public and political rejection of user fees and congestion pricing prevents the emergence of a system where user fees cover funding gaps. Table A-4. Potential economic growth and transportation spending outcomes, 2010 to 2050.

170 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Energy (includes transportation energy uses and fuel prices) This driver involves the future patterns of energy use and future transportation fuel prices. Significance The availability of traditional and new fuels is believed to be one of the most important factors in the future viability of the U.S. economy and the options open to U.S. transportation planners (Spiegel et al., 2009; Paul, 2009). The Energy Information Administration (EIA), every year, uses the NEMS to produce a series of forecasts of energy use to the year 2035. These outcomes seem relatively conservative, but they pres- ent a dramatic range. The research team extended these forecasts out to 2050 using NEMS and modified them based on interviews with SMEs and several SME panels. Based on these trends, the team identified a series of outcomes that represent different levels of GDP, population, technology development, and energy choices and assumptions concerning the energy market. The research team used these parameters to develop low, medium, and high outcomes. Appendix C shows the data behind each outcome in detail (i.e., production, import, export, and fuel usage) for the period 2010 to 2050 [see U.S. Energy Infor- mation Administration (2010) for a full discussion of the assumptions in this section]. In addition, the research team used NEMS to develop an additional set of outcomes based on: • Low versus high technology growth (technology assessments are consistent with those based on preliminary information from a draft of NCHRP Report 750, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future) • Low versus high oil-price growth. NEMS produced the following estimates of future oil prices given the research team’s GDP scenarios and DOE assumptions about future oil availability: • Moderate-Growth Case: Assumes world light, sweet crude oil prices are about $133 per barrel (2008 dollars) in 2035. • High Oil-Price Case: More pessimistic assumptions for economic access to non-OPEC resources and for OPEC behavior. Under this case, world light, sweet crude oil prices are about $210 per barrel (2008 dollars) in 2035. • Low Oil-Price Case: More optimistic assumptions for economic access to non-OPEC resources and for OPEC behavior. Under this case, world light, sweet crude oil prices are $51 per barrel in 2035 (2008 dollars). Figure A-8 combines all cases to show the different range of gas prices per gallon under these different outcomes [gasoline prices per gallon were calculated by the research team using the methodology described in Hamilton (2007)]. The high and low technology-growth fuel-use patterns closely resembled those generated in the high and low GDP-growth patterns. Economic growth appears to be a more important determinant of energy use than technology. Thus, only the different GDP cases and oil-price cases are shown in Figure A-8 to reduce confusion. As shown, depending on the assumptions made, predicted gasoline prices per gallon in 2050 vary from $1.89 (low oil price) to $9.23 (high oil price) in 2008 dollars. Note: These prices assume a tax structure similar to that of today. Booz Allen SMEs and external academics reviewed these trends and projections. Based on their inputs, Table A-5 was created to show a number of plausible energy outcomes related to the transportation sector and energy price projections. Other TRB reports relevant to this driver This section provides an overview of energy issues. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future provides a detailed discussion of energy issues, including potential transportation energy scenarios. At the time of this writing, these scenarios were not available to the research team. As a result, the team developed independent energy outcomes that are based on more general energy and transportation information. Readers should note that this section focuses on general energy trends rather than on a detailed analysis of transportation energy scenarios.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 171 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Moderate GDP Growth Case $2.82 $4.28 $4.89 $5.76 $6.77 High GDP Growth Case $2.82 $4.42 $5.14 $6.05 $7.12 Low GDP Growth Case $2.82 $4.17 $4.77 $5.41 $6.05 High Oil Price Case $2.82 $7.60 $8.38 $8.82 $9.23 Low Oil Price Case $2.82 $1.88 $1.87 $1.88 $1.89 $- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 (2008 Dollars, assumes 2008 Tax Mix) Figure A-8. Projected price per gallon of gasoline for various GDP cases and oil–price cases. Table A-5. Potential transportation energy usage and energy price outcomes, 2010 to 2050. Potential Outcomes Energy Usage Fuel Price (using price of gasoline as indicator) Low Growth Gasoline prices are somewhat depressed, but world demand continues to push them to more than $6 per gallon. Moderate Growth Gasoline prices close to $7 per gallon. High Growth Gasoline prices close to $7 per gallon. High Oil Price Gasoline prices close to $9 per gallon. Petroleum and other carbon fuel remain the most important sources of fuel. Alternative fuels account for less than 16 percent of the transportation market. Electricity is a major energy source for surface transportation, but most still comes from coal and related fuels. Petroleum and other carbon fuel remain important sources of fuel, but alternative fuels account for 18 percent of the trans- portation market. Electricity is a major energy source for surface transportation. Some electricity still comes from clean coal and noncarbon sources. Petroleum and other carbon fuel remain important sources of fuel, but alternative fuels account for 20 percent of the trans- portation market. Electricity is a major energy source for surface transportation. Most electricity comes from clean coal and noncarbon sources. Petroleum and other carbon fuel remain the most important sources of fuel. Alternative fuels account for 20 percent of the transportation market. Electricity is a major energy source for surface transportation, and some comes from clean coal and noncarbon sources.

172 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Significance Climate change, environmental change, and resource availability are critical determinants of the ability of the economy to grow and flourish in the 21st century. In particular, the state of the environment will be a critical determinant of the challenges and opportunities that state transportation agencies face in supporting a sustainable transportation system and a sustainable society (Matsushita and Helten, 2001). These are serious challenges, but from the point of view of this project they are important only in the degree to which they might affect the ability of state transportation agencies to support sustainable transportation and a sustainable society. Based on the research team’s analysis of the literature, most of these challenges have relatively limited direct impacts, but substantial indirect impacts, on transportation and state transportation agencies. For example, climate change directly affects transportation systems in a number of ways (see NCHRP Report 750, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System). Transportation also affects the environment, which in turn places additional demands on society’s ability to manage and respond to transportation requirements. Figure A-9 provides an overview of this relationship. Thus, while there are numerous environmental challenges, the research team focused on the environmental challenges and trends that are most likely to affect state transportation agencies’ ability to support a sustainable society. Trends The literature on environmental trends in the first half of the 21st century is wide and extremely diverse. The research team reviewed hundreds of books, reports, blogs, and articles that address this issue. On the basis of this literature review, the research team determined that views about the future of the environment and resources vary along two dimensions: management/planning and overall environmental outlook (see Figure A-10). • Environmental Outlook: Futurist, scientific, and technical literature vary in their orientation toward the speed and extent of environmental change in the first half of the 21st century: – Positive: One view is that environmental conditions have been improving since the 1950s, as societies have become richer and technologically better able to deal with environmental Other TRB reports relevant to this driver This section provides an overview of climate change issues. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System provides a detailed discussion of climate change issues. At the time of this writ- ing, the scenarios developed as part of this project leading to the report were not available to the research team. This driver addresses broader environmental and resource use changes. Readers should note that this section focuses on gen- eral environmental and resource use trends rather than on a detailed analysis of transportation and climate change. Climate Change, Environment, and Resource Use Description This driver involves future changes in the environment, specifically, climate change, impact of commerce and industry, related phenomena, other environmental changes, and resource availability and resource use.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 173 Environment Transportation Activities Impacts Environment Economy Society Responses Organization Behavior Innovation Policy Environmental Challenges Economy Society Stresses Challenges, Opportunities Figure A-9. Relationship between transportation systems and the environment. KEY CONCEPT: Managed change leads to environmental improvement KEY CONCEPT: Radical reorganization saves the planet KEY CONCEPT: Managed change is being threatened by rapid environmental change and resource depletion KEY CONCEPT: Environmental change and resource depletion will push society to collapse without radical reorganization Managed Response Environmental and resource challenges can be managed Radical Reorganization Environmental and resource challenges require radical social/economic reorganization Positive Outlook Positive future outlook on environment and resource availability – gradual changes Negative Outlook Negative future outlook on environment and resource availability – rapid changes Figure A-10. The environmental management quadrant: dimensions of environmental and resource change in futurist environmental/ resource and scientific and technical literature.

174 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies problems. Based on this view, and what proponents claim to be scientific consensus, it is argued that environmental and resource change will be relatively gradual in the first half of the 21st century and that a variety of market, technological, and regulatory responses will be able to manage these changes successfully. – Negative: A more radical view is that the current scientific consensus underestimates the speed and magnitude of change and that increasing resource shortages (e.g., water, oil, rare metals, and soil depletion), rapid environmental change, and a worsening environment in most areas will characterize the first half of the 21st century [for an example of this view, see Hansen (2010); McKibben (2010)]. • Management/Planning: A second dimension addresses the degree to which current institutions (i.e., political, economic, and social) are able to adapt and address these changes: – Managed response: One view holds that the current political, economic, and social system will be able to manage environmental and resource availability changes. Some analysts believe that climate change will be dramatic and more rapid than is currently foreseen and that the current system will be sorely tested; however, these analysts believe that the current institutional and economic system will be able to meet the challenges posed by the environment and resource usage in the next few decades. Typically, these analysts envision that an emerging environmental or resource crisis will lead to a technological or socio- cultural response that will generate a new consensus and new tools within current political and social institutions to deal with environmental problems over the second half of the 21st century, as change eventually overwhelms the current system [for an overview of these challenges, see Nature Editorial Staff (2009)]. – Radical reorganization: A more radical view holds that only a radical reorganization of society and the economy around sustainability and environmental protection can stave off collapse [for an example of this view, see Martenson (2011), Jackson (2009)]. In some cases, this change occurs only after environmental and resource crises have demonstrated that the current system can no longer manage global change; in other cases, change occurs before the crisis and heads off the crisis (Kahn, 2010). Using this framework, the research team developed a series of alternative possible outcomes for use in developing scenarios. Table A-6 shows these outcomes. Transportation Technology This driver involves potential technical developments in vehicle-based communications, vehicle materials, power systems, and infrastructure. Significance The development and adoption of transportation technologies will affect travelers’ mobility options and the fuels needed to power these options. Trends Transportation technologies of the future likely will vary substantially from what is available currently. The team expects to see changes in communications and information technologies that affect vehicles and how they interact with infrastructure, changes in materials that affect vehicles and infrastructure, potential changes in both fuels and in engines that use a variety of fuels, and changes in the infrastructure itself.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 175 Information and communications technologies may affect how drivers and passengers interact with vehicles and how vehicles interact with each other and the infrastructure itself. Drivers are already familiar with in-vehicle systems such as OnStar and Sync, which provide drivers with information about their vehicles and with access to vehicle diagnostics and entertain- ment systems. Many vehicle technologies increase safety by alerting drivers to local obstacles. The U.S. DOT is performing research related to connected vehicle systems that will allow vehicles to autonomously communicate with each other and with the infrastructure. Advances Future of the Environment and Resource Use Societal Response Managed Response Radical Reorganization Positive Vision of Environmental and Resource Use Trends Under this vision, environmental change is slow and manageable. Thus, while there will be significant stress from growing population and development, optimistic analysis of future environmental trends notes that most of these challenges are most likely to occur in developing countries. While these are serious challenges, optimistic analysts stress that efforts are already under way to address them and that, as these societies develop, they will follow a pattern similar to that of currently developed societies. Analysts who support this vision argue that while environmental challenges will continue to exist, the United States and other nations will be able to manage these challenges through a mixture of regulation and technological fixes. Under this vision, environmental challenges can be addressed only by radical social, economic, and institutional changes to create a more sustainable society. Typically, these analysts assume that a combination of technological (i.e., green technology) and social/cultural change will lead to a radical reorganization of society under sustainable principles. Analysts who support this vision frequently present a vision of far-reaching decentralization combined with urban centralization and a radical reorganization of the economy and technology toward environmentally benign goals. Negative Vision of Environmental and Resource Use Trends Under this vision, environmental change is rapid and threatens to overwhelm the ability of the current system to manage change. Challenges include stratospheric ozone layer depletion; uncontrolled land use changes; atmospheric aerosol pollution; chemical contamination of air, water, and soil by long-lasting chemical compounds; water shortages; disruption of the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles; loss of biodiversity; and climate change. Analysts who support this vision frequently also claim that environmental degradation will be combined with serious resource depletion (e.g., peak oil, water shortages) that will require substantial technology and regulatory changes for an effective response. Under this vision, environmental change is rapid and overwhelms the current system to manage change. In response, there is a partial collapse of the global system, leading to an increase in sub- national and international conflicts. In the United States, there are major environmental disasters (e.g., rapid, dramatic sea-level rise, prolonged droughts in the Southwest and Midwest) and limited social or economic collapse in some areas (e.g., region-wide emergencies caused by repeated hits within a single season of major hurricanes or superstorms in vulnerable locations). Typically, these visions also combine a view of dramatic environmental change with rapid resource depletion. Ultimately, these challenges can be addressed only via a radical reorganization of global society. In the absence of this reorganization, U.S. society may face a major collapse in the second part of the 21st century. Table A-6. Potential future outcomes of environmental trends, resource use, and societal response.

176 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Other TRB reports relevant to this driver This section provides an overview of transportation technology trends. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 3: Expediting Future Technologies for Enhancing Transportation System Performance provides a detailed discussion of transportation technology. At the time of this writing, the scenarios developed as part of the research project that led to NCHRP Report 750, Volume 3, were not available to the research team. Note: The discussion of this driver is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of the factors affecting transportation technology. Rather, it is intended to identify the major trends and issues that could be relevant to surface transportation technology over the next 30 to 40 years and the factors that may affect adoption of the technology. There is the potential for change in both vehicle and infrastructure materials. Vehicles may be made out of lightweight materials that provide both energy and safety benefits. There are already many different transportation vehicles that use a variety of transportation fuels. Different fuels (e.g., diesel, gas, electric, hybrid, E85, biofuel, fuel cell) require different types of engines. Cur- rent engines are likely to become more efficient, leading to more power with less fuel. The research suggests that pavements and other infrastructure facilities may be eventually made out of longer-lasting and potentially recyclable materials that will better withstand envi- ronmental and weather impacts. Some pavements will allow for better drainage, which should reduce the detrimental effects on ecosystems. Other advances could make the infrastructure “smarter”; transportation systems of the future may have automated guideways within cities and between cities. For example, there may be personal rapid transit vehicles on fixed guideways within cities that allow users to punch in des- tinations, analogous to global positioning system (GPS) devices in current vehicles. Eventually, the United States may eventually have automated highways that take control of vehicles to get travelers to the next cities. Technology over the next 40 years likely will vary according to both research and development (R&D) investment and technology adoption rates. Both technology development and technology adoption will need to occur before transportation technology has a large impact on the system: • Technology development: Many of the technologies envisioned today can be developed for the right price. Development in this case refers to both the feasibility and possibility of devel- oping a technology that can be implemented and the development of ways to manufacture the technology so that the price is attractive to users. • Technology adoption: Technology adoption occurs for a variety of reasons. In general, the technology must do something different and must be at a price that is reasonable. There may be other reasons to adopt technology, however, such as government mandates or environmental pressures. As described above, some technologies require public infrastructure to be used fully. In early adoption, only some locations will have available the infrastructure required by that technology. The research team also expects that most technologies will exhibit economies of scale; that is, as they become more widely adopted, they will be produced more cheaply. Figure A-11 provides an S-curve of technology adoption. in communication with the infrastructure (e.g., current electronic toll tags) could allow for toll payments and roadway user fees, in addition to obtaining data for traffic management systems.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 177 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe rc en ta ge o f A do p on COTS Only Technology has been developed but is not adopted by either individuals or systems Initial Adoption Limited network adoption (e.g., trial or pilot basis) <5% individual adoption Limited Adoption Expanding network adoption ~10% individual adoption Moderate Adoption Widespread network adoption ~50% individual adoption High Adoption Near universal network adoption >90% individual adoption Increasing Adoption of Technology Figure A-11. Technology adoption curve. Potential Outcome Vehicles Infrastructure Slow development, slow adoption Only limited adoption of new technologies. Cost of the new technology may be prohibitive to the average user. Only limited demonstrations of new technologies. Reliance on the private sector. Medium development, medium adoption Cost of new technologies may be large for the average person, resulting in uncertain benefits from limited adoption rates. Difficult chicken-and-egg problem between speed of development and adoption versus availability of public support to maximize use of the technology. Without fast adoption, new types of guideways (for personal rapid transit or high-speed rail) will be limited to only a few locations. Fast development, fast adoption Costs reduced by economies of scale and network effects, which increase adoption rates at accelerating rates. Government mandates or incentives may speed adoption. New types of vehicles require new guideways. Supported transportation facilities may change. Economies of scale or the recognition of potential network effects and positive spillovers may facilitate public funding for these changes. Table A-7. Potential outcomes related to transportation technology. Using this framework, the research team developed a series of alternative possible outcomes to be used to develop scenarios. Table A-7 shows these outcomes. Land Use Land use is the use and modification of land to support people’s activities. Significance In the past, geographical boundaries (e.g., rivers, mountains) and major transportation facili- ties helped dictate where people lived, worked, and obtained goods and services. Currently, land

178 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies use zoning and urban planning drive the uses of different tracts of land. If political situations change as expected across scenarios, the ability and role of government authorities to organize land use may differ between the future scenarios. Trends Land use is often closely tied to the sustainability of today’s current transportation systems. Building or widening a road provides more capacity in the short term, which results in access to more housing, work locations, or goods and services, resulting in a Catch-22 of additional vehicles that fill this increased capacity, thus increasing congestion once again. In many places in the United States, it is difficult to obtain land to build additional road/rail capacity, which in turn makes building additional capacity a cost-prohibitive and socially disruptive approach to ease congestion. It is relatively easy to agree that this cycle of building capacity, thereby inducing demand, and then responding to the increased capacity, is not sustainable. In response to the need and desire for work and housing to be co-located, there is a movement in the United States for Smart Growth sites or mixed-land-use areas where housing, work facilities, and retail stores are located close to each other. Such areas are intended to improve quality of life by reducing commute times and the time required to acquire goods and services, such as groceries and dry cleaning. Their intent is to attract people who want resources close by. Some experts predict that these mixed-land-use developments will continue to become more popular in the United States, as people seek alternatives to suburban sprawl and the long commutes to work locations. As described previously, some urban planning efforts in the United States designate zones and specific land uses for specific geographical areas. Such zoning practices have been used to keep incompatible land uses separated (such as separating areas of heavy industry from housing). They also have been used to preserve the character of neighborhoods or areas. For example, a housing development built under specific zoning requirements cannot include retail operations, such as a grocery store. Increasing the separation of land uses may no longer be ideal, and under some future circumstances, preserving zones and preventing mixed land uses may not be practical or desired. In extreme cases, people in the future may live in high-density complexes that provide housing, work options, goods, and services. High-density housing, such as the U.S. housing projects of the 1970s and today’s Singaporean apartments, allow for economies of scale in building materials, access to resources, and utilization of resources, such as electricity and sewage systems, for land uses that in the past, would have been separated by legal requirements. As in the previous discussions of drivers, note that land use practices of the future will be managed or unmanaged: • Managed: Like today, managed land use includes zones that separate activities, such as hous- ing and commercial space, and move toward mixed-use facilities. • Unmanaged: Some areas do not have zoning regulations that prescribe land uses. Devolution of government authority may lead to unmanaged land use. Table A-8 shows potential outcomes arrayed with the different land use options. Future Transportation System Funding, Operation, and Control This driver considers how future transportation systems will be organized and the role of the different players in the process.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 179 Significance How transportation will be different in various scenarios must be considered so that expected changes can be accommodated. Changes likely will affect mobility, safety, and the systems’ ability to be sustainable. Trends There is a large body of literature on future transportation patterns [for example, see Bingham (2001), Regional Plan Association (n.d.), World Energy Council (2007)]. The intent of this project is not to address these issues. Rather, this project focuses on understanding how these changes are likely to affect organizing principles for state and local transportation agencies. Having reviewed this literature, the research team identified three major factors related to state transportation agencies: • Funding: How will the transportation system of the future be funded? • Roles of private- and public-sector actors: What will be the mix of private and public respon- sibilities in the future transportation system? • Centralization and decentralization: How will responsibilities be distributed among different levels of government and, in particular, what will be the role of the federal government? Each of these factors is discussed in greater detail in the following sections: Funding A critical question for the future organizing principles of state transportation agencies is the source of funding available for transportation [see Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance (2007)]. Funding transportation has always been a challenge for state transportation agencies. In fact, funding U.S. surface transportation has been characterized as being in a state of “perpetual crisis” since the 1850s, where revenues have never been sufficient to meet needs and there is constant pressure to identify new funding sources [see Seely (2008)]. At present, it is clear that the current national and state gas taxes are not sufficient for maintaining current U.S. infrastructure, let alone for expansion or for new Potential Land Use Outcome Managed Unmanaged Suburban sprawl; low- density land use Land use zoning continues to separate agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial land functions. Without management, landowners use their land as they please. This may result in random placement of commercial opportunities or multifamily housing. Medium-density land use; some mixed-density areas Zoning is relaxed, which allows some mixed-density (Smart Growth) areas to arise. Residential and commercial development occurs near attractions (e.g., open space, transportation facilities). Development is largely market driven. High-density land use with mixed-density urban centers Lack of transportation resources (such as fuel for personal vehicles) or environmentally based decisions require mandates for high-density housing complexes. Ideally, these include commercial functions. Without management, some commercial and residential facilities may become isolated from others. The market is not able to support transportation needs. Table A-8. Potential outcomes related to land use.

180 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies infrastructure (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009; National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, 2007). According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission and the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, there is a gap between revenues from gas taxes and capital investment and roadway maintenance needs. Furthermore, vehi- cles are more gas efficient (a trend that is expected to continue, resulting in further decreases in revenue from that source). The federal gas tax has not changed since 1993, so with vehicle efficiencies increasing and buying power decreasing, less infrastructure can be built or main- tained. Both commissions suggest that sources in addition to gas taxes, such as direct user-based fees (e.g., toll revenues, congestion charges, vehicle miles traveled fees), are needed to better fill the gap. As resources devoted to transportation become more constrained (either through increased fuel costs or other crises or because a replacement funding mechanism is not identified), transportation agencies likely will have to make increasing tradeoffs in transportation. This leads to a number of questions, such as: Will they be able to maintain all roads and bridges or will they have to respond to traffic demands or roads and bridges in the worst condition? Will they be able to provide winter maintenance 24/7 or only during some time periods? Can structures be categorized deficient and their use restricted so that limited resources can go to other structures? Should an urban area maintain its freeways or invest more money into its arterials (Zhang and Xu, 2011). While public and government agencies will be making difficult decisions about what to maintain, private entities may become increasingly involved in transportation systems. For example, private companies may identify roadways that they think they can maintain or enhance using private sources (like tolls) and then offer to operate the roadways at a profit (this is happening in several locations in the United States, including the Indiana Toll Road, Texas State Highway 121, and the Capital Beltway High Occupancy Toll Lanes in Northern Virginia). Local communities also may seek private funding to rebuild roadways or bridges that have been labeled deficient. Roles of Private- and Public-Sector Actors The degree of private ownership of infrastructure will vitally affect the future organiz- ing principles for state transportation agencies. The public and private sectors have played different roles and have operated under a variety of different regulatory regimes in the U.S. transportation system. It is likely that there will be continuing change in the balance and responsibilities of the public and private sectors as different pressures and events continue to affect the development of the U.S. transportation system. In particular, difficulties in funding the extant public transportation may lead to greater pressures to share ownership and responsibilities for operations. For example, private entities may become willing operators of routes that have a greater chance of covering operating costs. There are privately operated car-sharing companies already, such as FlexCar and ZipCar [see Carsharing.net (n.d.) for examples]. More private companies may enter the markets to provide services, including mechanisms for ride shar- ing for commuters (e.g., the SLUG commuting system in Northern Virginia), people going on trips, older people needing rides to doctor’s offices, and so on. Privatized transit services may increase if current public transportation agencies are unable to sustain their services or if they cut some of their services in response to changes in public transportation funding or national crises.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 181 Centralization and Decentralization The degree of centralization and decentralization in the control of the transportation system will be vitally important to the future organizing principles of state transportation agencies. U.S. transportation policy in the 20th century was a story of increasing federal involvement in transportation (Dilger, 2003). Specifically, in the early 20th century, the fed- eral government expanded its role into the transportation policy system gradually. Beginning as a provider of expertise and knowledge (i.e., the period of “engineers as problem solvers”) in the early 20th century and gradually moving into a position of financing and building surface transportation systems in the Great Depression and the Interstate Era, the federal government became a major player and funder of the transportation system. Since the peak of its involvement in the 1940s, however, the federal role has declined (although there was federal involvement in urban transit in the 1960s and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act era) (see Figure A-12). In the future, the federal government will face conflicting pressures in terms of its involve- ment in transportation. On one hand, the pressure for greater sustainability, greater coordina- tion, and maintaining equity between rich and poor regions of the country suggest that the federal government should become more involved in transportation. On the other hand, the growing demands on the federal government from numerous competing national priorities (e.g., supporting an aging population, dealing with climate change, and addressing deficit and debt issues) and a lack of resources to address these major challenges may mean that the federal government must withdraw from many areas and focus on key issues where it plays a vital, irreplaceable role. 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% Federal Spending on Transportaon as a Percentage of GDP Source: Bloomberggoverment.com Figure A-12. Federal spending on transportation as a percentage of GDP, 1900 to 2015 (estimated).

182 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies In addition to uncertainty about the future of the federal role, there are similar uncertainties regarding the role of state governments. As with the federal government, state governments face several challenges, including, but not limited to, the following: • Resource-demand mismatch (i.e., increasing demands on state governments, but a lack of resources to meet those demands, especially in states with statutory balanced-budget requirements) • Increased requirements for regional planning, both within states for agencies such as Metropoli- tan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and among states (e.g., coordination within the Northeast Corridor) • Need to develop new financing mechanisms based on user fees • Growing requirements to integrate transportation planning into broader sustainability plan- ning and decisionmaking These challenges could lead to a number of responses. On one hand, state transportation agencies and state governments could reassert their role in the transportation system and become the dominant player, acting as a coordinator and manager of the system. On the other hand, state transportation agencies could cede some of the fiscal commitments associated with being heavily involved in transportation, giving some of their authority and responsibilities to sub-state authorities (e.g., MPOs) or supra-state authorities (e.g., megaregional planning authorities). Taking these two variables together, the research team created a few potential alternatives of the extent of centralized and decentralized planning and management (see Figure A-13). Taking all of these trends together, the research team created the following matrix which combines these options into a series of potential outcomes (see Table A-9). MPO and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management State transportation agencies dominate transportation planning and management MPOs and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management with strong federal cooperation Federal government dominates transportation planning and management devolving execution and oversight to the states No Federal Government Involvement in Transportation Federal Government Dominates Transportation Limited State Government Role, MPO and Supra- State Regional Planning State Government Dominates in Transportation Figure A-13. Future federal, state, local, and regional transportation planning and management roles.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 183 maintain. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline. ownership may lead to great discrepancies in available transportation —richer areas will have better facilities and services. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline or are transferred to private sector control. maintain. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with the federal government focusing on interregional transport. ownership may lead to great discrepancies in available transportation —richer areas will have better facilities and services. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with the federal government focusing on interregional transport in cooperation with privatized transportation organizations. maintain. State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems. ownership may lead to great discrepancies in available transportation— richer areas will have better facilities and services. State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems, with most systems jointly managed by state and private organizations. maintain. Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s, but with greater user fees. ownership may lead to great discrepancies in available transportation —richer areas will have better facilities and services. Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s, with substantial private roles. MPO and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management MPOs and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management with strong federal cooperation State transportation agencies dominate transportation planning and management Federal government dominates transportation planning and management devolving execution and oversight to the states Funding Mechanism Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited New Funding Mechanisms and Sources Some roadways and bridges will fall into disrepair. Limited public transportation options. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline. Without new funding mechanisms, only high- demand toll roads will be operated by private entities. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline. Some roadways and bridges will fall into disrepair. Limited public transportation options. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with federal government focusing on interregional transport. Without new funding mechanisms, only high- demand toll roads will be privatized. Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with the federal government focusing on interregional transport in cooperation with privatized transportation organizations. Some roadways and bridges will fall into disrepair. Limited public transportation options. State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems. Without new funding mechanisms, only high- demand toll roads will be privatized. State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems, with most systems jointly managed by state and private organizations. Some roadways and bridges will fall into disrepair. Limited public transportation options. Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s. Without new funding mechanisms, only high- demand toll roads will be privately operated. Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s, with substantial private roles. Some New Funding Mechanisms and Sources Agencies will have to make difficult tradeoffs on what to provide and Roads and transit may be operated and/or owned privately. Private Agencies will have to make difficult tradeoffs on what to provide and Roads and transit may be operated and/or owned privately. Private Agencies will have to make difficult tradeoffs on what to provide and Roads and transit may be operated and/or owned privately. Private Agencies will have to make difficult tradeoffs on what to provide and Roads and transit may be operated and/or owned privately. Private Table A-9. Potential outcomes related to future transportation impacts. (continued on next page)

184 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies MPO and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management MPOs and megaregional organizations dominate transportation planning and management with strong federal cooperation State transportation agencies dominate transportation planning and management Federal government dominates transportation planning and management devolving execution and oversight to the states Funding Mechanism Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Limited Private Role Significant Private Role Mechanisms and Sources (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs. Transportation systems outside megaregions and metropolitan areas decline or are transferred to private sector control. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with the federal government focusing on interregional transport. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Investment, management, and control focus on megaregions and MPOs, with the federal government focusing on interregional transport in cooperation with private transportation organizations. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). State transportation agencies oversee the planning and management of transportation systems, with most systems jointly managed by state and private organizations. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s, but with greater user fees. (greater transit frequency; more access and mobility). Management and planning systems resemble the 1950s and 1960s, with substantial private roles. Many New Funding Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Improved transportation Table A-9. (Continued). References Anonymous (2006). “How Big Can Cities Get?” New Scientist Magazine, June 17, p. 41. Bingham, E. (2001). Transportation Vision for 2050. In Remote Sensing for Transportation: Report of a Conference, December 4–5, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, pp. 9–10. Carsharing.net (n.d.). http://www.carsharing.net/. Accessed January 290, 2012. Chefurka, P. (2007). Energy Intensity and GDP in 2050. Planet Thoughts, December 16, http://www. planetthoughts.org/index.cfm?pg=pt/Whole&qid=1735. Accessed February 20, 2012. Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance (2007). Special Report 285: The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Dilger, J. (2003). American Transportation Policy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. (2007). Great Depressions of the Twentieth Century. (Kehoe, T. J. and Prescott, E. C., eds.), Minneapolis, Minn. Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011). Literature Review of Organizational Structures and Finance of Multi-jurisdictional Initiatives and the Implications for Megaregion Transportation Planning in the U.S. DTFH61-11-C-00003. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Hamilton, T. (2007). The Changing Relationship between the Price of Crude Oil and the Price at the Pump. Wash- ington, D.C.: Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Hansen, J. (2010). Storms of My Grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury USA. Hanson, R. (2008). Economics of the Singularity. IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 45–50. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Boca Raton, Fla.: EarthScan Books. Kahn, M. (2010). Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future. New York: Basic Books. Kotkin, J. (2010). The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. New York: Penguin. Levine, J. (2008). How Is America Going To End? The World’s Leading Futurologists Have Four Theories. Slate Magazine, August 3. Lindsey, B. (2007). The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America’s Politics and Culture. New York: HarperBusiness.

Detailed Descriptions of Drivers 185 Martenson, C. (2011). The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future of Our Economy, Energy, and Environment. New York: Wiley. Matsushita, K. and Helten, R. (2001). Environment in the 21st Century and New Development Patterns. New York: Springer. McKibben, B. (2010). Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. New York: Henry Holt and Company. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. (2009, February). Paying Our Way. Washington, D.C. http://financecommission.dot.gov/. National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission. (2007). Transportation for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C. http://www.transportationfortomorrow.com/final_report/pdf/final_report.pdf. Nature Editorial Staff. (2009). A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 472–475. Nordhaus, W. D. (2006). Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, No. 10, pp. 3510–3517. Paul, B. (2009). Future Energy: How the New Oil Industry Will Change People, Politics and Portfolios. New York: Wiley. Regional Plan Association. (n.d.). America 2050. http://www.america2050.org/. Regional Plan Association. (2006). America 2050: A Prospectus. New York. Regional Plan Association. (2008). Megaregions. America 2050. http://www.america2050.org/megaregions.html. Ridely, M. (2010). The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. New York: HarperCollins. Seely, B. (2008) American Transportation Policy: Patterns from the Past, Implications for the Present. http:// www.cts.umn.edu/events/luncheon/2008fall/index.htm. Spiegel, E., McArthur, N. and Norton, B. (2009). Energy Shift: Game-Changing Options for Fueling the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Pre-press publication. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100. Population Division Working Paper, No. 38, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census (n.d.). National Population Projections. http://www.census.gov/population/www/ projections/natproj.html. Last accessed February 16, 2012. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. World Energy Council. (2007). Transport Technologies and Policy Scenarios to 2050. London. Zhang, L. and Xu, W. (2011). No More Freeways: Urban Land Use Transportation Dynamics without Freeway Capacity Expansion. Salem, Ore.: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium.