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.

192 192 D.1 Findings 192 D.1.1 State Governments and State DOTs 215 D.1.2 Local Government and City Sustainability Programs 222 D.1.3 Federal Sustainability Programs 227 D.1.4 Sustainability and Sustainable Transportation Programs and Policies in Other Countries 231 D.1.5 Other Tool-Related Findings from the Research 233 D.2 Key Insights 235 References This appendix describes the data collection and analysis approach the research team took to characterize the current literature and stakeholder perceptions on sustainability and transporta- tion agencies. First, the team conducted a detailed literature review and state-of-the-practice scan on how transportation agencies in the United States and other countries deal with sustainability. The team also reviewed the literature on how the federal government (including specific federal government agencies) and the private sector deal with sustainability. Second, the team interviewed 54 practitioners to obtain their views on how transportation agencies are dealing with sustainabil- ity issues and the challenges of implementing sustainable policies. Appendix E lists the interview- ees. The team synthesized and integrated this information while identifying key insights, findings, and issues. D.1 Findings D.1.1 State Governments and State DOTs Understanding of Sustainability and the Role of Sustainability in State DOTs Awareness and understanding of sustainability have been increasing at all levels of government in the United States. For example, according to the FHWA, a little more than half of state DOTs include sustainability principles in their mission statements, as shown in Table D-1. Two use the word “sustainable,” while the rest mention the need to balance the economy, environment, and quality of life.D1 However, no state has a legislatively authorized sustainable transportation program. A P P E N D I X D Research and Data Collection D1 Data was collected from 2010 to 2011.

Research and Data Collection 193 DOT Mission Statement Alabama To provide a safe, efficient, environmentally sound intermodal transportation system for all users, especially the taxpayers of Alabama. To also facilitate economic and social development and prosperity through the efficient movement of people and goods and to facilitate intermodal connections within Alabama. Alabama DOT must also demand excellence in transportation and be involved in promoting adequate funding to promote and maintain Alabama’s transportation infrastructure. Arkansas It is our mission to provide and maintain a safe, effective, and environmentally sound transportation system for the state. Connecticut To provide a safe and efficient intermodal transportation network that improves the quality of life and promotes economic vitality for the state and the region. Delaware To provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation network that offers a variety of convenient and cost-effective choices for the movement of people and goods. Florida To provide a safe transportation system that ensures the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic prosperity, and preserves the quality of our environment and communities. Georgia To provide a safe, seamless, and sustainable transportation system that supports Georgia’s economy and is sensitive to its citizens and environment. Hawaii To provide a safe, efficient, accessible, and intermodal transportation system that ensures the mobility of people and goods, and enhances and/or preserves economic prosperity and the quality of life. Iowa Advocates and delivers transportation services that support the economic, environmental, and social vitality of Iowa. Illinois To provide safe, cost-effective transportation for Illinois in ways that enhance quality of life, promote economic prosperity, and demonstrate respect for our environment. Indiana Indiana DOT will plan, build, maintain, and operate a superior transportation system enhancing safety, mobility, and economic growth. Kentucky To provide a safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and fiscally responsible transportation system that delivers economic opportunity and enhances the quality of life in Kentucky. Louisiana To deliver transportation and public works systems that enhance quality of life and facilitate economic growth and recovery. Maine To responsibly provide a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system that supports economic opportunity and quality of life. Maryland To efficiently provide mobility for our customers through a safe, well-maintained, and attractive highway system that enhances Maryland’s communities, economy, and environment. Michigan To provide the highest quality integrated transportation services for economic benefit and improved quality of life. Mississippi To provide a safe intermodal transportation network that is planned, designed, constructed, and maintained in an effective, cost-efficient, and environmentally sensitive manner. Montana To serve the public by providing a transportation system and services that emphasize quality, safety, cost effectiveness, economic vitality, and sensitivity to the environment. Nebraska We provide and maintain, in cooperation with public and private organizations, a safe, efficient, affordable, environmentally compatible and coordinated statewide transportation system for the movement of people and goods. New Hampshire Transportation excellence in New Hampshire is fundamental to the state’s sustainable economic development and land use, enhancing the environment and preserving the unique character and quality of life. New Mexico The primary responsibility of the agency is to plan, build, and maintain a quality statewide transportation network that will serve the social and economic interests of our citizens in a productive, cost-effective, innovative manner. New York It is the mission of the New York State DOT to ensure our customers—those who live, work and travel in New York State—have a safe, efficient, balanced, and environmentally sound transportation system. Table D-1. State DOTs with sustainability mission statements.

194 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies To date, very few states have an active sustainability plan or program. As of 2010, five state DOTs had a formal sustainability plan or program, as shown in Table D-2. The data suggests that at the state level there is a growing adoption of sustainability terminology but limited implementation of TBL programs. The practitioner interviews support this observa- tion. For example, many interviewees supported the general principles of sustainability, but some were reluctant to use the term as they felt the term to be polarizing and controversial, especially in the current climate in which resources are stretched thin and state governments are focus- ing on economic growth and job creation. Furthermore, the ideology of free-market economics and limited government that often infuses public discourse today would make the concept of government-enforced sustainability—deemed by some as government control of economic activ- ity and freedom of choice—a difficult sell to state decisionmakers and the public. In addition, the conceptual complexity of the term and the challenge of developing consensus around an action- able definition hinder support for the concept. Many interviewees suggested that rather than emphasize the TBL, it is better to sell sustainability as “stewardship,” which embodies responsible planning for and management of resources over an intergenerational period (e.g., “we must pass the world on to our children”). Another insight was that sustainability was frequently interpreted as support for green or environmental programs. Data from the FHWA’s recent survey of state sustainability programs seem to support this insight. Table D-3 shows some examples of these programs. These initia- tives encompass a wide variety of issues, including purchasing a more energy-efficient vehicle fleet to developing GHG emissions budgets and climate action plans. DOT Mission Statement North Carolina Connecting people and places in North Carolina—safely and efficiently, with accountability and environmental sensitivity. Ohio Moving Ohio into a Prosperous New World. Its meaning encompasses the multimodal, safe, efficient and reliable character identified in our last business plan mission statement. At the same time, it incorporates the realization that safety, economic development, green, innovative and accessible characteristics are additional drivers needed to achieve the prosperity that will assure Ohio’s future competitiveness. Oregon To provide a safe, efficient transportation system that supports economic opportunity and livable communities for Oregonians. Rhode Island To maintain and provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally, aesthetically and culturally sensitive intermodal transportation network that offers a variety of convenient, cost-effective mobility opportunities for people and the movement of goods supporting economic development and improved quality of life. South Dakota We provide a quality transportation system to satisfy diverse mobility needs in a cost-effective manner, while retaining concern for safety and the environment. Tennessee To plan, implement, maintain, and manage an integrated transportation system for the movement of people and products, with emphasis on quality, safety, efficiency, and the environment. Vermont To provide for the movement of people and commerce in a safe, reliable, cost- effective, and environmentally responsible manner. Virginia To plan, deliver, operate, and maintain a transportation system that is safe, enables easy movement of people and goods, enhances the economy, and improves our quality of life. West Virginia To create and maintain for the people of West Virginia, the United States, and the world, a multimodal and intermodal transportation system that supports the safe, effective, and efficient movement of people, information, and goods that enhances the opportunity for people and communities to enjoy environmentally sensitive and economically sound development. Source: Adapted from stakeholder interviews and research (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Table D-1. (Continued).

Research and Data Collection 195 DOT Description District of Columbia The District of Columbia DOT developed a sustainability plan that reflects the TBL. The plan identifies eight priority areas for sustainability and establishes goals, actions, measures, and targets for each. California Pilot project with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create a sustainability assessment framework for transportation policy, planning, and programming; currently being tested for corridor analyses, but will be used to assess regional and state efforts, as well. Massachusetts Statewide sustainable development principles adopted to guide policies, programs, and infrastructure investment decisions; partnering to coordinate transportation service planning and delivery. New York Sustainability is pursued through a statewide program (Smart Planning Program) integrating land use and transportation planning, including the provision of training, educational materials, and hands-on planning assistance. In addition, the state DOT is implementing the Green Leadership in Transportation Environmental Sustainability (GreenLITES), a transportation environmental sustainability rating program. Oregon Three-volume plan that will outline goals, actions, and performance measures for internal actions and external system management to achieve a sustainable transportation system*: Volume 1 (defining sustainability) released in January 2009, Volume 2 (internal operations) released in Fall 2010, and Volume 3 (managing statewide transportation network) under review. Pennsylvania Partnering with other agencies, states, and local communities to make financially, environmentally, and socially sustainable decisions; includes a public education campaign and a handbook co-authored by New Jersey DOT. Washington Annual plan update and progress report on sustainability targets and emerging issues. * Includes integration of Least-Cost Planning as a component of the strategy. Source: Adapted from stakeholder interviews and research (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Table D-2. State sustainability transportation plans. DOT Description California Active climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in response to state legislation; includes GHG reduction strategies, sea-level rise assessment, and habitat-connectivity study. Delaware and Tennessee Statewide geographic information system (GIS) data used to identify environmental issues during the planning process; requires GIS data from multiple state, regional, and local agencies. Florida Process to anticipate environmental problems early on through partnership with resource agencies, public involvement, and GIS-based environmental assessment. Illinois Initiatives to improve agency’s internal sustainability (energy efficiency, emissions reduction, recycling) and be a model for local governments. Oregon Decisionmaking framework that combines context-sensitive design with sustainability principles. Conducts efforts to address climate change through both internal and external practices that address vehicle miles traveled and system efficiencies; formed a Climate Change Executive Group and Climate Change Technical Advisory Committee to establish priorities and guide Oregon Department of Transportation activities; recognize importance of land use planning and multimodal planning for mitigation. Pennsylvania Training program to educate employees on linkages and overlaps between planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to streamline both processes. Vermont Preventative measures to address impacts of air quality and climate change, including both mitigation and adaptation approaches; involves coordination with local governments, state agencies, and neighboring states. Source: Adapted from stakeholder interviews and research (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Table D-3. Sample “green” or “environmental” programs.

196 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies In particular, the growing emphasis on climate change has been a leading driver of state involvement in developing sustainability-related programs. For example, almost one-third of the state DOTs has some involvement with a climate change initiative. By 2011, more than 35 states had climate action plans and more than 10 had adaptation plans; state and regional transportation agencies typically contribute to those plans (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). From a sustainability point of view, these plans are important, because they inject new con- cepts into the intersection of transportation-environment planning and require a coordinated, multiagency, multijurisdictional approach to planning. In terms of the economic element of the TBL, state attention is focused heavily on develop- ing mechanisms to fund transportation infrastructure, rather than on the broader health of the economy. In this regard, several states are developing tools and processes to help assess the long- term financial sustainability of transportation assets, as shown in Table D-4. There has been much less progress in incorporating the social element of the TBL into sustain- ability initiatives. In large part, this is due to the difficulty in defining social sustainability or to a lack of appropriate data. Most DOTs have addressed this issue via environmental justice (EJ) and context-sensitive solutions (CSS) policies, although some states are attempting to move beyond this. In the interviews conducted by the research team, many practitioners felt that the TBL frame- work was inadequate and needed to be expanded to consider a broader definition of sustain- ability. In particular, the idea of fitting technology and technology impact assessment into the TBL (which is often addressed via the economic element of the TBL) was deemed important. Many practitioners saw technology as a critical driver that needed to be better understood and managed if true sustainability was to be achieved. Other issues that emerged in terms of the definition of sustainability were the issues of finan- cial or fiscal sustainability and the importance of system preservation. Under this concept, a budget proposal must consider additional dimensions: • Benefit and ROI—contribution of the proposal to the performance of the overall transportation system with acceptable ROI expectations. DOT Practice Description Illinois Program Menu Develops funding packages based on different emphases (e.g., system preservation or capacity for economic development) and uses iterative process to allocate all available funding and meet statewide transportation needs. Illinois Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) Process to assess present and future roadway condition and prioritize improvement projects; based on a facility’s cost over its lifetime rather than just the upfront capital costs. Montana Performance Programming Process (P3) Decision process for funding allocations based on asset management principles, scenario planning, and strategic goals. Montana Highway Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) Enhanced cost–benefit analysis tool for projects that accounts for system impacts at state, corridor, and project level; considers traditional mobility measures in addition to economic and resource impacts; tool is customizable to each state’s goals and data availability. Oregon Investment Scenarios Oregon Transportation Plan assesses seven policy scenarios and three investment scenarios to determine system performance outcomes of different levels/types of investment. Source: Adapted from stakeholder interviews and research (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Table D-4. Sample economic and financial sustainability tools and initiatives.

Research and Data Collection 197 • Solvency—the ability of the proposed project or investment to contribute to the overall ability of the government to meet long-term financial obligations. • Growth—the ability of the proposed project or investment to help sustain economic growth. • Stability—the capacity of the proposed project or investment to improve governments’ ability to meet future obligations within existing or projected tax burdens. • Intergenerational equity—the capacity of govern- ment to pay current obligations without shifting the cost to future generations. Some interviewees suggested emphasizing fiscal sustainability may be a way to make the whole con- cept of sustainability appealing to the larger com- munity of state and local government officials and general public. Fiscal sustainability requires a much broader understanding of the total costs and benefits of any public project. For example, if a road project imposes additional costs on other parts of the infra- structure or forces the state to incur additional costs (e.g., additional expenditures associated with nonat- tainment of clean air standards); those costs would be included in the overall cost–benefit analysis of the project. The project would then have to demonstrate sufficient benefits to the state to overcome the addi- tional cost. Furthermore, techniques such as Total Cost Accounting (TCA) would go a long way toward allowing state programs to consider long-term or intergenerational costs. One of the current leaders in integrating sustainability into its operations is the State of Ore- gon. Since 2000, Oregon’s governors and state legislature have mandated sustainability objec- tives for state agencies. In response, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has developed one of the most extensive sustainability plans in the United States. It includes both short-term goals and longer-term goals to be achieved by 2030 (Fordham, 2008). In addition, ODOT has gone far to institutionalize the concept of sustainability through the development of an integrated, strategic sustainability program. This program provides central oversight and coordination and is a resource to staff incorporating sustainability goals into their work. The program crosses all divisions and addresses both internal support functions and the external transportation system. Organizationally, ODOT’s sustainability program manager is located in the director’s office and reports to ODOT’s chief of staff. The manager has broad responsibility to analyze all aspects of the agency’s internal and external operations and to identify opportunities to integrate sus- tainability principles into agency decisionmaking, management, and operations. The manager is responsible for development and implementation of the Sustainability Plan. The organization of ODOT’s sustainability program is depicted in Figure D-1. The ODOT Sustainability Council, an internal group of managers appointed by ODOT’s director to represent a variety of functional areas and geographic locations, meets quarterly to Best Practice Example: Oregon’s Sustainability Mandates • Executive Order 00-07: Promoted sustainability in state government operations, primarily through the adop- tion of certain practices by the Department of Adminis- trative Services. • The Oregon Sustainability Act: Provides state agencies with 10 objectives for conducting their internal opera- tions and 10 objectives for carrying out their missions to support sustainable communities. Created the Oregon Sustainability Board to provide oversight to sustainability efforts in the state. • Executive Order 03-03: Broadens the scope of state agency sustainability planning efforts. It supported the Oregon Sustainability Act and directed 20 of Oregon’s larger agencies (including ODOT) to desig- nate a sustainability coordinator and write a sustain- ability plan. • Executive Order 06-02: Reaffirmed agency sustainabil- ity planning process and created several interagency teams to address specific sustainability initiatives, such as GHGs, purchasing, electronic waste, and energy. This executive order also addressed sustainability in the private sector and in Oregon’s university system. It reauthorized the Oregon Sustainability Board and rescinded earlier sustainability executive orders.

198 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies provide oversight to the plan and the program. This group approves and monitors sustainability work items and recommends policy and practice changes to the director. Conservation and Alternative Resource Teams (CARTs) act as office “green teams” for the agency, supporting the overall sustainability program by implementing on-the-ground initia- tives in ODOT facilities. CARTs educate employees about work-related efficiency efforts and promote voluntary participation in those efforts to create a culture of resource conservation awareness. Sustainability project teams are convened, as needed, to address specific sustainability projects and initiatives. These teams may be formal groups that meet regularly or informal collaborations of staff that meet only to address a particular need. Teams have worked on internal GHG emis- sions tracking, neighborhood electric vehicles, fleet use of biodiesel, vehicle emissions issues, and other initiatives. In addition, the Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative (OSTI) is a coordinated effort by Oregon state agencies to explore ways that the state, MPOs, and local communities can sig- nificantly reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector to help offset effects of global climate change and foster energy independence. OSTI is a partnership among ODOT, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Oregon Department of Energy, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which grew out of two legislative directives: HB 2001 (2009)/The Jobs and Transportation Act and SB 1059 (2010)/Section 85 Oregon Laws. California offers another example of efforts to integrate sustainability into a DOT operation. The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan for meeting future mobility needs. The CTP defines goals, policies, and strategies to achieve the col- lective vision for California’s future transportation system and emphasizes what the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) calls the three “E’s of sustainability:” environment, economy, and equity. Caltrans served as a pilot program using EPA’s Smart Mobility Framework ODOT Director’s Office Sustainability Council Cross-divisional, cross-regional, and cross-functional Sustainability Program Manager Internal ODOT Stakeholders External Stakeholders State & local agencies, governor's office, Oregon Sustainability Board, industry, general public, etc. Conservation and Alternative Resource Teams (CARTs) Ongoing teams to promote recycling, conservation, energy efficiency, and commuting options in ODOT offices Sustainability Project Teams Convened as-needed to address specific sustainability projects and initiatives Figure D-1. ODOT sustainability program organization.

Research and Data Collection 199 (SMF) to develop an approach to implement this plan. Specifically, SMF provides a tool to assess how well plans, programs, and projects meet Smart Mobility principles and objectives (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). The SMF is organized around six principles (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011): • Location efficiency. Integrate transportation and land use in order to achieve high levels of nonmotorized travel and transit use, reduced vehicle trip making, and shorter average trip length, while providing a high level of accessibility. • Reliable mobility. Manage, reduce, and avoid congestion by emphasizing multimodal options and network management through operational improvements and other strategies. • Health and safety. Design, operate, and manage the transportation system to reduce serious injuries and fatalities, promote active living, and lessen exposure to pollution. • Environmental stewardship. Protect and enhance the transportation system’s emission of GHGs. • Social equity. Provide mobility for people who are economically, socially, or physically dis- advantaged to support their full participation in society. Design and manage the transportation system to distribute its benefits and burdens equitably. • Robust economy. Invest in transportation improvements that support the economic health of the state and its local governments, the competitiveness of California’s businesses, and the welfare of California residents. The Smart Mobility principles will be integrated into Caltrans’ day-to-day operations. The principles will be introduced into a wide range of DOT and partner activities, including plan- ning and programming, standards and guidelines, transportation projects and programs, development and conservation projects and programs, decision support, and performance measures. The SMF guidebook establishes priorities and provides tools for beginning to implement Smart Mobility at Caltrans and partner agencies. This section will describe two of those tools: the Smart Mobility action plan/checklist and place types. The action plan identifies the concepts, methods, and resources essential for implementation of the SMF; it identifies 10 implementa- tion themes: • Increase the impact and effectiveness of the SMF and the call to action by widely disseminat- ing information. • Support an expanded Interregional Blueprint Planning program. • Integrate the SMF consistently into Caltrans policy and practice. • Integrate the SMF policy and practice with activities of other agencies and departments, such as the Strategic Growth Council and Senate Bill (SB) 375. • Collect, develop, and use data and tools needed to implement the SMF, including perfor- mance measures. • Revise planning and programming procedures to reflect the SMF. • Revise design standards and procedures to reflect the SMF, starting with revision of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and implementation of the department’s Complete Streets policy. • Undertake major cross-functional initiatives, such as a comprehensive program to ensure strong consideration of location efficiency factors in newly developing areas, and a fund- ing initiative to identify adequate resources for transit and rail capital investment and operations. • Integrate the SMF into local government land use and transportation planning and imple- mentation activities.

200 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies • Encourage local government Smart Mobility implementation assessment and evaluation activities, such as advancing the use of multimodal level of service (LOS). The action plan is presented as a checklist of high-priority activities for implementation and identifies the relevant level(s) for implementation (state, regional, local). Caltrans anticipates that several important outcomes will be achieved over the long term: • Improved accessibility • Reduced average length and number of trips • Social equity • Reduced environmental impacts of travel • Improved public health • Reduced energy costs and vulnerability to price escalation • Economic development. Thus, the SMF provides a mechanism for integrating short-term actions into long-term sustainability. A major concern identified by interviewees was ensuring that sustainability was customized to different settings. The SMF addresses this issue and identifies seven “place types” that represent generic development patterns throughout California: urban centers, close-in compact commu- nities, compact communities, suburban areas, rural and agricultural lands, protected lands, and special use areas. The SMF provides guidance for how Smart Mobility may be implemented in each place type, offering resource documents and example guidelines for each, grouped into planning, transportation projects and programs, and development and conservation projects and programs (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Funding and Needs Assessment Funding and sustainable source(s) of funding were major issues emerging from practitio- ner interviews. Although some interviewees recognized the need to incorporate sustainability considerations into budgeting processes, even within an environment of constrained resources, most agreed that new funding sources were needed for TBL sustainability to be institutional- ized. Furthermore, there was a general consensus that as financial resources became more con- strained, there should be a move toward more user fees and a greater emphasis on prioritization and self-funding. Interviewees stressed the need for more flexibility in setting regional and local priori- ties and, of course, the need for more funds to manage current service requirements, while investing in forward-looking initiatives. Opinion favored having more regional and local control of revenue generation and use of funds. Self-funding transportation meant having more to do with controlling where, how, and how much revenue is collected, and where decisions are made that determine how and where funds are used, and for what purposes, modes, or programs, etc. There are a large number of successful international examples of how to raise money to fund sustainability implementation. For example, in 1997, Denmark replaced its fixed annual vehicle ownership tax with a variable vehicle tax based on fuel efficiency. This policy, known as the “Green Owner” fee, required that owners pay �200 ($266.70) for a gasoline car with a specific fuel consumption of 6.5 L/100 km (36 mpg), with the rate increasing by �100 ($133.35) for every additional liter of consumption per 100 km. This meant an average 8.5 L/100 km (27.7 mpg) car would be assessed �400 annually ($533.40) (Whitelegg, 2003).

Research and Data Collection 201 Internationally, perhaps Singapore has gone farthest in the area of sustainability-based user fees and funding. Singapore, which has a population of approximately 5 million and a land area of 270 mi2, first implemented an area-based road pricing system in the 1970s. By 1998, the system was fully automated through the use of prepaid smart cards. Initially, the goal of this policy was simply congestion relief; however, it has since moved to full externality pricing. The basic price for the road fare is proportional to the target-speed that has been estimated to optimize traffic flow. If the average speed drops, the fees increase and vice versa. The fees are revised every third month, specified on electronic billboards at every gate, and communicated to drivers directly via smartphones and other electronic means. These fees are then modified based on the type of vehicle and estimated emissions. For example, electric vehicles pay a 20 percent lower road fee and hybrid vehicles pay a 10 per- cent lower fee. Revenues from this system produce approximately $50 million to $70 million per year (Gordon, 2005). There is a broad consensus within the transportation community that the current system of transportation funding is broken, and that some form of user charging is needed to fund the future development of federal, state, and local transportation systems (Committee for the Conference on Introducing Sustainability into Surface Transportation Planning, 2005). In other terms, new revenues are needed, as well as a more effective system for flowing those funds to the right transportation investments. Technology, shrinking government budgets, and public hostility to across-the-board tax increases all make some form of user fees potentially appealing; however, schemes like those adopted in Singapore, Denmark, or other foreign countries are difficult to implement in the United States. Attempts at implementing congestion zones and similar concepts are highly con- troversial and complex. Implementing advanced user-fee revenue generation systems, such as vehicle miles traveled charges may be decades away, and states are only beginning to test public reaction. For example, Minnesota’s Department of Transportation tested mileage-based user fees. The Minnesota Road Use Test asks 500 people from two counties to test technology that could someday be used to collect a mileage-based user fee. Thus, while there are many promis- ing ideas for future funding of the road system, agreement on new funding mechanisms is still very unclear. Minnesota’s efforts build on earlier work completed by Oregon. In 2006, ODOT launched a 12-month pilot program designed to test the technological and administrative feasi- bility of this concept. The program included 285 volunteer vehicles, 299 motorists, and two ser- vice stations in Portland. The pilot program showed that, using existing technology in new ways, a mileage fee could be implemented to replace the gas tax as the principal revenue source for road funding. At the conclusion of the pilot program, 91 percent of pilot program participants said that they would agree to continue paying the mileage fee in lieu of the gas tax if the program were extended statewide (Whitty, 2007). There is also broad consensus on the need to develop guidelines to assist transpor tation agencies in making the case for new funding structures and to institute revenue collection sources. Any move toward greater sustainability would require major changes in how states budget and account for transportation programs, specifically (1) the development of a more integrative cooperative budgetary system, (2) accounting for full social costs, and (3) greater flexibility in resource allocation. The first of these elements poses the biggest challenge to transportation budgeting systems. Budgetary reform has a long history in the United States (Tyler and Willand, 1997). Table D-5 shows some of these initiatives. In general, such initiatives have had limited success. A budget process, in which budget developers estimate the long-term intergenerational impact of differ- ent investments on the TBL, in concert with the impact of spending on other agencies, is likely

202 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies to be of limited success given the performance of previous budgetary fads and the general com- petitive nature of U.S. budgeting processes. Tools that are better able to evaluate the impacts of specific spending are discussed in the following paragraphs. Numerous techniques exist to better capture the full social, environmental, and economic cost of proposed investments, as summarized in Table D-6.D2 Period Budget Idea Emphasis Early 1900s Line-item budget Executive budget Control 1950s Performance budget Management Economy and efficiency 1960s Planning, programming, budgeting system (PPBS) Planning Evaluation Effectiveness 1970s and 1980s Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) Target-base budgeting (TBB) Balanced-base budgeting (BBB) Planning Prioritization Budget reduction 1990s New performance budget Accountability Efficiency and economy Table D-5. Budget reform initiatives in the United States. Project Costing Approaches Definition Total Cost Accounting (TCA) TCA was introduced in the late 1980s in response to pressures to reduce the impact of industry operations on the environment. It is a cost estimation method that focuses on in-company assessments of cleaner production investments. TCA can be described as a normal, long-term cost accounting method, which pays special attention to hidden, less tangible costs and liability. Liability costs include fines for future damage involving environmental cleanup, healthcare costs, and property damage. Less tangible costs involve reduced consumer acceptance, tarnished corporate images, and strained external relations. Specifically, the TCA method focuses on the risks and hidden costs associated with a product or activity. Full Cost Accounting (FCA) FCA is distinguished from TCA. FCA includes an additional category of costs that should be accounted for, namely, the social external costs related to production, use, operations and maintenance (O&M), and disposal, which are not accounted for by any of the life-cycle actors or participants. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) LCC is a process for evaluating the total economic value of a project by specifically addressing initial and discounted futures costs, such as O&M, rehabilitation and reconstruction, restoration and resurfacing, and other costs that are likely to be incurred during the life of a project. Life-Cycle Cost Environmental Accounting (LCEA) LCEA attempts to assess the full life-cycle costs, including costs (and benefits) associated with the environmental impact of the project (both the direct and indirect costs of the environmental impacts caused by the project throughout its entire life cycle). Sustainability Life-Cycle Accounting (SLCA) SLCA goes beyond the other forms of accounting for project costs by attempting to estimate the full sustainability (i.e., TBL net costs) of all potential project alternatives in addition to the conventional life-cycle costs. At the extreme, SLCA attempts to assess the full value added to society (including transportation and nontransportation impacts) as a whole. Additional SLCA goes beyond the full life-cycle window and considers very-long-term costs and what long-term options are foreclosed by the selection of a specific option. SLCA is similar to ROI but does not attempt to account for the benefits a project might provide and focuses on costs. Table D-6. Project accounting approaches. D2 “Project” in this section refers to major transportation projects, preservation, and any other significant campaigns and initiatives.

Research and Data Collection 203 The techniques identified in Table D-6 can apply to capital programs and system preserva- tion activities and can be arrayed in terms of a number of dimensions—specifically, the range of impacts included (e.g., project costs only, economic costs, environmental costs) and the degree to which long-term and/or full life-cycle cost is included (Figure D-2). As can be seen, this matrix divides tools into those that focus on how costs are allocated and those that focus on the range of activities that are covered. In general, as agencies move toward a greater emphasis on sustainability, they would move from the bottom left side of the quadrant toward the top right corner. These cost–benefit techniques can be combined to move toward a sustainable budgeting or resourceD3 allocation system. Under this system, needs would be identified in the needs assessment process and converted into specific plans. These plans would be cost-estimated using Sustainability Life-Cycle Accounting (SLCA), and the results would be compared to identify the highest possible net TBL benefit to society over the long term. Under this model, agencies can consider four complementary approaches for bolstering sustainability. One would be to construct long-term fiscal scenarios using cutting-edge socio- econometric techniques, such as generational accounting and present-value accounting. Sec- ond, agencies could extend baseline projections beyond the medium term using methods that have been applied in medium-term frameworks. Third, agencies could estimate the impact of current policy changes on the long-term fiscal outlook. Finally, agencies could reconfigure fis- cal risks so that a greater portion is shared by households and current generations. It has been proposed that sustainability-based budgeting requires a greater degree of independence than conventional budget tasks and should, therefore, be conducted outside of government (Schick, 2005). In the context of a sustainable society policy system, the research team suggests that fis- cal risk is cross-cutting and at least partially outside of government structures as known today Range of Impacts Considered In cl us io n of F ut ur e Co st s Construc on Impacts Only Very Long-Term Impacts Transporta on Impacts Societal Impacts TCA FCA LCC LCEA SLCA Figure D-2. Project cost accounting techniques array according to range and inclusion of future costs. D3 Any and all resources, including funds, staffing, equipment, materials, facilities, and intellectual capital.

204 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies and could include multiple agencies, as well as authorized commissions or bodies representing major economic and social sectors. A self-supported transportation system based more heavily on regional user charging may add considerable weight to the need for participation of multiple agencies and outside-of-government entities to budgeting and allocation decisions affecting all three bottom lines. One of the key concepts in sustainability budgeting is that resource allocation must be flexible and resources allocated to achieve the optimal sustainable state consistent with the agency’s project and mission. Thus, project funding should not be limited to specific funds or accounts. Rather, funding should be able to flow freely between accounts. Furthermore, sustainable resource allocation requires that budgeting and resource allocation not be limited to specific agencies, transportation modes, or geographic regions. Thus, transporta- tion resource allocation and budgeting should be approached as a whole and resources allocated to achieve the optimal sustainable return. (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 2004) Practitioner interviews revealed that budget and spending flexibility were critical to institu- tionalizing sustainability. Specifically, interviewees cited challenges created by federal transpor- tation spending restrictions and the lack of flexibility in using these funds. These comments were interpreted to mean that the user community would directly fund transportation in several ways that are more directly tied to demand and use—and that the same community (i.e., the regional public, via commission or representative government) would exercise more direct control of major allocation decisions. This control of priorities could overarch and direct the particular agencies responsible for executing chosen programs—whether the programs are transportation, environmental, social, or otherwise. For instance, in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment was formed to maximize the potential for efficient resource allocation by merging the former Min- istry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management and the Ministry of Housing, Spa- tial Planning, and the Environment. Now the Dutch have one ministry that has authority over regulation, management, and capital investments of transportation of people and goods via roads, trains, boats, and airplanes. In theory, the new ministry’s budgeting decisions are made without reference to individual modal organization biases and allocate funds based on overall transportation goals. Similarly, in Australia, decisionmaking processes in the state of Victoria were remodeled by the Transportation Integration Act of 2010 to create a new framework for the provision of an integrated and sustainable transportation system in Victoria. Now, the Victoria Department of Transportation oversees and coordinates the activities of all state agencies that impact the transportation system in Victoria, including heavy and light rail systems (including trains and trams), roads systems, all vehicles (including cars, trucks, bicycles), ports and waterways, and some air transportation systems. As with the Netherlands, the Victoria model is intended to promote integration between modes and drive transportation priorities toward common sustainability goals. The core of Victoria’s Transportation Integration Act is the high-level policy framework for setting sustainability policy. The key features of the framework are the six transportation system objectives and seven decisionmaking principles. The policy framework applies the principles of sustainability to the transportation sector and recognizes that transportation contributes a broader policy goal of achieving sustainable development, both locally and globally. Specifically, the Act sets the following six objectives for the transportation system: • Facilitate social and economic inclusion • Encourage economic prosperity • Support environmental sustainability • Encourage the integration of transportation and land use

Research and Data Collection 205 • Support efficiency, coordination, and reliability of transportation assets • Promote safety and health and well-being In terms of decisionmaking and resource allocation, the Act identifies seven key decision- making principles: • Integrated decisionmaking • Regular TBL assessments • Specific inclusion of equity conditions • Consideration of transportation system user perspectives • Consideration of the precautionary principle • Ongoing stakeholder engagement and community participation • Decisionmaking transparency Transportation agencies and interface agencies can use these principles in the formation of their own objectives when exercising their powers and performing their functions. In addition, the Act establishes requirements for need identification, plan development, and budget manage- ment that specifically address each of the six objectives. It should be noted that, as of 2012, it is too early in the life of the Transport Integration Act to judge its effectiveness in influencing the Victorian transport system and no structured evaluation has been conducted. Sustainability, Resource Allocation, and Intergenerational Equity A major difficulty in accounting for the cost of projects in the context of sustainability is the inclu- sion and evaluation of intergenerational equity or environmental justice. The origin of the concept in modern debate goes back to the work of John Rawls in the 1970s. Rawls developed a complex thought game based on social contract theory where rational individuals were asked to determine the rules and structure for a society without knowing where they were located in that society in terms of wealth and social position or the resources that society had at its disposal (each participant had some random chance of being assigned a role as “wealthy,” “middle,” or “poor,” but they had no knowledge at the time they constructed rules; Rawls, 1971). Through a series of logical arguments, Rawls proposed a series of rules that participants would then generate to create a “fair” society. In this game, Rawls rejected the Benthamite approach (i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number) and, using a social contract approach, argued that decisions concerning public goods should be at least partially evaluated in terms of the welfare impacts to the least-well-off group. In terms of intergenerational equity, Rawls put forward the “just saving principle” to help deal with the problem of looking after the least-well-off in future generations. According to this idea, saving (i.e., capital accumulation) should be encouraged via laws or cultural norms over current period consumption. This implies that consumption and economic well-being of the current generation should be limited in order to save resources and raise “the standard of civilization and culture” to a certain level. This would ensure that future generations would benefit from that accumulated capital and also any social/environmental benefits of de-emphasizing consumption. The rationale for this is that in Rawls’ thought game, all members of a society have equal claims on the aggregated resources of the group. The game also requires participants to include future members of the society as well as current members. Thus, if the participants chose to allow the current generation to consume all the nonrenewable resources available and leave behind no net savings or accumulated capital, future generations have no opportunity to use or benefit from those resources. According to Rawls this would be an unjust taking of resources by one group (i.e., the current generation) from another group that was not able to influence or participate in the decision to use these resources (i.e., future generations). In terms of sustainability, discussions about the difficulties associated with fair intertemporal resource allocation have given rise to a large body of literature in recent years (which builds

206 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies in many ways on the economic literature on intertemporal consumption). This literature has focused on budgeting, environmental protection, and economics. [For examples of literature on budgeting, see Strow and Strow (2010). There are many texts on the integration of environmen- tal concerns with intergenerational fairness, but for a starting point, see Portney and Weyant (1999). For examples of economics literature on sustainability, see Beder (2000).] In general, this literature has identified several approaches to intergenerational equity. The first is the preservationist model, in which the present generation does not destroy or deplete resources or significantly alter anything; rather, it saves resources for future genera- tions and preserves the same level of quality in all aspects of the environment and society [A good discussion of this topic can be found in Passmore (1974) and Norton (1986)]. At the extreme, this model requires an unchanging status quo where future generations benefit at the expense of current generations (i.e., current generations do not use their resources to improve their current well-being). Furthermore, considering that natural changes are inevi- table, a growing level of resources would be needed to maintain the world in its current state. This requirement for capital replenishing would actually harm the well-being of the current generation as a greater and greater volume of their consumption would have to be diverted into investment to maintain the current state. Ultimately this could lead to a society where a majority of its resources are channeled into preserving a static condition in a world that constantly changes. While this model seems unrealistic, its underlying principles can be found in a number of public programs. For example, numerous state parks programs, and the original “organic act” for the National Park Service, call for parks to be maintained in their current state in “perpetu- ity.” In addition, a number of historic prevention programs calls for specific historical or cultur- ally valuable sites to be maintained in their current states in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy. This has led to numerous challenges for natural conservation organizations faced with the dual mission of encouraging access and use (by the current generation) and saving the resource for future generations [See Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (2005)]. Variations of the preservation model that emphasize stewardship or conservation are more common. However, as with preservationist models, these approaches frequently lack the tools and heuristics to be able to identify tradeoffs between current and future use. Fur- thermore, the specific inclusion of conservation or stewardship in legislation as a necessary decision factor (e.g., in NEPA analysis) means that well-meaning decisionmakers are faced with incompatible requirements where they must simultaneously preserve one set of pub- lic goods (e.g., an endangered species) while attempting to provide for another such as the construction of necessary infrastructure. The research team recognizes that the regulatory implementation construct would need to be modified to ensure compliance from all sectors under the TBL sustainability policy system. An alternative position on intergenerational resource allocation is the so-called “opulence” or “technology model” in which the current generation consumes all the resources that it requires and uses them to generate as much wealth as it can, either because there is uncertainty that future generations will exist or because maximizing consumption today is the best way to maxi- mize wealth for future generations [See Barnett and Morse (1963) or Simons (1981) for classic statements of this position]. This model generally ignores long-term degradation of resources or argues that future technology and the growing wealth of society will enable future genera- tions to address these issues with fewer burdens on their resources than current generations (it will be easier to fix this problem with future technology than it is with present technology). In many ways this is the default position for the United States today; most public policy is directed toward the increase of current income, wealth, and technology with the assumption that any resource problems created can be dealt with in the future by wealthier or more technologically

Research and Data Collection 207 advanced generations. For example, mountain top removal (MTR) allows current generations to benefit from the coal mined in a low-cost manner. However, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 mandates that sites must be reclaimed to the land’s pre-mining contour and use by the mine owner. Thus, the wealth generated by MTR is used to address an environmental problem created by MTR. In the context of the global literature on sustain- ability, this is a position that many theorists dislike. Finally, there are economic models that focus on total life-cycle cost minimization. By using proper accounting and discounting techniques, it should be possible to estimate the full cost of different alternative investment and spending opportunities and identify the option that has the lowest costs across all time periods. In the United States, discounting is commonly used in regulatory or business case analysis in the federal government. For example, Circular A-4 of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandates that all executive agencies and establishments conduct a “regulatory analysis” for any new proposal and, more specifically, a cost–benefit analysis. OMB Circular A-4 explicitly refers to the importance of equity for future generations and requires a “lower but positive” discount rate for projects with potential long- term impacts. Beyond this there is little guidance. One alternative is the use of a “social discount rate,” which calculates the net present value of a project’s social costs and benefits over time (in some case, intergenerational) [See Baumol (1968), Harberger (1968), Arrow and Lind (1970), Bradford (1975), Auerbach (1982), Lind (1982), Arrow et al. (1996), Fuguitt and Wilcox (1999), Portney and Weyant (1999), and Tresch (2002)]. A positive net present value indicates the project increases efficiency or raises wealth in aggregate. It also means that the project produces sufficient benefits to fully compensate indi- viduals for the forgone benefits of the resources it displaces from alternative uses. Debates on the use of the social discount rate for very-long duration investments are often highly technical but center around several key issues: • How the opportunity costs of public funds should be addressed • The degree to which the net benefits of government projects are reinvested or consumed • The social rate of time preference • The mechanism for compensating the generations that bear the costs of the project • The role that risk and uncertainty should play in the analysis For example, scholarly objections over the conclusions and methodology of the famous “Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change” largely revolved around the discounting technique used and whether the discount rates were appropriate.D4 It is generally clear in the sustainability literature that greater attention needs to be paid to considerations for intergenerational equity in sustainability resource allocation discussions. While the tools do exist to conduct this analysis, there is no consensus as to how these tools should be used, the exact methodology to be followed, and the key assumptions that should be made. Until these issues are resolved, intergenerational accounting and resource allocation will remain controversial and difficult to incorporate into sustainability planning. Another common lesson from the sustainability budgeting literature is that resource alloca- tion is most effective when it is flexible; funding that is able to flow with minimal restrictions between accounts is easier to repurpose if that project raises new sustainability concerns. Since the point of incorporating sustainability into planning is to allocate the available resources to achieve the optimal sustainable state consistent with the overall purposes of project and mission D4 The Stern Review on the effect of global warming on the global economy has been a hotly debated topic amongst environmental economists since it was released by the British government on October 30, 2006.

208 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies of the agency, funding for projects should be flexible enough to be applied to projects and cir- cumstances as they arise. Furthermore, best practices in sustainable resource allocation emphasize that budgeting and resource allocation are most efficient when they are not limited to specific agencies, transporta- tion modes, programs, or geographic regions. For these reasons, transportation resource alloca- tion and budgeting should be approached in a holistic manner, and resources should be allocated to achieve the optimal sustainable return (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 2004). For examples of budget and resource allocation flexibility, please see Section D.1.4. Coordination and Planning Many interviewees considered coordination as a major challenge because it is multidirec- tional, that is, horizontally between different departments within the state government and ver- tically between different levels of government. It was noted that unless state DOTs improve coordination of land use issues with local governments, there would be little hope of improving the sustainability of state transportation initiatives. States recognize this challenge but are limited in the extent to which they can manage land use issues. A number of states have attempted to develop programs that coordinate land use and sustainability. At least 22 state DOTs address land use coordination, and one-third of them use access management as the primary tool. Each initiative involves coordination with other state- level agencies and/or local governments. Table D-7 summarizes these initiatives. In many states, there has been an increase in the use of collaborative approaches in planning and management as a means of coordinating the efforts of state and local governments in trans- portation planning. For example, in 1990, the Washington State legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA established the Regional Transportation Planning Program to create associations of local governments into Regional Transportation Planning Organiza- tions (RTPO). RTPOs are designed to create a formal mechanism for local governments and the state to use in ensuring consistency and coordination in transportation planning and project pri- oritization for regional transportation facilities. Washington’s regional transportation planning system comprises the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 14 RTPOs, and 10 MPOs (Brody and Margerum, 2009). DOT Description California Grant program for collaborative regional visioning and scenario planning that integrates transportation, land use, housing needs, resource protection, and other issues; communities shape their “Blueprints” process through selection of performance goals. Montana Transportation Impact Analysis tool and coordinated development review process for determining impacts and required mitigation. New Jersey Effort coordinated with New Jersey’s Office of Smart Growth to emphasize re- investment and transformation of existing transportation infrastructure; produced nationally recognized programs, including transit villages and mobility and community forums. New York State Smart Growth educational and training programs and planning assistance for local and regional transportation agencies; website to facilitate communication. North Carolina Coordinate transportation and land use planning efforts among several state and federal agencies; initiatives include a statewide action plan and development of a comprehensive shared GIS database. Pennsylvania State and regional agencies coordinate efforts for land use, transportation, economic development, and conservation to make effective investment decisions; DOT’s Sound Land Use Implementation Plan is updated annually. Source: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011) Table D-7. Sample state land use coordination initiatives.

Research and Data Collection 209 Key highlights of the Washington transportation system include the following: • Organizational integration of RTPOs and MPOs. RTPOs and MPOs use the same policy board for decisionmaking. • Formal statewide meetings of regional planning organizations. WSDOT holds quarterly meet- ings for all the state’s regional planning organizations to coordinate activities and information. • The Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO). The TTPO was created to incor- porate tribal participation into transportation planning and programming more fully. • Dedicated funding for planning a cross-boundary project. WSDOT offers dedicated fund- ing to RTPOs for projects that cross multiple RTPO boundaries. Similarly, Iowa’s transportation planning system is managed through a partnership involving the Iowa Department of Transportation, nine MPOs, and 18 Regional Planning Affiliations (RPA). In its initial regional transportation planning, Iowa delineated areas outside MPO boundaries into 16 rural transit regions, each of which was represented by a Council of Government (COG), and later established a new process based on the existing rural transit regions. The RPAs implement a relatively new method of collaboratively based regional transportation planning for Iowa by includ- ing local government in regional transportation planning, project prioritization, and funding. Despite these initiatives, however, coordination between state and local governments remains one of the biggest challenges in developing a more sustainable state transportation system. Data and Performance Measures Data and performance measurement are vital to proper sustainability management. Progress cannot be measured until a system exists to measure performance and track change. Approxi- mately 60 percent of state DOTs use performance measures or indicators that are related in some way to sustainability—that is, they mention environment, economy, and/or quality of life—and approximately 20 percent of DOTs use indicators for project prioritization, as shown in Table D-8. As Table D-9 shows, these efforts are part of a much larger effort to develop sustainability measures. DOT Description California Reports on performance goals and measures at both the regional (Blueprint Planning reports) and state levels (annual reporting on nine performance outcomes from the California Transportation Plan). Iowa Annual report and online monitoring system that outlines performance goals and measures, and assesses which targets have been met; measures used to adjust allocation of resources and identify investments in priority corridors. Minnesota Framework using clear policy priorities, performance trend data, and performance forecasting to guide investment decisions; measures cover both internal and external activities. Missouri Quarterly report of measures for 18 outcome areas covering environmental responsibility and economic development since 2005; an additional goal added in 2009, to track impacts of stimulus funding. Texas Framework for sustainability measures that corresponds to goals in Texas DOT’s strategic plan; current selection of measures was limited by data availability. Washington Quarterly report of goals and measures organized around WSDOT’s five legislative and strategic policy goals (i.e., safety, preservation, mobility/congestion relief, environment, and stewardship) and a “Performance Dashboard” of key indicators; transparency and organized presentation make it useful for internal tracking and external accountability. Source: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011). Table D-8. Sample state DOT transportation and sustainability measurement frameworks.

Source Overview U.S. DOT (2003). Performance Report 2004 Performance Plan, Washington, DC. U.S. DOT defined five strategic goal areas covering safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, human and natural environment, and national security. For each goal, a set of strategic outcome goals and a number of more specific performance measures are defined for use in annual performance planning. U.S. EPA (1999). Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation, updated Second Edition, Washington, DC. The reports attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the full range of environmental impacts (including impacts on air, water, climate, natural habitats, and other endpoints) from transportation modes (including road, rail, air, and sea) in a systemwide perspective (including impacts from production, use and scrapping of vehicles, and infrastructure). Transport Canada (2001). Sustainable Development Strategy, 2001–2003, Ottawa, Canada. The reports are structured around a set of seven challenges, broken down into 29 commitments, again broken down into targets and performance indicators. Three levels of indicators, reflecting different spheres of influence, include state-level indicators (describing the state of the transportation systems in terms of sustainability), behavioral indicators (describing the behavior or activities of the actors and stakeholders whose actions matter for the state of the system), and operational indicators (describing indicators for operations and actions of Transport Canada, itself). Environment Canada (1991) and (2003). Canada’s Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators, State of the Environment Rep. No. 91-1, Ottawa, Canada. This report presents 43 preliminary indicators in 18 issue areas with widespread stakeholder and media interest. This uses a modified “pressure– state–response” framework and includes a fourth category related to the nature of human activity. The structure encompasses four sets of issues: ecological life support systems; natural resources sustainability; human health and well-being; and pervasive influencing factors. NRTEE (2003). ESDI for Canada, Ottawa, Canada. The NRTEE has developed a draft set of sustainable transportation principles that concern access, equity, individual and community responsibility, health and safety, education and public participation, integrated planning, land and resource use, pollution prevention, and economic well-being. ORTEE (1995). Sustainability Indicators: The Transportation Sector, Toronto, Canada. The report develops and assesses indicators for evaluating the impacts of possible actions or measures on the sustainability of the transportation system in Ontario. The framework adopted is based on a “criterion– influences–actions–measures” system. The conceptual model adopted is a computerized revised version of the “environment–economy linkages model.” TAC (1999), Ottawa. Canada. TAC presents 13 principles pointing to sustainable transportation systems and related urban land use in Canada in 1993. A survey to monitor trends toward attainment of the principles can be considered as framing indicators or potential indicators to the extent that they provide appropriate quantitative responses. Litman, Todd; Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) (2003). Sustainable Transportation Indicators, Victoria, Canada. VTPI presents a literature review on its approach and selection criteria for sustainable transportation indicators. They offer an alternative perspective on the selection of transportation indicators by focusing on access (the ability to reach goods, services, or destinations) rather than on the transportation system’s ability to “move vehicles” (by measuring traffic congestion, for example). Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST) (2003). STPI, Toronto, Canada. The CST, Canada developed an initial set of 14 sustainable transportation performance indicators (STPI). They adopted four criteria to select the indicators: the indicators must (1) be relevant to the definition, (2) be relevant to a time series, (3) represent all of Canada, and (4) come from a reliable source. The direction of the graph representing time series numbers for each indicator shows whether progress has been made toward sustainable transportation. OECD (1999). Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Transport Policies, Environment Directorate, Paris, France. The document pertains to the integration of environmental concerns into transportation policies through the development and use of indicators. The indicators are structured according to three themes: sectorial trends of environmental significance, environmental impacts of the transportation sector, and economic linkages between transportation and the environment. Table D-9. Sustainable performance systems in the United States and other countries.

Research and Data Collection 211 Source Overview Environmental Performance Indicators (second ed.), World Bank, Environmental Economics Series, Paper No. 71. The World Bank’s Environment Department has prepared a manual on environmental performance indicators. This document discusses indicator frameworks, selection criteria for environmental project indicators, and issues to consider for various environmental areas. PROSPECTS (2003). Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Strategies: Methodological Guidebook: Procedures for Recommending Optimal Sustainable Planning of European City Transport Systems. The purpose of the report is as follows: (1) To present a coherent but flexible general approach to planning for a sustainable urban land use/transport system, building on the logical structure (2) To offer innovative methods of carrying out the steps of that logical structure, especially regarding appraisal of land use/transport strategies with respect to sustainability, and optimization with respect to sustainability (3) To provide detailed advice on a number of issues in the planning process. European Environmental Agency (2002) TERM 2002—Paving the Way for European Union (EU) Enlargement: Indicators of Transport and Environment Integration, Environmental Issues, Copenhagen, Denmark. The report describes the progress the EU is making toward the integration of environmental concerns into its transport policies. The aim is to monitor progress in three areas: the degree of environmental integration in the EU transport sector; progress toward transport systems that are more compatible with sustainable development; and the effectiveness of the adopted policy measures. Baltic 21 (2000) Series No. 13/98: Indicators on Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region (An Initial Set): Baltic 21 Transport Sector Report (No. 8/98). Annex 5: Indicators for Sustainable Transportation, Stockholm, Sweden. Baltic 21 selects indicators according to three different types of goals and measures: (1) Indicators with regard to primary goals for sustainable transport (2) Indicators with regard to institutions, instruments, and measures (3) Indicators with regard to the transport system and transportation activity DSD (2003). Achieving a Better Quality of Life, Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development, United Kingdom. The United Kingdom presents the 10 guiding principles: (1) Putting people at the center (2) Taking a long-term perspective (3) Taking account of costs and benefits (4) Creating an open and supportive economic system (5) Combatting poverty and social exclusion (6) Respecting environmental limits (7) The precautionary principle (8) Using scientific knowledge (9) Transparency, information, participation, and access to justice (10) Making the polluter pay NZME (1999). Proposals for Indicators of the Environmental Effects of Transport. The main purpose of the document is to provide the basis for agreement on the use of a core set of indicators to measure the environmental effects of transport. The components of the framework are as follows: (1) Root causes of transport activity (2) Indirect pressures (3) Direct pressures (4) State or effects indicators. Source: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011). Table D-9. (Continued).

212 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Closely related to the issue of performance standards is the use of green transportation stan- dards for transportation investments. States have developed rating systems modeled after the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for buildings. Table D-10 shows a sample of these standards under development. Although all interviewees interviewed agreed that improved performance measures were needed, some opposed expanding or developing unnecessary new techniques, such as Sus- tainability Impact Assessments (SIAs). In fact, some feared a data overload—there may be too much data to choose from and the agency may struggle with what is the most impor- tant or most meaningful data to track. In addition, some interviewees were concerned about data availability. In general, there is substantial data available on environmental indicators (often required by law) and economic indicators (commonly used in transportation and travel demand planning), but it is difficult for state DOTs to develop meaningful indicators of social sustainability. Some states have tried to develop these indicators (e.g., Arizona, Delaware, and California) but have experienced considerable difficulty in narrowing down the list of poten- tial indicators to a meaningful number. Furthermore, they have found that many of these indicators require original data collection, which can be extremely expensive. As a result, they have found it necessary to prioritize more pressing needs over data collection (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). Culture Change, Outreach, and Communication Interviewees conveyed a broad consensus that sustainability will require substantial culture change, both within agencies and with public and elected leaders. The latter form of leader- ship requires widespread public support to drive legislation, policy, and executive orders (EOs). These could create the needed framework for action by multiple agencies, to call for and support agency cooperation. The within-agency culture changes could occur as a top-down or bottom- up manner in particular agencies. The research team’s view is that organization transformations usually work both ways but significant change is not easy or likely without top-level policy to require and support change. DOT Description New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) First completed rating system. Applied to DOT programs to recognize sustainable practices, encourage innovation, measure performance, and identify areas for improvement. Highest-level certifications and awards are announced annually on Earth Day. University of Washington, CH2M Hill, WSDOT Sustainability rating system for highways that includes 76 credits in seven categories, including 11 required credits. Draft version being tested and calibrated. Roadway developers will be able to apply for official certification or use the system for guidance. Public–private initiative with support from EPA, FHWA, Maryland DOT (MDSHA) Voluntary partnership to share information and provide guidance for developing more sustainable roadways. INVEST, FHWA Web-based self-evaluation tool with three modules: project development, O&M, and system planning; assigns each practice a point value (weight) according to its relative impact on sustainability. Public/Private Team from Oregon and Washington Rating system for transportation projects, plans, and employer programs that is under development. University of Wisconsin with Wisconsin DOT Approach based on TBL that uses qualitative measures to screen road projects and then rate them with quantitative measures. Lochner Engineering Checklist for sustainable highway/roadway projects that should be applied during planning, environmental assessment, design, and construction phases. Able to track how projects change. Source: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (2011). Table D-10. Sample green transportation standards.

Research and Data Collection 213 In addition, the current fiscal and economic climate means that many agencies lack external support to engage in new initiatives. In general, stakeholders felt that there was a need to dem- onstrate that sustainability means saving money and resources in the long term, and as a more efficient means of delivering service. In particular, it was observed that changing the focus away from traditional LOS goals toward a focus on how transportation can improve community life and meet community needs. The need for new ROI tools that can reflect this expanded focus was noted. Another important challenge articulated by interviewees was the difficulty of planning for and operating infrastructure across multiple jurisdictions. Recently, several state DOTs have already begun to move away from the traditional LOS. For example, in response to a perceived lack of confidence from stakeholders, limited funding, employee turnover, and political pressure to outsource, the Louisiana Department of Transpor- tation and Development adopted a new five-pronged approach (Bridges, 2008). First, it devel- oped tools to demonstrate the ROI of any proposed change and identified changes that would improve performance and service delivery. Second, it engaged the department head as the chief sponsor of the initiative. He communicated forcefully that this was a “change-or-die” situation requiring maximum commitment. Multiple communication initiatives were launched to dem- onstrate the need for change and to explain the rationale, proposed changes, and how people could participate in the change. The program focused on quick wins, claiming “low-hanging fruit” and building momentum for change (Bridges, 2008). Some governments have attempted institutional change through massive public participa- tion programs. In Western Australia, the City of Perth provides an example of this process in action. In 2003, it began a broadly based consultation process to create a vision of the city. This process coalesced citizens, business groups, and more than 42 government departments to create a vision of Perth in 2030. As part of this exercise, a household survey was conducted of more than 1,700 households, and 1,000 citizens participated in a 1-day planning forum. Forum participants were grouped in teams of 10 and given a particular transportation problem. Each team was tasked with finding solutions to problems city planners faced involving sustain- ability, mobility, and economic growth. The result was a consensus plan known as “Network City,” which was endorsed by all major interests involved. One of its major goals was to have 60 percent of all new construction be a part of a car-free, sustainable network of transportation (Schiller et al., 2010). Figure D-3 shows two alternative models that the research team generalized from the litera- ture review for building support for sustainability initiatives. The top-down approach involves working with state leaders and key stakeholders to develop a consensus in favor of sustainability. Once consensus has developed and this support has been obtained, legislation or EOs can be enacted and the DOT can begin the process of changing its focus and culture and revise policies, programs, and processes to meet new sustainability mandates. Under the bottom-up approach, cities and localities develop sustainable transportation initia- tives. The literature on sustainability suggests that it is easier to build support for sustainability at a local level because transportation and issues related to quality of life primarily manifest themselves at the local level (e.g., congestion, lack of travel options) and it is generally easier, given the closeness to voters and less diverse interests, to develop consensus behind sustainability initiatives. If these initiatives are successful, they tend to generate attention from key state leaders and stakeholders. Localities then begin to adopt innovations to obtain the benefits they have seen from early adopters. Ultimately a consensus builds in the state that creating statewide programs may be appropriate and appropriate legislation and EOs may be put in place.

214 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Demonstrate ROI, show benefits Increase support, build coalions in favor of change New legislaon or execuve orders State leaders and key stakeholders iniave sustainable iniaves • Public • Stakeholders • Major interest groups • Economic interests DOT changes policies, programs, and process DOT changes culture to support sustainability Program Implemented Program produces benefits Increase support and coalions in favor of change Top-Down Execuve-Led Approach to Building Sustainability Bo om-Up Locality-Led Approach to Building Sustainability Local transportaon challenges create catalyst for change City government leaders develop sustainability program in response to local challenges Demonstrate ROI, show benefits Increase support, build coalions in favor of change • Public • Stakeholders • Major interest groups • Economic interests Local DOT changes policies, programs, and process Program Implemented Program produces benefits Other localies adopt innovaons Success builds support State leaders and key stakeholders iniave sustainable iniaves New legislaon or execuve orders Figure D-3. Policy system development—top-down, bottom-up.

Research and Data Collection 215 D.1.2 Local Government and City Sustainability Programs Most of the sustainability literature concludes that cities and local governments are often leaders in government sustainability initiatives. There are many reasons for this: • Cities experience many problems and challenges, often demanding a close integration of economic, environmental, and social policies. Thus, sustainability is a natural outgrowth of these efforts. • The proximity of cities to the people and key stakeholders makes it comparatively easy to develop coalitions in favor of change. • The powers that cities have to control or influence land use decisions provide them with the tools needed to implement sustainability. • The close proximity of key stakeholders makes it easier for cities to develop new funding sources for sustainability initiatives, such as user fees, congestion charges, or bond issues to finance new transit. • Cities are often the most economically dynamic and wealthy parts of a state or region. The concentrated wealth that cities generate gives them the material basis from which to embark on ambitious infrastructure projects. • Although cities may be ethnically and culturally diverse, the relative breadth of diversity in terms of economic or transportation requirements is limited by the city’s physical size. Unlike states, where the geographic size tends to create competing interests (e.g., Northern Virginia and Southeastern Virginia required increased transportation spending on urban systems, whereas rural Southwestern Virginia opposed spending on urban transportation and favored expanding the state highways system to support economic development), cities find it easier to unite interests around a common desire to address local transportation challenges. Context-sensitive solutions (CSS) principles have been employed by state and local agen- cies for some time to reflect regional and local priorities for sustainability, livability, etc. in transportation decisionmaking. The methods and principles are important and well-accepted components of many DOTs’ planning and project delivery processes, involving flexibility and recognition of project environmental and community context in project planning, design, and execution. CSS has provided significant benefits in fostering and improving citizen engagement in decision processes. It should be noted that local and city sustainability programs are not limited to large cities with strong economies. Table D-11 provides a sample of city and local government sustainability plans in the United States that include transportation for cities with fewer than 1 million people. As can be seen, these plans are not only focused on transportation. Many large cities have developed comprehensive sustainability transportation programs, as well. The Smarter Cities project developed by Resources for the Future (RFF) identified some clear leaders [See National Resources Defense Council (n.d.)], profiled in the following subsections. Boston, Massachusetts Boston has become a leader in the development of sustainable transportation. For example, in 2009, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino established the city’s Complete Streets program, a program intended to integrate automobiles, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. In pursuing this program, Boston has several advantages. As a dense, historic city built around a business, commercial, and cultural core with a long history of in-city settlement, it lends itself naturally to Smart Growth principles and more transit-oriented development (TOD). The public transit system is one of the largest in the United States and includes regional rail, subway, light rail, elec- tric trolley buses, motor buses, and ferries. The existing rail system integrates the entire region, stretching to neighboring communities such as Cambridge, and other metropolitan areas such as Providence, Rhode Island, allowing commutes between these centers without relying on high- ways (Barmeyer, 2011a).

216 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Location Type of Plan Scope Time Frame Burlington, Vermont 30-year Sustainability Action Plan Economy, neighborhoods, governance, youth, and environment. 30-year plan; progress reports provide annual (short-term) success Charleston, South Carolina Action Plan Energy, transportation, recycling and waste management, land use/ planning. Unclear Fayetteville, Arkansas Comprehensive Land Use “Strategy” Plan Land use planning– sprawl, infill, livable transportation growth, green network, traditional town form, attainable housing. 2025 Fort Collins, Colorado Action Plan Provides management tools for sustainable purchasing, healthy productive employees, green buildings, healthy ecosystems, sustainable energy, pollution and waste reduction. Not stated Northampton, Massachusetts Comprehensive Plan Social equity and economic vitality and environmental security for its citizens, the community, and its built and natural resources. Energy savings, waste management, green buildings, and green roofs. 10 years Pasadena, California Action Plan Energy, waste, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health, and water. N/A Sacramento, California Action Plan Solid waste, energy, and GHGs. N/A Santa Monica, California Action Plan Resource conservation, environmental and public health, transportation, economic development, open space and land use, housing, community education and civic participation, and human dignity. 2010; baseline of 2000 is used as comparison Source: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University (2008). Table D-11. Sample local government sustainable transportation programs.

Research and Data Collection 217 According to the Green Boston Climate Action Leadership Committee and Community’s April 2010 summary report, Sparking Boston’s Climate Revolution, by 2020 Boston should be able to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the city by more than 7 percent through promoting the use of public transit, as well as by fostering TOD and encouraging ridesharing, walking, and biking. Transportation initiatives account for 31 percent of the city’s carbon reduction goals for 2020. These goals include both state and federal policies—such as a GHG standard to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles—as well as many of Boston’s own programs, such as increasing enforce- ment and education on anti-idling (Green Boston Climate Action Leadership Committee and Community, 2010). For the past couple of years, Boston has been increasing bike usage through a city initiative that, among other things, added 30 miles of new paths. In fact, from 2007 to 2009, the city saw a 43 percent increase in bicycle ridership—more than three times the national average increase. In July 2010, the city was awarded more than $3 million in federal funding to establish one of the country’s first bike-sharing systems. Often located near public transit stations, riders can borrow, use, and return a bike with just the swipe of a card (Barmeyer, 2011a). Chicago, Illinois The basis of Chicago’s sustainable transportation efforts is Chicago’s GO TO 2040, which was established by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. The goal of the plan is to move the region to increase transit, fleet, and freight efficiency in an affordable and sustainable manner. The plan is an excellent example of the way in which cities have the power to do small, low- cost initiatives that can produce major benefits. For example, in the areas of public transporta- tion, minor changes, such as the Bus Tracker and Train Tracker systems provide major benefits. These systems provide real-time bus and train arrival information that can be accessed online, on mobile devices, or via text. Local businesses have the option of running Bus Tracker on a screen display or message board for the convenience of their customers. With Bus Tracker information free and accessible to the public, business owners can develop their own applications to display the information, or they can download for free the Do-It-Yourself Bus Tracker Display, available on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) website (http://www.transitchicago.com/). Schweiger (2003) found several benefits to such systems, including the following: • Reduced average waiting times for customers and increased willingness to wait due to real- time bus arrival information • More frequent transit service use • Increased ridership and revenue • Shifting behavior toward public transportation. Chicago is also increasing its support for increased use of electric vehicles. For example, Chicago is adding 280 electric vehicle charging stations, including in the suburbs. The stations will be located at the O’Hare and Midway airports, in downtown parking garages, grocery store parking lots, and toll plazas and will be ready to fully charge electric vehicles in less than 30 minutes. Chicago will be among the first to use the new recharging stations with its fleet of heavy-duty electric vehicles, such as electric-powered garbage trucks, which are slated to come online soon. In addition, Chicago has designated nearly 40 charging stations for I-GO Car Sharing, a local nonprofit that will add solar canopies to its stations to power I-GO vehicles with clean electricity. I-GO, which views itself as an extension of the public transit system, became the first car-sharing service in the nation to offer customers a seamless integration with the region’s public transpor- tation system. In 2009, I-GO partnered with the CTA to give users access to I-GO cars and CTA bus and rail services with a single I-GO/CTA smart card.

218 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Chicago is a key freight hub. Six of the country’s seven largest railroad carriers have terminals in the Chicago metro region, bringing nearly 500 freight trains through the area each day. The freight traffic creates economic and industrial growth for the region—as well as pockets of congestion, bottle-necked traffic at rail crossings, and increased air pollution. To increase the sustainability of these initiatives, as well as increase the efficiency of freight movement in Chicago, the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) was initiated. CREATE is a public–private partnership between the U.S. DOT, the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, six private rail companies, Chicago’s commuter rail service Metra, and Amtrak. It has outlined a plan to strategically upgrade four widely used corridors, increasing capacity and improving rail network connections throughout the region. Of the 71 projects under way, 10 are complete. Fully imple- mented, the program is expected to create 172,000 jobs and prevent the equivalent of 1.61 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. In addition, 42 municipalities in Chicago’s south suburbs were awarded $2.3 million in com- petitive federal funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Sustain- able Community Challenge Grant program to implement a multijurisdictional, rail-focused revitalization strategy. The plan emphasizes development around transit, intermodal freight industries, green manufacturing, and environmental stewardship and aims to attract 13,000 jobs and $2.3 billion in new income to the area over the next 10 years. New York, New York The New York metropolitan region’s population density gives it a clear advantage in devel- oping sustainability plans. This density has positioned New York to be served broadly by mass transit, accessible easily on foot and by bike, and to develop naturally by the principles of Smart Growth. Furthermore, with 19 million people living and working in the region, 3.6 million people commuting to the city daily, and 50 million tourists visiting annually, efficient and effec- tive mobility programs are supported widely by voters and city leaders (Barmeyer, 2011b). With nearly 50 percent of commuters using public transportation daily, New York has the highest percentage of transit users in the nation. Between 2000 and 2009, transit commuters increased by 4 percent, the greatest increase in the nation according to the report State of Met- ropolitan America. It is also one of only two regions in the United States, alongside neighboring Jersey City, New Jersey, with an average automobile ownership of less than one vehicle per household. Getting from place to place is more affordable in New York—at an average annual cost of $5,289—than in any other large city in the country. At an average of 9,920 miles per year, New York City residents travel fewer miles by car than residents in any U.S. city besides Jersey City. The average New Yorker’s energy consumption and carbon emissions are about one-quarter of that of the average American, and there is no question that the city’s impressive transportation network is crucial to these results. The power largely behind many of these impressive results is the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which oversees a 5,000-square-mile region, includ- ing downstate New York, Long Island, and southwestern Connecticut. According to the MTA’s 2008 sustainability plan, Greening Mass Transit and Metro Regions, MTA must reach at least two-thirds of New York’s projected population growth of 4 million by 2030 for the metropolitan region to maintain its vitality and strong economy. The high public transit use means lower energy consumption for the average New Yorker, because with 8 million riders each day, it is as though each of these people is driving a car with a fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon. It also means fewer carbon emissions. In 2008, MTA joined the Climate Registry, a nonprofit, third-party verifier of GHG emissions, which deter- mined that for every unit of carbon emitted by New York public transportation, more than eight units of carbon are saved due to reduced driving by transit riders.

Research and Data Collection 219 MTA is also expanding uses of renewable energy, partnering with various entities at the city and state levels on TOD, exploring new technologies for trains to recycle energy wasted during braking, and replacing overhead “necklace” lighting on bridges with LED bulbs. Although MTA is responsible for public transit in the region, New York City has been a guid- ing force in the transportation future of the city with its PlaNYC for a “greener, greater New York.” Since 2007, the City has added 200 miles of dedicated bike lanes, and bicycle commut- ers increased 26 percent from 2008 to 2009. In 3 years, it has completed 19 rezonings that have directed development to areas with good transit access. San Francisco, California San Francisco is a major public transit city. More than half of the city and county population commute via public or alternative transportation (e.g., bike, rideshare), and 90 percent of city residents are within two blocks of a public transit stop. Almost one-third of city residents get to work by train, bus, trolley, or cable car; 7 percent carpool, 10 percent walk, and 3 percent bike. A 2008 Commuter Benefits ordinance required employers to reward employees for carpooling or using public transit (Quinton, 2011b). The achievement of this level of reduction in car use has been brought about by a close integration of city and transportation planners. City planners work alongside the San Fran- cisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SFMTA) and regional partners to be sure transit services stay relevant as the city changes. The eastern neighborhoods are of particular concern, because unlike many parts of this densely populated city, they will likely see a huge population increase in the next few decades; current plans show an increase to 320,000 daily trips by 2035—50 percent more than in 2005. The plan ensures transit meets the needs of rapidly growing neighborhoods. City and state GHG reduction targets have focused the region on improving transit networks and getting single-occupancy vehicles off the road. In 2004, San Francisco pledged to reduce carbon emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; in 2006, California committed to reducing GHG emissions 25 percent by 2020 and set a 20 percent reduction goal specifically for the transportation sector. To meet such targets, San Francisco’s transit ridership needs “to be doubled,” the SFMTA noted in its 2008 Climate Action Plan. SFMTA’s investment in clean fuels will help lower emissions citywide. The electric trolley buses, streetcars, and light rail trains that compose roughly half of San Francisco’s transit fleet already produce almost zero emissions. Not only are they electric powered, they are also pow- ered by the city’s hydroelectric plant, keeping fossil fuel use low. All SFMTA buses are either diesel or hybrid-electric models, and by 2020, SFMTA hopes to field an all-electric fleet. Switch- ing nonrevenue vehicles, such as parking enforcement cars, to more fuel-efficient models will be SFMTA’s next big project. At the regional level, the Bay Area Metropolitan Transit Commission has committed to expand the regional bikeway network, increase funding for TOD projects, and integrate a Cli- mate Action Program into regional transportation plans. The Metropolitan Transit Commission has already set aside money for a regional bike-share program, which will involve six cities along the Bay Area peninsula transportation corridor. The proposed development of a California high- speed rail network and initiatives to expand charging base stations for electric vehicles could further improve regional transit dramatically. SFMTA’s Livable Streets unit focuses on “improving quality of life for people on the streets who aren’t in cars” (Quinton, 2011b). Livable Streets pioneered the “sharrow,” a road mark- ing that tells bicycles and cars to share a lane, and has timed traffic signals on a major thor- oughfare so that bicyclists never have to stop at red signals. SFMTA’s Livable Streets plan,

220 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies currently experiencing dramatic increases in demand, is complemented by the city’s Better Streets Plan, a 2006 initiative that aims to make streets pedestrian-friendly and viable pub- lic spaces. Using plantings, open spaces, and other design features, city planners hope to improve air quality, decrease surface runoff, and encourage residents to explore the city by foot or bike. Portland, Oregon Portland is an internationally recognized leader in sustainability planning, TOD, environ- mental stewardship, and infrastructure investments. One of the key elements of Portland’s repu- tation for sustainability is its commitment to public transportation. For example, City-based transit ridership grew almost twice as fast as the population and three times faster than expan- sions in transit service between 1996 and 2006. Eighty-six percent of riders choose the region’s transit system, TriMet, over driving, and transit ridership remains high throughout the week— even on weekends (Quinton, 2011a). TriMet provides light rail, bus, and commuter rail services to the tri-county Portland region and partners with the City of Portland to deliver streetcar services. Portland’s metropolitan planning organization (Metro) oversees transit at the regional level. Both authorities collaborate closely with local developers and city planners. Since the 1970s, Portland has embraced TOD and resisted urban sprawl. City planners have encouraged dense development and tried to prevent suburban sprawl within an urban growth boundary to preserve the green space, agricultural areas, and forestland that lies beyond. Metro also provides tax incentives for TOD. Portland’s Downtown Transit Mall, established in 1978, keeps the city center pedestrian- friendly with one-way streets intended specifically for transit. Since 1975, passengers have been able to ride public transit for free—any day, any time—in downtown Portland. The free service began with certain downtown buses, the only form of transit available at the time, and is now limited to light rail and streetcar services within downtown Portland, the Rose Quarter, and the Lloyd District. Portland also has an aerial tram that links two campuses of the Oregon Health and Science University. The aerial link, owned by the City of Portland, carries 980 people per hour in each direction; by 2007 statistics, 86.4 percent of tram riders are either employees or students of the medical facility (Quinton, 2011a). Portland’s Pearl District revitalization has become a classic case study for urban planners. In the early 1990s, the Pearl District was mostly old industrial warehouses and an abandoned rail yard. A small group of developers, along with city planners, envisioned a much denser urban neighborhood. The stakeholders worked with city government to create a comprehensive devel- opment program; the City would provide the area with a modern streetcar line, and the develop- ers would invest in mixed-use development projects all over the neighborhoods. Collaboration between the City, private developers, TriMet, and the nonprofit Portland Streetcar has resulted in the Pearl District becoming one of Portland’s most attractive neighborhoods, boasting a mix of local and national retailers, residences, and parks. Current projects look beyond downtown Portland, aiming to link the city with other high- density communities in the region. By 2015, TriMet hopes to link Portland directly with Milwaukee, Oregon, by extending rail and streetcar services across the Willamette River. Another light rail extension, this time across the Columbia River, will connect Portland with Vancouver, Washington, by 2020. Perhaps the most comprehensive initiative, the Southwest Corridor Plan will lay out a framework for integrated transportation and land use planning along the corridor between Portland, Tigard, and Sherwood.

Research and Data Collection 221 From green construction practices to reducing GHG emissions, congestion, and waste, TriMet has embraced a holistic environmental vision. All TriMet buses run on a biodiesel fuel blend, and the newest buses use a NASCAR-inspired engine cooling system and computer moni- toring to boost fuel economy. Older buses have been retrofitted with exhaust filters that make their diesel engines burn 90 percent cleaner. Driving policies also help: At transit centers, bus drivers turn off their engines, rather than idling. Portland maintains a strong commitment to environmental stewardship, and both it and Oregon have published climate action plans. By 2020, Oregon hopes to achieve GHG levels 10 percent lower than 1990 levels and, by 2050, 75 percent below 1990 levels. Currently, 38 percent of Oregon’s carbon emissions from fossil fuels come from the transportation sector. Trends in Local Government Sustainable Transportation Programs When these initiatives are reviewed, a number of trends can be identified: • Integration of transportation planning with other services. City or local government sustainability programs tend to focus on the whole range of city services, rather than just transportation. This is because cities, given the factors identified above (e.g., more local- ized and determinate economic interests, physical size, and greater integration of author- ity), must develop more comprehensive plans and approaches. For example, if a local government initiates a Smart Growth program that requires changes in land use and zon- ing, it will inevitably require coordination from water and waste management authorities, school departments, and other agencies that need to be included in coordinated land use planning. • Use of an integrated systems perspective. Local and city sustainability initiatives are based on an understanding of the interaction between transportation and other social and economic systems. Naturally, this leads to a more sustainable, comprehensive view of the transportation system itself. This can be seen in a number of trends. For example, sustainable transporta- tion initiatives emphasize that individuals plan their daily activities. It seeks to understand and influence the full array of economic and psychological factors shaping mode choice and vehicle ownership decisions in the context of these activity patterns. Similarly, sustainable initiatives try to understand and manage the relationship between infrastructure and the pub- lic institutions that operate it. It seeks to reorganize government around managing public infrastructure as an important asset whose value is maximized if it is priced, enforced, and managed effectively. Finally, it aims to better integrate transportation planning with societal needs, including opportunities for recreation and social interaction, and accessibility for chil- dren and the poor. • New institutional requirement. As has been noted previously, sustainability poses a signifi- cant challenge to the ways that transportation agencies define their missions and organize their work. The transformation of local transportation agencies to managing a transportation mission within a larger decisionmaking and funding framework requires a shift in organi- zational culture. This has resulted in redesign of some agency structures, development of new integrated planning structures, and development of comprehensive sustainability culture change programs. • Funding remains a challenge. No matter what size the community, funding is always an issue. Local and state governments have used a variety of low-cost options to encourage people to use sustainable services (e.g., use of information technology to alert commuters to train times). Major transit programs require significant new taxes (e.g., Northern Virginia’s busi- ness metro tax), bond issues, or coordination with state and federal efforts. In many cases, new user fee programs have been introduced. The overriding message is that no one solution will fit all, but every program seems to need new funding initiatives. TBL would add to funding,

222 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies budgeting, and allocation challenges as funding fluidity might involve shifts into and out of transportation-oriented accounts. In a dispersed regional/local demographic, efforts to build a sustainable culture can face spe- cial challenges in establishing consensus around program needs and resource investments. For instance, smaller rural communities may find it difficult to finance and implement transporta- tion alternatives that are typical in urban settings (such as public transit) and they may lack the population density to make them affordable and successful. Rideshare or local employer-led bus transit has been an option in some cases. To illustrate this, the RabbitTransit System in York County, Pennsylvania, works with area employers to offer special all-day routes that serve the community’s largest employer (a regional hospital) and also offers shuttle services at specific times of the day to support smaller employers. Employers pick up the bulk of the costs for these routes, but the routes are also available to the general public. As a result, RabbitTransit enjoys a diversified and sustainable revenue base. Similarly, the public transportation system in Ottawa, Canada, OC Transpo, began offering service to rural communities in 2002, a year after 11 municipalities were amalgamated into the new City of Ottawa. Today, eight routes serve 12 smaller communities that have a total popula- tion of about 84,500. The routes operate in peak times, with some routes averaging only 35 riders per day while others serve more than 230 riders daily. OC Transpo also partners with several local bus companies and other area municipalities to offer 17 “rural partner routes.” These routes connect passengers to regular OC Transpo routes or transport them directly to their destinations (e.g., the downtown area). The low population density, along with the lack of a concentrated revenue base and the dis- tances involved make sustainable transportation in rural areas a major challenge. D.1.3 Federal Sustainability Programs Federal sustainability programs are developing and expanding rapidly and derive their author- ity from a series of EOs (FedCenter.gov, 2012): • Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transporta- tion Management” of 2007, set policy and specific goals for federal agencies to “conduct their environmental, transportation, and energy-related activities under the law in support of their respective missions in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, inte- grated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable manner” (Executive Office of the President, 2007). • Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Per- formance” of 2009, enhances EO 13423 “to establish an integrated strategy toward sustainabil- ity in the federal government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for federal agencies” (Executive Office of the President, 2009). In addition, these EOs established the following processes and management tools to aid in the implementation of the sustainable practices they detail: • Identification of a federal environmental executive • Identification of an agency senior sustainability officer • Establishment of the interagency Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability, which con- sists of the federal environmental executive and the agency senior sustainability officers • Every federal agency was required to develop and submit to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) chair and the OMB director an agency-specific strategic sustainability perfor- mance plan on June 2, 2010. This plan is also required to be updated annually.

Research and Data Collection 223 EO 13514, Section 19, provides the following definitions applicable to this program area: • Agency—an executive agency as defined in Section 105 of Title 5, United States Code, exclud- ing the Government Accountability Office (EO 13514, Section 19(b)) (Executive Office of the President, 2009). • Sustainability and sustainable—to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (EO 13423, Sec- tion 9, and EO 13514, Section 19(l)) (Executive Office of the President, 2007). In terms of transportation, these EOs address vehicle fleet management, which includes optimiz- ing vehicle maintenance operations, biofuels, pollution prevention tools and techniques, and used oil. Both EO 13423 and EO 13514 include goals and objectives applicable to the transportation sector. Note that EO 13514 builds upon and, in some cases, adds or amends EO 13423. The goals, objectives, and sustainable practices outlined in both EOs must be met. In addition, Section 10 of EO 13514 requires that within 180 days of the date of this order (October 5, 2009), the U.S. DOT, in accordance with its Sustainable Partnership Agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the EPA, and in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense (DoD), and other agencies as appropriate, shall: • Review existing policies and practices associated with site selection for federal facilities and • Provide recommendations to the CEQ chair regarding sustainable location strategies for consideration in sustainability plans. In EO 13423, Section 2(d), if an agency operates a fleet of at least 20 motor vehicles, the agency, relative to agency baselines for fiscal year 2005, is required to: • Reduce the fleet’s total consumption of petroleum products by 2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015 (EO 13514, Section 2(a)(iii)(C), changed this date to 2020); • Increase the total fuel consumption that is nonpetroleum based by 10 percent annually; and • Use plugin hybrid (PIH) vehicles when PIH vehicles are commercially available at a cost rea- sonably comparable, on the basis of life-cycle cost, to non-PIH vehicles. In regard to energy-related issues, EO 13423, Section 3(a), mandates that the heads of each agency implement within the agency sustainable practices for vehicle fleet management. EO 13514, Section 2(a)(iii), further requires a reduction of GHG emissions from a reduction in the use of fossil fuels by: • Using low-GHG-emitting vehicles including alternative fuel vehicles and • Optimizing the number of vehicles in the agency fleet. Section 12 of EO 13514 requires the Department of Energy (DOE), in coordination with the GSA, to issue comprehensive guidance on federal fleet management. In April 2010, DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) issued “Guidance for Federal Agencies on EO 13514 Section 12, ‘Federal Fleet Management,’” which fulfills this Section 12 requirement. This guidance, accompanied by the DOE Comprehensive Federal Fleet Management Handbook, helps federal fleet managers implement federal fleet requirements. As can be seen, federal efforts are focused largely at increasing the sustainability of the opera- tions of the federal government using a compliance-based approach. This is supported by a wide range of federal programs that attempt to assist communities, states, and the private sector in developing sustainability programs. Table D-12 shows major sustainability assistance programs by agency; these programs cover a broad range of services and goals.

224 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Agency Program Description HUD The Sustainable Communities Initiative has four components: Sustainable Communities Planning Grants Sustainable Communities Challenge Grants Creation of a Capacity Building Program and Tools Clearinghouse Joint HUD–DOT–EPA Research Effort on Transportation and Housing Linkages Catalytic Investment Competition Grants. This program is a part of the Community Development Block Grant, but like the Sustainable Communities Initiatives, the funding is competitive and not formula based. The funding is specifically designed to leverage other funds, including Choice Neighborhoods and Sustainable Communities grants. Four programmatic eligibilities were outlined: (1) reclaim vacant property and create green infrastructure; (2) remove property-related obstacles to recovery; (3) facilitate economic development and neighborhood vitality in targeted neighborhoods; and (4) support TOD. Choice Neighborhoods. The intention of the program is to create a grant program focused broadly on distressed neighborhoods with a strong emphasis on community planning for school and educational improvements as part of neighborhood revitalization. DOT Livable Communities Program. This funding supports three separate initiatives that are each part of DOT’s role in the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Projects include (1) $307 million in transit funding to increase the planning and project development capabilities of local communities. The program assists transit agencies in using the Job Access and Reverse Commute formula grants; Alternatives Analysis grants; and formula grants for state and metropolitan planning to support planning for and implementation of livable and place-based investments in transportation. (2) $200 million in highway funding for a competitive livability grant program to assist states and local governments in integrating planning processes within transportation, land use, and natural resource conservation. Grants could also be used to enhance the capacity to plan, implement, and assess transportation projects according to livability goals and investment performance objectives. The funds could be used to improve modeling and data collection. (3) Establishment of an Office of Livable Communities in the Office of the Secretary to coordinate multimodal and interagency livability efforts and lead DOT’s investment decisions that focus on livable communities. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funding. Provides loans and grants (as well as supporting public– private partnerships) on the basis of sustainability for “projects of regional or national significance.” This encourages sustainability-driven strategies in transportation. INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool) is a tool developed by the FHWA to be used by state and local transportation agencies to assess the sustainability of road and highway projects. The tool rates projects in terms of economic, environmental, and social factors. Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants funded in American Recovery and Investment Act (ARRA). The U.S. DOT has awarded grants under three programs to surface transportation projects that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The TIGER Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for the U.S. DOT to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve critical national objectives. Congress dedicated $1.5 billion for TIGER I, $600 million for TIGER II, and $526.944 million for the FY 2011 round of TIGER grants to fund projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region, or a metropolitan area. TIGER’s highly competitive process, galvanized by tremendous applicant interest, allowed DOT to Table D-12. Sample federal sustainability programs by agency.

Research and Data Collection 225 Additional sustainability initiatives, programs, and tools that have a more limited focus include the following (FedCenter.gov, 2012): • Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES). BEES 4.0 software is now available for downloading at no charge. BEES is a powerful technique for selecting cost-effective, environmentally preferable building products. BEES reduces complex, science-based techni- cal content (e.g., more than 400 environmental flows from raw material acquisition through product disposal) to decision-enabling results and delivers them in a visually intuitive graphical format. • Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) Sustainability Tool. This tool is a searchable, online database of best practice sustainability measures for building ser- vices engineers. The measures are a distillation of well-established sustainability guidance. The tool provides a short list of measures for specific sustainability topics and references to further guidance, including the section of the relevant document. Issues addressed include water use, adapting buildings for climate change, sustainable drainage systems, site ecology and habitats, and energy recovery. This is not a comprehensive list of all issues addressed. Agency Program Description fund 51 innovative capital projects in TIGER I and an additional 42 capital projects in TIGER II. TIGER II also featured a new Planning Grant category, and 33 planning projects were also funded through TIGER II. In the FY 2011 round of TIGER grants, DOT awarded 46 capital projects in 33 states and Puerto Rico. Each project is multimodal, multijurisdictional, or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. The TIGER program enables DOT to use a rigorous process to select projects with exceptional benefits, explore ways to deliver projects faster and save on construction costs, and make investments in the nation’s infrastructure that make communities more livable and sustainable. FHWA Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) initiative is an approach to transportation decisionmaking that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the planning stage and carries decisions through development, design, construction, and maintenance. By promoting greater communication within and among transportation and resource agencies, PEL can help them to simplify decisionmaking and project development. Developed by a team of representatives from the FHWA and seven other federal agencies, Eco-Logical articulates a vision for an infrastructure development process that endorses ecosystem-based mitigation through integrating plans and data across agency and disciplinary boundaries. The FHWA’s Eco-Logical grant program supports the initiatives that implement the principles set forth in Eco- Logical. Currently, the grant program funds 15 projects nationwide. DOE For more than a decade NREL has represented the spirit of the EO intent for DOE operations to support and enhance TBL sustainability. As would be expected, numerous initiatives focus on a host of conservation, renewable energy, environmental improvement, and other resource management initiatives for lab and other facility operations. The transportation-related initiatives focus on both alternative fuels and fuel conservation through trip-reduction approaches. EPA Healthy Communities Initiative. EPA consolidated several new and existing programs into the Healthy Communities Initiative. All program areas are grant programs and managed by EPA’s Smart Growth office. Table D-12. (Continued).

226 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies • Earth 911 Reuse and Recycling Services. This program helps users identify available recycling services in their state and city for items such as plastics (e.g., packaging peanuts, bags, contain- ers); paper (e.g., books, newspaper, drink boxes, chipboard, cartons); paint products; organic material (e.g., brush, grass clippings, tree trimmings, weeds, soil); metal (e.g., aerosol cans, vehicles, appliances, cans, foil, hangers, propane tanks); glass; batteries (e.g., vehicle, NiCad, rechargeable); construction and demolition materials (e.g., asphalt, flooring, ceiling tiles, carpet padding, concrete, windows, stone, linoleum, porcelain products, brick); and miscella- neous items, such as mattresses, furniture, cooking oils/grease, fluorescent bulbs, and medical equipment. • EPA’s Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program. The ReVA program focuses on region-scale integrated assessment with the aim of assisting decisionmakers in identify- ing and locating both environmental resources and the conditions that are stressing those resources. • GHG impact tools. EPA and its partners have developed several tools to help individu- als and organizations determine the GHG impact of their purchasing, manufacturing, and waste management actions. The Recycled Content (ReCon) tool is used to estimate the life-cycle GHG and energy impacts of purchasing or manufacturing certain materials. Waste Reduction Model (WARM) assists solid waste managers in determining the GHG impacts of their waste management practices. Durable Goods Calculator (DGC) aids in making informed decisions regarding the GHG and energy impact caused by the disposal of durable household goods. Finally, the GHG Equivalencies Calculator expresses quanti- ties of GHG emissions in terms of metrics, such as number of cars, gallons of gasoline, and acres of forest. • GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool. The Sustainable Facilities Tool is a one-stop online resource to support decisionmaking regarding sustainable building principles, materials, and systems. Targeted to help project personnel identify and prioritize cost-effective, sustainable strate- gies for small projects that do not normally engage workplace consultants or designers, this tool helps users understand and select environmentally preferable solutions for renovations, alterations, and leases. • Improving Air Quality in Your Community. This website features activities for reducing both indoor and outdoor pollution, including diesel engine retrofit programs, improving air quality in local schools, and pollution prevention options for small businesses. These projects have a successful track record: They were enacted previously by state and local gov- ernments across the country. This site includes information about the costs to establish and maintain each project and how local communities can apply for EPA grants to kick-start their activities. • Pharos Initiative. Sponsored by the Healthy Building Network and its partners, this tool seeks to define a consumer-driven vision of truly green building materials and how they should be evaluated in harmony with principles of environmental health and justice. Pharos evaluates materials across several impact categories, such as energy/water usage, air quality impact, and toxicity, but also introduces new categories, such as occupational safety, social justice, and habitat impact that, to date, have not been included in any material rating system. Another Pharos tool, PharosWiki, provides users a place to research materials, chemicals, and building products as well as share their experience and knowledge. • READ-Database. This tool provides GIS data and is available online to help renewable energy developers identify appropriate sites for renewable projects, such as utility-scale wind, solar, and geothermal energy facilities that are unlikely to interfere with military activities and train- ing and have the fewest environmental conflicts. This database was developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in coordination with the DoD to help eliminate conflicts between renewable energy developments and DoD operations.

Research and Data Collection 227 • Smart Growth Policies Database. The policies in this database represent a variety of approaches ranging from formal legislative or regulatory efforts to informal approaches, plans, and pro- grams. These actions represent real and innovative ways for communities to realize Smart Growth. • Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools-electronic (SMARTe). SMARTe 2007 is a web-based, menu-driven decision analysis support system for developing and evaluating future reuse scenarios for potentially contaminated land. SMARTe contains guidance and analysis tools for addressing all aspects of the revitalization process, including planning, environmental, economic, and social concerns. SMARTe is intended for all revital- ization stakeholders. SMARTe is being developed by EPA’s Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment and Office of Research and Development, with support from the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. • Sustainable Water Infrastructure. This website provides information about various initia- tives to promote sustainable infrastructure. Specifically, it addresses the four pillars of sustain- able infrastructure: better management, full-cost pricing, efficient water use, and watershed approaches to protection. D.1.4 Sustainability and Sustainable Transportation Programs and Policies in Other Countries A number of other countries have developed advanced sustainability and sustainable trans- portation programs and policies. Although differences in institutional relationships, political systems, and economic, demographic, and land use patterns limit the value of international comparisons, they nevertheless demonstrate potential techniques or approaches that could be adapted to U.S. context. For example, New Zealand, widely regarded as a sustainable transportation leader, is at the forefront in developing a coordinated national policy for sustainability. The 2008 New Zealand Transport Strategy (NZTS) integrated transportation and climate change into a single sustain- ability program. Sustainability is explicitly part of its future vision: “People and freight in New Zealand will have access to an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable trans- port system.” The plan’s targets reflect the stated vision and include halving per capita GHG emissions from domestic transport by 2040, increasing rail’s share of freight to 25 percent of ton-kilometers by 2040, and using electric vehicles widely. While setting targets is not necessar- ily unique for transportation plans, NZTS 2008 is set apart because the targets are statutorily enforced through the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, which estab- lishes short-term system goals that will be achieved by prioritizing funding over the next 6 to 10 years. In addition to the statutory funding statement, NZTS will also be evaluated through a Transport Monitoring Indicator Framework, which is being made available to the public via an online interactive version. The framework provides a procedure to monitor progress toward the objectives, sector outcomes, and targets in the Transport Strategy and Government Policy Statement. It provides a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the current policy and for guid- ing future decisions. Last but not least, it also provides accountability (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). New Zealand’s sustainable transportation program builds on a long history of increasing sustainability initiatives in government, as depicted in Figure D-4. In New Zealand, as it is with many state governments in the United States, successful sustainability programs take a decade or two to achieve and require substantial consensus building and careful development. One of the striking elements of New Zealand’s sustainability efforts has been the emphasis on developing a business case for sustainability. This business case has focused on both formal ROI estimates and qualitative stories that convey clearly the benefits of sustainability. For example,

228 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Source: Auckland Regional Transport Authority (2006). National Energy Effi ciency and Conservation Strategy National Environmental Standards (National Level) Resource Management Act 1991 (as amended 2005) Land Transport Management Act 1998 (as amended 2003) Land Transport Management Act 2003 (as amended 2004) Local Government Act 2002 Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2005 Other Acts e.g., Energy Effi ciency and Conservation Act 2000, Reserves Act, Railways Act 2005 National Land Transport Strategy (cannot be inconsistent with any National Policy Statement) National Land Transport Programme Regional Growth Strategies Local Growth Strategies Auckland Regional Transport Authority - Auckland Transport Plan - Passenger Transport Network Plan - Sustainable Transport Plan - Regional Road Safety Plan - Regional Arterial Road Plan - Land Transport Programme Railways Act 2005 National Policy Statement Specifi c National Strategies - Walking and Cycling Strategy Long Term Council Community Plans (Identifi cation of Community Outcomes) Regional and Local Transport Programmes (Regional Land Transport Strategy and Local Transport Strategies) Other Strategies and Documents (e.g. Reserve Management Plans, Urban Design Protocol) Regional Policy Statements Regional Plans District Plans (all must give effect to any National Policy Statement and have regard to any management plans and strategies prepared under the Acts) (Regional and District Plans must give effect to regional policy statements) Regional Land Transport strategies (cannot be inconsistent with any National Land Transport Strategy, Regional Policy Statement or Regional Plan and must take into account the National Energy Effi ciency and Company) Resource Management Act 1991 (as amended 2005) Purpose of the Act To promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Managing the use, development and protection of natural resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and their communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while: - sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of the future, - safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. Land Transport Management Act 1998 (as amended 2003) Purpose of the Act The Land Transport Act (part 13) directs the development of the National Land Transport Strategy and Regional Land Transport Strategies Land Transport Management Act 2003 (as amended 2004) Purpose of the Act To contribute to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system by providing: - an integrated approach to land transport funding and management, - an improved social and environmental responsibility in land transport funding, planning and management, - improved longterm planning and investment in land transport. Local Government Act 2002 Purpose of the Act To provide for democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity on New Zealand’s communities. This includes providing for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach. Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2005 Purpose of the Act To improve the integration of: - the Auckland regional land transport system, - the management of land transport funding and assets for the Auckland Region, - decision on stormwater funding for the Auckland Region. To require Auckland local authorities to change the policy statement and plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 to integrate the land transport and land use provisions and make those provisions consistent with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy. Other Acts e.g., Energy Effi ciency and Conservation Act 2000, Railways Act 2005 Energy Effi ciency and Conservation Act 2000 Must be taken into account Conservation Act 2000 Must be taken into account Railways Act 2005 The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety of rail operations by: - stating the duty of rail participants to ensure safety; - authorising the Minister to make rules relating to rail- activities; - clarifying the nature of approved safety systems established by rail participants; - restate and amend the law relating to the management of the railway corridor; and - consolidate legislation relating to railways. Figure D-4. Overview of New Zealand’s sustainability legislation and programs.

Research and Data Collection 229 the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy sets out seven objectives for transport in Auck- land for 2006–2016. The first five objectives incorporate the national transport objectives; the last two objectives focus on Auckland and include an economic efficiency dimension (Auckland Regional Transport Authority, 2006): 1. Assisting economic development 2. Assisting safety and personal security 3. Improving access and mobility 4. Protecting and promoting public health 5. Ensuring environmental sustainability 6. Supporting the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 7. Achieving economic efficiency The program established monetized targets for each goal, a methodology to estimate the ben- efits, and a series of indicators that could be used to track achievement of goals (and convert performance into monetized benefits). Collectively, this program creates a compelling business case for sustainability. Table D-13 summarizes these targets. Using this approach, Auckland was able to develop a compelling business case for its sustain- ability plan. Specifically, Auckland was able to show that for an annual allocation of 4 percent of total transportation spending (around NZ$42 million), the sustainability plan was anticipated to yield an annual benefit of NZ$90 million. The United Kingdom is another leader in sustainability planning and sustainable transporta- tion. The most compelling points of its initiatives are the emphasis on prioritization in transpor- tation and the integration of planning and implementation at all levels of government. The prioritization emphasis resulted from the 2008 economic crash, which forced severe budget cuts and restrained spending. Critical to the development of this policy was the Edding- ton Transport Study. Led by Sir Rod Eddington, it was commissioned by the British govern- ment to document the impact of transport decisions on the economy and the environment. The Eddington study confirmed the link between transport and the economy but focused on congested and growing cities, as well as interurban links and international gateways where congestion is a major threat to economic growth. Critically, Eddington emphasized the need to make choices and to balance sustainability with economic growth. The basis of this approach was to state the goal or purpose of a specific transportation policy and to relate it to broader soci- etal goals. Building a road became not simply a way of transporting goods and people from point A to point B, but part of a larger government mission coordinated with other social missions. Figure D-5 shows this logic. Objective Monetized Benefit* Relevance to TBL Element Economy Environ. Society Assisting economic development NZ$50M Assisting safety and personal security NZ$31M Improving access and mobility ** NA Protecting and promoting public health NZ$5M Ensuring environmental sustainability NZ$4.4M Supporting the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy** NA * NZ$ = New Zealand Dollars ** Cannot be quantified Source: Auckland Regional Transport Authority (2006). Table D-13. Auckland regional land transportation monetized benefit targets.

Source: Adapted from (UK) Department for Transport (2007). INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS Ensure freight and passengers can access internaonal gateways Establish appropriate trading and pricing regimes Provide passengers and freight with low-carbon alternaves Reduce risk of terrorist aacks Minimize passenger and employee injuries and deaths on internaonal journeys Improve air quality around internaonal gateways Ensure access to internaonal gateways for all regions Ensure internaonal travelers have a good experience transing through internaonal gateways Reduce impacts on biodiversity, noise, marine resources COMPETITIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY CLIMATE CHANGE SAFETY, SECURITY AND HEALTH QUALITY OF LIFE SOCIAL EQUITY CROSS- CUTTING AREAS Deliver efficient and reliable transportaon networks to support economic growth Combat climate change by ensuring that the right signals are sent to improve efficiency to reduce carbon emissions Reduce deaths and serious injuries across all transportaon networks Enhance the quality of passenger journeys and meet rising expectaons Enhance access to transportaon networks Ensure transportaon contributes to sustainability CITIES/ REGIONAL NETWORKS Get people to work on me, reliably, in reasonable comfort, at reasonable cost, and safely Support economy by access to business Ensure people/business select low-carbon opons Promote ultra-low carbon alternaves Reduce number of short- term trips Reduce transportaon deaths/serious injuries in urban areas Reduce crime risk Reduce risk of terrorism Reduce adverse health condions from emissions Allow people to get to work in reasonable comfort Minimize noise polluon Minimize impacts on townscape and heritage Promote health and well- being from transportaon Help address long-term housing affordability Enhance access to key services, goods, jobs for disadvantaged populaons Ensure rural populaons have access to transportaon NATIONAL NETWORKS Ensure interurban travelers get to key desnaons there and back in a day Enhance resilience of transportaon networks Encourage and enable low-carbon transportaon technology Facilitate the use of low- carbon technology in the freight sector Reduce death and serious injuries across all networks Reduce risk of terrorism Minimize impacts on landscape, biodiversity, water resources Minimize noise populaon Ensure journeys are comfortable/convenient and travel me can be used producvely Help address long-term house affordability Ensure affordability is not a barrier to accessing transportaon Figure D-5. Integration of UK government transportation goals across different modes, levels of government, and goals.

Research and Data Collection 231 The Eddington study also concluded that transportation planning focused prematurely on developing and delivering a specific scheme or solution when it should look at a wide range of possible actions, not just at investment in infrastructure. Critically, both the study and govern- ment policy require that national, regional, and local programs be aligned within a broader policy context to understand the goal and purpose of transportation investments. When these decisionmaking processes are aligned, it is possible to compare the merits of different road- and rail-based solutions to interurban congestion problems and to prioritize funding among the programs. This changes the way government engages with stakeholders and emphasizes the need to build consensus on future transportation needs. Putting proposals through this rigor- ous process enables more secure government funding for the projects. It contrasts with current programs, where individual projects are considered individually and subject to late adjustments in timing (or even cancellation) as better propositions emerge. This leads to inefficiency and disappointed expectations that might have been avoided by a more coordinated approach [(UK) Department for Transport, 2007]. From a state or regional point of view, the British approach shows how multiple transporta- tion modes, agencies, and goals can be combined to create a plan that gives government leaders a common tool to analyze project costs and benefits. Individual interests and stakeholder pres- sures still affect outcomes, but now decisionmakers can identify projects that meet major policy goals, understand their impact on policy areas, and identify tradeoffs. D.1.5 Other Tool-Related Findings from the Research In the course of the research, the following citizen engagement tools, feedback and commu- nication tools, and lessons learned from international experience were identified. Citizen Engagement Tools Specific tools that have been used to involve citizens in decisionmaking include the following: • The Service First Unit of the United Kingdom’s Cabinet Office commissioned the creation of a People’s Panel. The panel consists of 5,000 members of the public randomly selected from across the United Kingdom. It was designed to represent a cross section of the population (e.g., age, background, and region). Panel members are consulted on how public services are delivered and how that delivery can be improved from the user’s point of view. The panel pro- vides a bank of individuals who can be used for a wide range of research and consultation. In addition, data is kept on past interactions so the Service First Unit can track change over time. • The Netherlands has been experimenting with a number of participatory democracy innova- tions with the direct goal of reducing legal objections to development projects. For example, the municipality of Hoogeveen has implemented the “Forge” approach to city planning (the meta- phor being a forge is a workshop where new tools are made). This approach is a dramatic attempt to push control of planning and needs assessments to citizens. All citizens can participate in a Forge, where they come forward with direct ideas and recommendations for projects. Interactive citizen groups then debate and discuss priorities on various “Forge nights,” gradually developing budget priorities before voting on budgets on “budget nights.” So far, more than 18 Forges are operational, and they are generally seen as successful (van Hamersveld and Bina, 2008). • The United Kingdom’s e-petition program allows citizens to create their own petition or join petition efforts online. Once a petition has reached 100,000 signatures, the issue is automati- cally debated in the national Parliament. • The Brazilian city of Porto Alegre—a city of 1.5 million with an economic sphere of more than 4 million people—has been using a system of participatory budgeting since 1989. Under this system, every January a series of assemblies convene across the city and receive instruction

232 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies from city specialists in technical and system aspects of city budgeting. Each assembly then discusses its goals and needs. When consensus is reached, neighborhood assemblies are rolled up into larger plenary assemblies in each of the city’s 16 districts. In addition, special assemblies deal with such areas as transportation, health, education, sports, and economic development. These large meetings (participation can reach more than 1,000) elect del- egates to represent specific neighborhoods. The mayor and staff attend to respond to citizen concerns. In the following months, delegates meet weekly or biweekly in each district to review technical project criteria and district needs. City department staff may participate according to their area of expertise. At a second regional plenary, regional delegates priori- tize the district’s demands and elect 42 councilors representing all districts and thematic areas to serve on the Municipal Council of the Budget. The main function of the Municipal Council of the Budget is to reconcile the demands of each district with available resources and propose and approve an overall municipal budget. The resulting budget is binding; the city council can suggest but not require changes. Only the mayor may veto the budget or remand it back to the Municipal Council of the Budget (a veto or remand scenario has never occurred). A 2003 World Bank paper suggested that participatory budgeting has led to direct improvements in facilities in Porto Alegre (Wagle and Shah, 2003). As a result of Porto Alegre’s experience, about 140 of Brazil’s cities (about 2.5 percent) have adopted participatory budgeting. These and other examples cited throughout this report suggest that there are numerous ways to integrate greater public participation into decisionmaking without losing technical excellence or imposing excessive delay. Feedback and Communication Tools Another critical principle in preparing organizations for sustainability changes is the need to design all policy instruments with explicit feedback and communication mechanisms. A European- wide review of transportation policy identified eight different types of outputs (i.e., program actions and impacts) and feedback (essential cause-and-effect loops) from different countries’ transporta- tion agencies at national, state/regional, and local levels. The study also identified key factors that can enable transportation agencies to correctly identify cause–effect factors and probable policymaking effects. The factors include the following: • Broad-based stakeholder participation throughout the policy development and implementa- tion process, especially in the initial scoping and design of the policy intervention • Established mechanisms for interagency and intergovernmental (i.e., national–local, national– state/regional, state/regional–local, local–local, state/regional–state/regional) communication and coordination • A deep body of technical experts on all dimensions of the proposed policy and the involve- ment of these experts at all stages of the policy process • Experienced administrators that understood how the policy would be implemented and present at all stages of the policymaking and implementation process • Multiple feedback loops combined with an active performance/implementation metrics measurement program • Transparent processes and honest recognition of challenges and opportunities • Flexible implementation and management strategies • Feedback and the reinforcing elements of measurement and communications These factors are the general principles that transportation agencies need to adopt to face an uncertain, rapidly changing future. Section 6.2 of the main report discusses specific actions and policies that agencies could undertake in detail under different scenarios. In analyzing these policies, the research team noted a general phenomenon: No matter what the scenario, certain

Research and Data Collection 233 policies, actions, programs, and concepts made sense. As a result, these generalizable optimal actions are preferable over actions of limited value. Lessons Learned from International Experiences The examples cited above contain many interesting lessons for U.S. transportation agencies. For example, the general tendency toward more centralized and coordinated government struc- tures has been important to their ability to develop more comprehensive sustainability planning (e.g., the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and New Zealand). The flexibility and overall exec- utive control in these countries have made it relatively easy to reorganize and reshuffle agencies and departments to create more integrated transportation TBL-based public sector organiza- tions. For example, in the United Kingdom there have been more than 30 major reorganizations of national government departments and agencies (which have split up, merged, or eliminated major government departments) between 1979 and 2009. Of these, many were made with little external consultation or legislative oversight and were designed and implemented within an extremely rapid time frame. For example, the Department for Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom was created by merging elements of the Business, Innovation, and Skills Department with the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (themselves both the product of multiple reorganizations). The decision to create the new department and the development for this new organization’s design was accomplished in one evening. No legislative approval was needed prior to the reorganization, and the new department came into being with no notice between the end of one working day and the beginning of the next [See White and Dunleavy (2010)]. The point of the discussion is that agencies with broad powers to implement top-level strategy (not limited in focus on a single bottom line or public utility) can react quickly to shifting policy systems. However, it is noticeable that even in countries with a high degree of institutional flexibility and control, new planning mechanisms and major cultural change have to occur to success- fully manage the new system. In each country, despite the existence of many more integrated, sustainability-focused organizations, there are still the same battles between interest groups, organization interests, and different constituencies. In fact, of the clearest findings from our analysis of international initiatives, the extent to which they have made any real difference is unknown. Evaluation of the impacts of international sustainability programs are lacking and, to date, there is very little objective analysis of whether investment in these programs has led to any significant change that could not have been achieved by the previous organizations or would not have occurred due to broader social and economic change. D.2 Key Insights The literature review and stakeholder interviews revealed a number of key insights: • Sustainability is a complex, challenging idea. There is growing understanding of the mean- ing of sustainability, but generally the term is not well understood. Its inherent complexity and ambiguity deters decisionmakers, and key stakeholders and interest groups are often reluctant to embrace the concept and uncomfortable with its connotations. • Understanding of and support for sustainability is increasing. Despite certain resistance toward sustainability, its acceptance is growing, as evidenced by more sustainability pro- grams and greater integration of sustainability into transportation policy and all levels of government. • TBL needs a fiscal element. TBL is gaining acceptance, too, but many believe it requires a fourth element—fiscal sustainability. Economically struggling states are more focused on sys- tem preservation, rather than new capital programs. Now, programs must consider long-term

234 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies funding and support. This means sufficient and dependably reliable funding is needed to provide for the longer view that TBL requires. Innovations, such as FCA or LCC, should capture the full cost of transportation investments and demonstrate how they will be funded in the future. • Social indicators are difficult to develop. Many states and localities are developing sustain- ability indicator programs. These programs tend to have relatively robust indicators of eco- nomic and environmental progress; however, it is difficult to develop social indicators. Most programs tend to use census data to develop environmental equity programs, but there is a need to develop more comprehensive social indicators. States that have attempted to do this have found costs prohibitive, measures difficult to develop, and data hard to obtain. • Waiting for demand versus developing demand. A number of interviewees stated that sustainability had to wait for strong leadership from the state or local leaders, or from the public as a whole. Others said that support for sustainability could be generated slowly by small modifications to the planning process and indicator system, and by transportation agencies developing a constituency for sustainability. Both positions have their merits. However, cities such as Portland, Oregon, show that small-scale efforts can generate public demand for sustainability. • Sustainability can’t be an add-on; it must inform organizational culture and internal pro- cess. The literature review and practitioner interviews suggest that sustainability must be a complete process. Transportation agencies need to change their processes, culture, and opera- tions to best support sustainability. This requires developing a new vocabulary and set of processes to understand sustainability and place it in the context of traditional transportation engineering. In addition, it requires recruiting new specialists with different expertise, chang- ing individual performance standards to influence behavior, encouraging culture change, and developing new internal processes (e.g., transportation modeling) and organizations. • One size will not fit all. The literature and practitioner interviews both emphasize that one size will not fit all when it comes to sustainability programs. The unique conditions of each state require unique solutions, and there are a range of tools and innovations to meet these needs. For example, most states have adopted similar performance standards and methods, so combining different indicators could prove useful, as would scenario planning. • The business case for sustainability needs to be built and ROI shown. Interviewees and the literature both conveyed the need for a comprehensive business case for sustainability that shows clearly the ROI for sustainability expressed in monetary or monetary-equivalent terms. The ROI should include the full range of societal, economic, and environmental elements of sustainability. Several such tools exist [e.g., Parsons Brinckerhoff’s PRISM™, HDR’s sustain- ability ROI (SROI)] but no such tool has gained wide acceptance in the United States. • Localities are the leaders in sustainability. TBL sustainability initiatives can most readily be pursued on a local level, as significant progress and focus can be seen in a number of cities and localities. Localities have the authority (e.g., control over land use), underlying resources (e.g., transit systems, concentrated populations), and revenue sources (e.g., user fees, local taxes) to support some TBL sustainability programs. TBL consensus-building challenges are increas- ingly complex on a state, regional, and national scale. Ultimately, to succeed, TBL sustain- ability must be embraced at all levels of government and across economic and societal sectors. • Sustainability requires public and stakeholder engagement. The literature emphasizes that successful sustainability programs need to be based on substantial stakeholder buy-in and constant public involvement. The vast changes required by sustainability require planning and implementation to go beyond the old traditional, limited public involvement process. Instead of relying on traditional approaches, several sustainability initiatives have adopted a more direct and participatory form of public engagement to achieve a workable consensus on needs and goals. Several transportation agencies have successfully engaged the public and

Research and Data Collection 235 organized interests in forums where decisions on needs and goals are genuinely up for discussion rather than being pushed through with Q&A and minimal debate. Some transportation policy analysts have suggested that transportation planners should be better trained and effective as facilitators of stakeholder debates and discussions rather than simply as managers and collectors of citizen input (Forester, 1989; Innes, 1995). In this regard, Arnstein’s “ladder of citizen participation” is useful (Arnstein, 1969). As Figure D-6 shows, Arnstein visualized eight levels of citizen participation. The top three rungs represent real citizen participation and control, and the bottom five rep- resent increasing control and management of citizens’ needs and goals. Planners have traditionally resisted citizen involvement on the grounds that citizens lack the exper- tise to participate in technical discussion. However, perceptions of failure of central planning and process-driven public involvement, coupled with continued expansion of economic and demographic information available to citizen groups and organized interests, will increase demand for change to traditional transportation decision- making. This need to involve the public more directly in decisionmaking to attain support for future initiatives suggests that transportation agencies must develop new mechanisms to bring the public into the process. Transportation agencies could include the public throughout the planning process via small meetings with stakeholders, larger visioning events, or website surveys and could engage stakeholders and community members on what sustainability initia- tives are important to them. For example, Newark’s Green Future Summit in 2007 was attended by local and national experts to facilitate a process to enable the people of Newark to define what sustainability means to Newark and the overarching goals for making Newark a more sustainable place to live and work. The City of Newark intends to use a report from the summit as a starting point for the development of its sustainability plan. Once this is completed the public can continue to be involved in the development of specific metrics for a sustainability plan. In another case, PlaNYC contains 127 initiatives aimed at achieving the City’s 10 sustainability goals. PlaNYC contains a matrix of initiatives and goals and the imple- mentation plan matrix that are used day-to-day to manage and coordinate the plan. The public and stakeholders were informed of the plan with substantial public input—as it was developed and as key metrics were chosen. New York releases a PlaNYC Progress Report to the public each year with detailed updates on progress toward the 10 sustain- ability goals. References Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216–224. Arrow, K. J., and Lind, R. C. (1970). Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decision. American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 3, p. 364. Arrow, K. J., Cline, W., Maler, K.-G., Munasinghe, M., Squitieri, R., and Stiglitz, J. (1996). Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency. In Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 127–136. Auckland Regional Transport Authority. (2006). Sustainable Transport Plan. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Auerbach, A. J. (1982). Tax Neutrality and the Social Discount Rate. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 355–372. Barmeyer, M. L. (2011a). Transportation / Boston, Massachusetts. Smarter Cities. http://smartercities.nrdc.org/ topic/transportation/boston-massachusetts. Barmeyer, M. L. (2011b). Transportation / New York, New York. Smarter Cities. http://smartercities.nrdc.org/ topic/transportation/new-york-new-york-0. Public control Delegated Power Partnership Placaon Consultaon Informing “Therapy” Manipulaon Increasing public control of policymaking Figure D-6. Levels of public participation.

236 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Barnett, H., and Morse, C. (1963). Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future. Baumol, W. J. (1968). On the Social Rate of Discount. American Economic Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 788–802. Beder, S. (2000). Costing the Earth: Equity, Sustainable Development and Environmental Economics. New Zea- land Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 4, pp. 227–243. Bradford, D. F. (1975). Constraints on Government Investment Opportunities and the Choice of Discount Rate. American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 5, p. 887. Bridges, M. (2008). Managing Change in a Changing Environment. Baton Rouge, La.: Quality & Continuous Improvement Program, Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development. Brody, S. and Margerum, R. D. (2009). Oregon’s Acts, Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration and Improved Transporta- tion Planning. Salem, Ore.: Oregon Department of Transportation. Committee for the Conference on Introducing Sustainability into Surface Transportation Planning. (2005). Conference Proceedings 37: Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Field, F., Hall, R., Kirchain, R., Marks, D., Oye, K., and Sussman, J. (2004). Sustainability as an Organizing Design Principle for Large Scale Engineering Systems. Boston, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Executive Office of the President. (2007, January 24). Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Trans- portation Management. Executive Order 13423. Federal Register, Vol. 72, pp. 2763–2765. Executive Office of the President. (2009, October 5). Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Eco- nomic Performance. Executive Order 13514. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 194, pp. 52117–52127. FedCenter.gov. (2012). Sustainability Program Area. Fedcenter.gov. http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/ sustainability/. Accessed February 15, 2012. Fordham, D. (2008). Oregon Department of Transportation Sustainability Plan. Salem, Ore.: ODOT Sustainability Council. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fuguitt, D. and Wilcox, S. J. (1999). Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Public Sector. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. (2011). Sustainability Evaluation and Planning Guidance for Transportation Systems Transportation Planning. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty. Gordon, D. (2005). Fiscal Policies for Sustainable Transportation: International Best Practices. The Energy Foundation and The Hewlett Foundation. Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association. (2005). “The NPS Split Personality.” http://www.adventuresports. com/wwraft/gcroa.org/Pages/nationalpark.htm. Green Boston Climate Action Leadership Committee and Community. (2010). Sparking Boston’s Climate Revolu- tion. Boston, Mass.: Green Boston. Harberger, A. C. (1968). On Measuring the Social Opportunity Cost of the Public Funds, in the Discount Rate in Public Investment Evaluation. Conference Proceedings of the Committee on the Economics of Water Resources Development, Report No 17. Western Agricultural Economics Research Council, pp. 1–24. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 14, pp. 183–189. Lind, R. C. (1982). A Primer on the Major Issues Relating to the Discount Rate for Evaluating National Energy Options. In Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy, (Lind, R. C., ed.), Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 21–94. National Resources Defense Council. (n.d.) “Environmental Issues: Sustainable Communities.” http://smartercities. nrdc.org/. Norton, B. (1986). Conservation and Preservation: A Conceptual Rehabilitation. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 195. Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s Responsibility to Nature. New York: Scribner. Portney, P. R. and Weyant, J. P. (eds.). (1999). Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. Stanford, Calif.: RFF Press. Quinton, S. (2011a). Transportation/Portland, Oregon. Smarter Cities. http://smartercities.nrdc.org/topic/ transportation/portland-oregon. Accessed February 20, 2012. Quinton, S. (2011b). Transportation/San Francisco, California. Smarter Cities. http://smartercities.nrdc.org/ topic/transportation/san-francisco-california-0. Accessed February 10, 2012. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Schick, A. (2005). Sustainable Budget Policy: Concepts and Approaches. OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 107–126.

Research and Data Collection 237 Schiller, P., Bruun, E. C., and Kenworthy, J. R. (2010). Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. London: Earthscan. Schweiger, C. (2003). TCRP Synthesis of Practice 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Simons, J. (1981). The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Strow, B. K. and Strow, C. W. (2010). Sustainable Budgeting. Bowling Green, Ky.: Western Kentucky University. Tresch, R. W. (2002). Public Finance: A Normative Theory, 2nd ed. Waltham, Mass.: Academic Press. Tyler, C. and Willand, J. (1997). Public Budgeting in America: A Twentieth Century Retrospective. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol. 9, pp. 189–219. (United Kingdom) Department for Transport. (2007). Towards a Sustainable Transport System Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World. London. van Hamersveld, I. and Bina, V. (2008, May). Country Profile: The Netherlands. The Hague, Netherlands: Compendium of Cultural Trends and Policies in Europe. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. (2008). Compendium of Model Sustainability Practices. Alexandria, Va.: EcoCity Alexandria. Wagle, S. and Shah, P. (2003). Case Study 2 - Porto Alegre, Brazil: Participatory Approaches in Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management. Washington, D.C.: Social Development Family in the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network of the World Bank. White, A. and Dunleavy, P. (2010). Making and Breaking Whitehall Departments: A Guide to Machinery of Govern- ment Changes. London: Institute for Government; LSE Public Policy Group. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27949/. Whitelegg, J. (2003). Selected International Transport Investment and Funding Frameworks and Outcomes. Australian National Transport Secretariat. Whitty, J. M. (2007). Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program Final Report. Salem, Ore.: Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, Oregon Department of Transportation.