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.

1 Research Approach Overview The research for National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-83(7) followed a systematic process of defining key terms and concepts, forecasting plausible future scenarios, performing present–future gap analysis, assessing near-term tools, and providing methods and recommendations for transportation agencies to monitor progress toward a sustainable society and to prepare to effectively support that policy system. The research and analysis in this report achieves the following goals: • Defines sustainability and its organizing principles, and assesses the current progress and ability of transportation agencies to support a sustainable society • Presents literature review and thought-leader interview findings on current sustainability- related practices and initiatives • Postulates and assesses the key gaps between present-day agency functions and those that would most likely be needed in a future sustainable society setting • Presents multiple plausible future scenarios and identifies future opportunities and challenges that transportation agencies would encounter in a sustainable society setting under each of the scenarios • Provides recommendations on near-term actions, and tools and methods to be developed to prepare to support societal sustainability in the future Key limitations on the scope of this research report are as follows: • This report is not intended to address sustainable transportation; rather, it focuses on how transportation agencies can best support a sustainable society. • This report is not intended to recommend specific policies, programs, or guidelines that can be followed to deliver a more sustainable society or sustainable transportation; instead, it focuses on the factors affecting the capabilities of transportation agencies to support a sustainable society and how this capability can be improved given future scenarios. • This report provides recommended strategies and methods to help transportation agencies anticipate evolution of a triple-bottom-line (TBL) sustainability policy system1 and to act in the near term to prepare transportation agencies to best support a sustainable society in the future. • This report focuses primarily on state transportation agencies; however, it does address how regional, local, and federal transportation agencies may be involved in future sustainability- related programs. S U M M A R Y Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 1 A policy system that is intended to manage and preserve an optimum balance in the value of economic, environmental, and social well-being for future generations.

2 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Anticipating that audiences will include industry practitioners of various levels and disciplines, as well as academic researchers, the research was guided by the intent to support all of the findings, opinions, theory, logic, and case experience to the fullest practical extent in the report—so that all audiences may find the explanations and sources they need for the material to be useful. This research is not intended to advocate or to predict that sustainability will become a viable overarching organizing principle for transportation. Rather, the work is intended to consider how transportation might best support a sustainable society in the future—and to examine what the implications for the transportation community might be if sustainability is adopted as an organizing principle for transportation agencies. This research is forecasting the environments that state departments of transportation (DOTs) may find themselves in between 2030 and 2050. The research addresses multiple topics for which precedent and experience are lacking. Actual experience with the managed achievement of a TBL sustainable society is nonexistent. Additional challenges for the research included the following: • Predicting a distant future. This is impossible to do with precision and detail. To cover the possibilities, the research team developed a set of plausible futures using logical projections of the key drivers that are likely to affect social, economic, and environmental conditions. However, because the team cannot foresee the “expected unexpected,” the details of each projection are somewhat speculative and debatable. • Defining sustainability in programs and literature. The term “sustainability” is used in multiple ways in industry, and it frequently refers to initiatives that focus on sustainability of particular operations or projects, enhancing or preserving a single bottom line—usually the environment. This report uses “TBL” when “triple-bottom-line” sustainability is intended. • Applying economic and social theories to long-term demographic effects. With much of the infrastructure and jurisdictions fixed, significant demographic shifts (even gradual ones) can present governance, management, resource, and TBL policy challenges to agencies at all levels. Defining Sustainability and Key Assumptions There are many popular definitions of sustainability in use today. The research team has based its working definition on the report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Com- mon Future, which provides a now well-accepted definition of sustainable development: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without com- promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). NCHRP Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Trans- portation Agencies provides guidance for state DOTs and other transportation agencies to understand and apply measures and concepts of sustainability. This guidance also contrasts sustainable development and the broader concept of TBL sustainability. The basic thrust of the Brundtland definition is generational equity (achieved through consideration of the TBL), which is a reasonable definition to apply to sustainable society. Sustainability calls for consideration and balance of three policy dimensions—economic, social, and environmental— the elements of the TBL. The research team used “TBL” as an appropriate descriptor for this concept in the research and adopted some additional key assumptions: • TBL focuses on the long term rather than the short term: The key requirement of sustain- ability is to allow fulfillment of present as well as future needs; present and future needs fulfillment must occur for development to be sustainable.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 3 • TBL is an integrated rather than a stand-alone concept: TBL is not exclusive to any one policy area or system. Given the integrated nature of transportation with the rest of human activity, it is difficult to view the transportation system in isolation. Sustainable transportation requires considering a broad definition of sustainability that considers how transportation affects overall social sustainability and how other policy areas need to be coordinated to achieve sustainability. • TBL is multidimensional: The three TBL dimensions do not represent clearly distinct compartments; rather, they provide ways to systematically view the interlinked character of societal development as it draws on environmental, economic, and social resources and mechanisms. Development along the TBL dimensions does not take place in a governance vacuum; it presupposes institutional arrangements and institutional reforms. Society can work toward this concept with specific environmental, social, or economic improvement initiatives, but, to reach the goal of sustainable TBL, programs need to • Provide for generational equity in society’s well-being overall, per the Brundtland definition; • Stand up to TBL challenges under a reasonable range of plausible future scenarios; and • Be based on long-range logic and TBL decisions that yield discernible return on investment (ROI) along the three bottom lines to ensure public support. TBL sustainability definitions depend fundamentally on the treatment of social, envi- ronmental, and economic stores of capital value to the public. The general definitions of the three stores of capital are found in the literature as follows: environmental capital is the value of the quality and health of the environment; social capital is the value of social condi- tions and the networks of relationships that support social needs; and economic capital is the value of economic growth to support and improve the health and welfare of a society. Presumably the total “value” of all three capital stores should be optimized (or maximized) for best overall societal well-being—provided the values of the three stores can be maintained in an acceptable balance or proportion to each other for future generations, as determined by local, regional, and/or national public will. The long-range, broad risk/reward decisions and planning needed to address generational equity on a TBL scale are foreign to the shorter and mid-range perspectives of most decision- makers in both the public and private sectors. U.S. society can easily be distracted from sustainable TBL by pressing near-term issues or by the need for a narrow focus on a singular (albeit important) long-term challenge. The latter challenge is perhaps why the U.S. policy system has been tilting toward empha- sizing reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is not to say GHG reduction is not a very big concern or that it does not go hand in hand with the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. But by the policy system definition above, GHG abatement has passed through the “widely held belief” stage, and many agencies and interest groups are now working on the second stage (policy and measurement) in the United States and overseas. The research team took some perspectives from the GHG case to inform this research on how a future sustainable TBL policy system may evolve. In practice, the term “sustainability” is used very loosely. It is used most often in reference to objectives connected primarily to one of the three bottom lines, or to specific assets or processes such as “sustainable business” or “sustainable hotels.” This usage has complicated the dialogue about and understanding of practices that apply to a sustainable TBL society. Transportation asserts an enormous effect on all three elements of the established view of TBL sustainability producing both benefits and impact: • The economy is highly dependent on the readily accessible and efficient movement of people and commerce, but the economy is also very sensitive to availability and cost of

4 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies resources—and transportation consumes about a quarter of all the energy used in the United States. • Social well-being depends heavily on accessible and efficient transportation services; how- ever, extensive fixed infrastructure and operations that intrude on quality of community life strongly affect social well-being. Effective transportation planning and development practices can mitigate or resolve many of these issues. • The environment does not benefit in many ways from transportation; at the same time, transportation agencies focus on compliance with environmental regulations and on initiatives to mitigate negative impacts and to enhance the environment where possible. Defining “Organizing Principle” and “Policy System” An “organizing principle” is a core assumption from which everything else can derive a classification or value. That is, an organizing principle is a central reference point or frame- work that allows all other concepts or values to be located in a single conceptual map. In terms of the design of organizations and decisionmaking structures, organizing principles sit above statements of specific goals or objectives, decisionmaking tools, and policies. Organizing principles represent a paradigm through which all aspects of a delivery system for a public good are considered.2 With a slightly broadened definition, an organizing principle is also commonly understood as a “policy system.” A policy system encompasses the same policymaking and high-level functional components as does an organizing principle. A policy system includes more explicit overarching priorities at the top level, along with measurement systems and feedback to enable and inform policy. The overarching priority and the measurement concept reso- nate well with the past and present experience with evolution of organizing principles, or policy systems. An evolving policy system: • Starts with a strong, widely held belief in an overarching priority, concern, or concept; • Builds on policy and measurement approaches that can support and inform policy and regulation; and • Engages high-level functions to deliver on the priority and concept. The concept of policy system change is highly relevant to this project. How transporta- tion policy systems are influenced toward change and the processes for framing new policies are important to understanding the implications of supporting a sustainable society under different scenarios. Studies of policy system evolution and policy framing have shown that it is an important process that occurs in major policy debates (Gamson, 1992; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Gamson et al., 1992). Importantly, a policy frame can contain a range of positions on an issue. Individuals can share a common understanding of a policy frame while holding substantially different policy preferences. For example, two planners can accept the framing of transportation policy based on sustainability and perform the same analysis of a transportation issue but see different solutions. Transportation agencies will have to 2 “Public goods” and “public services” in this sense generally refer to the goods and services provided by a government to its citizens. A government provides public goods and services directly (through the public sector); by financing private provision of services; or by implementing policies that encourage individuals, the private sector, and other groups to provide those goods and services. Where public goods and services are neither publicly provided nor financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 5 adopt new policy frames that reframe the issue of transportation within a sustainability context and reach consensus with the public and specific policy actors within the process. Policy systems have evolved in this way for generations. Early in U.S. history, transportation played an important role in opening up the country’s resources and fueling the industrial revolution. Mobility then became a distinct policy system as it drove major transportation infrastructure development. As the infrastructure fueled growth, the U.S. policy system gradually evolved to respond to safety and environmental concerns that had generally been absent earlier. Those concerns were then met with the development of extensive regulation, further transforming the policy system focus to regulatory compliance. This regulatory policy system in turn led to a greater outcome-and-performance focus in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) eras, while retaining the strong environmental compliance principles. Today a new policy system is evolving that seems to be focusing on nonrenewable resources and climate change concerns, though all levels of government have not yet embraced this system. Policy systems can exist singly or in parallel in society, depending on the sector focus of the priorities or the concepts driving them. Policy systems evolve and decline as priorities strengthen and abate. For this research, the team developed and characterized the evolution of transportation policy systems toward supporting a sustainable society. The evolution begins with the early policy system of the 1950s and 1960s (Safe Mobility), evolves through the end of the 20th century (Compliant Transportation) into the current decade (Green Transportation), and then evolves through a future sustainability-focused system (Sustainable Transportation) into the society sustainable (TBL Sustainability) policy system. These are summarized in Figure 1. Chapter 2 discusses the five identified policy system models in more detail. The policy systems models depicted are thematic and apply to transportation as a whole. Not all transportation agencies and sectors adapt to aspects of these policy systems in the same way—or during the same time frame. Chapter 2 illuminates this point further. It describes the policy system models, as well as where various levels of U.S. government agencies and international governments appear on this spectrum. Level 2, Green Transporta- tion, depicts the policy system model that many transportation agencies operate under today. Level 4 is conceptualized as the policy system model that would drive TBL sustainability in the future. High-Level Functional Framework for a Policy System To frame and structure an analysis of a future policy system based on sustainability, the research team determined to focus initially on the high-level functions that are common to federal, state, and local transportation policy systems. These high-level functions fall into three broad categories: governance and policymaking, decisionmaking, and enterprise management, as shown in Table 1. These functions do not form a strict hierarchy; rather, they are the core functions that work to establish a policy system and deliver transportation products and services. The core functions are used in this report to enable systematic assessment of sustainability as an organizing principle—or basis of a policy system—for transportation. The core functions do not necessarily imply specific activities vested in specific entities. Under any policy system, these core functions may be executed by one, some, many, or all

6 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Focus of Sustainability Initiatives A b il it y to S u p p or t a S u st ai n ab le S oc ie ty Compliance/Short-term Focus Sustainability/Long-term Focus Fo cu s on H ig h w ay T ra n sp or ta ti on O n ly Fo cu s on S oc ie ta l S u st ai n ab il it y LEVEL 0 – SAFE MOBILITY • Supports societal mobility & safety • Favors government ownership & control of the transportation infrastructure • Transportation agency: infrastructure owner-manager and regulator LEVEL 1 - COMPLIANT TRANSPORTATION • Supports societal mobility & safety • Compliance with environmental, economic, and social legislative requirements • Transportation agency: infrastructure owner-manager & and regulator • Top-down planning LEVEL 2 - GREEN TRANSPORTATION • Supports societal mobility, safety, environmental, economic, and social needs -- Emphasizes Environment • Transportation agency: infrastructure owner-manager and regulator LEVEL 3 - SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION • Supports sustainable transportation • Risk-sharing between public and private sector • Infrastructure integrator (some owner-operator & some private) • Regulator LEVEL 4 - TBL SUSTAINABILITY • Supports societal sustainability • Broad agency decision-making partnerships • Risk-sharing between public and private sector • Infrastructure Integrator (some owner, some owner-operator, and some private) • Regulator and steward partner Figure 1. Past, present, and future transportation policy systems. Governance and Policymaking Decisionmaking Enterprise Management High-Level Functions Consensus on Needs and Goals Planning and Programming Service and Product Delivery Regulation and Rulemaking Outreach and Communications Budgeting and Resource Allocation Compliance and Dispute Resolution Education, Training, and Culture Change Table 1. Functional framework for assessment of a future TBL policy system. entities engaged in the business of transportation. Today, numerous entities structure and execute these functions to follow various policy systems (e.g., mobility, safety, economic development, environmental stewardship). The body of this report further describes and assesses the core functions. The research team notes here that the future organizational aspects of a policy system can follow many structural schemata. The practical considerations of authorities, nature

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 7 of tradeoffs and decisions, information to be processed, geography, and cross-sector and multimodal issues and strategies will ultimately drive the basic institutional, commercial, and government structures and relationships that make best sense at the time. Key Research Findings For this project, the research team performed an extensive literature review and interviewed subject matter experts (SMEs), thought leaders, and senior agency officials. Key themes from the interview process are summarized in Table 2. These themes reflect the opinions of multiple interviewees and therefore show some divergence of opinion. Theme Supporting Opinions Sustainability is a complex, challenging idea. Definitions are complex and ambiguous. Some don’t yet accept the concept and are uncomfortable with its connotations. Understanding of and support for sustainability is increasing. The current trend is toward acceptance of the need for sustainability. Transportation policy is increasingly integrating the concept of sustainability. TBL needs a fiscal element. TBL needs to address sustainable fiscal capacity that provides financial resources in the future. Long-term funding and support commitments are needed. Social indicators are difficult to develop. Developing credible social indicators is challenging. Cost of developing indicators is prohibitive and measures are difficult to apply. The current trend is to wait for demand rather than to develop demand. The tendency is to wait for strong leadership from state or local leaders or the public. Small modifications in the planning process can build constituency. Waiting for public policy is not necessarily the best solution. Sustainability cannot be an add-on; it must inform culture and process. Sustainability needs a total process and culture change. TBL is outside the context of traditional transportation planning and engineering. Performance standards should be used to influence change. New internal processes and organization schemes are needed. One size will not fit all. Case conditions vary so much that tailored, different solutions are needed. A range of tools and accepted performance standards are needed. Methods are needed to normalize different measures and indicators. Scenario planning could be useful in planning for sustainability. There is a need to build the business case for sustainability and show ROI. A comprehensive business case for sustainability is needed. Appropriate ROI tools for sustainability do not exist in the United States. Sustainability requires public involvement and stakeholder buy-in. Substantial stakeholder buy-in and continual public involvement is needed. The concept is too far-reaching for the traditional public involvement process. Localities can lead in sustainability initiatives. Localities influence land use, transit, user charging, and voters. Modally focused agencies are more limited in flexibility. Coordination of programs with modal agencies at all levels is needed. Table 2. Key interview themes.

8 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies The literature review aligned with the interview findings overall and added best practice information. Information from the review and interviews on specific subject areas and on transportation agency initiatives is provided in Appendix D. Highlights of this effort are as follows. Sustainability Programs in State DOTs Over half of state DOTs include sustainability principles in their mission statements, with most statements mentioning the need to balance economic, environmental, and quality-of- life concerns (data on this topic was collected from 2010 to 2011). However, no state has a legislatively authorized sustainable transportation program. It appears that at the state level there is a growing adoption of sustainability terminology but limited implementation of TBL programs. Interviewees and the literature review support the general principles of sustainability but note that, in some quarters, the term is polarizing and controversial— with resources stretched thin and state governments focusing on economic growth and job creation. A number of states have well-developed initiatives to address sustainability issues proactively, including development of rating systems and decision-support methodologies focused on planning, programming, project delivery, and operations. While social values and economic development issues are taken into consideration in some of these tools, the most direct focus is on evaluation of environmental effects. Funding and Needs Assessment 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 strategy is needed to fund the future development and maintenance of federal, state, and local transportation systems (Committee for the Conference on Introducing Sustainability into Surface Trans- portation Planning, 2005). Technology, shrinking government budgets, and public hostility to across-the-board tax increases all make some form of user-fee strategy potentially appealing; however user-charging schemes of the type adopted in Singapore, Denmark, or other foreign countries have been difficult to implement in the United States. Sustainability, Resource Allocation, and Intergenerational Equity “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, transportation resource allocation and budgeting should be approached as a whole and resources allocated to achieve the optimal sustainable return” (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 2004). A major issue in accounting for the cost of programs or projects in the context of sustain- ability is the inclusion and evaluation of intergenerational equity and environmental justice. Research 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 TBL capital as well as any social/environmental benefits of de-emphasizing consumption. Coordination and Planning Coordination is a major challenge because it is multidirectional, that is, horizontal between different departments within the state government and vertical between different levels of

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 9 government. It was noted in interviews and from the literature review 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, involving coordination with other state-level agencies and/or local governments. Data and Performance Measures Data and performance measurement are vital to sustainability management and to communicating complex decisions to legislators and to the public. About 60 percent of state DOTs use performance measures or indicators that are related in some way to sustainability— that is, they mention the environment, economy, and/or quality of life—and approximately 20 percent of DOTs use similar indicators for project prioritization. The use of “green” transportation standards for transportation investments is a closely related topic. Several states have developed rating systems modeled after the U.S. Green Building Council’s Lead- ership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for buildings. In general, there is substantial data available on environmental and economic indicators, but it is more difficult for state DOTs to develop and agree on meaningful indicators of quality of life. 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 meaningful leading indicators. Culture Change, Outreach, and Communication Sustainability will require substantial culture change, both within agencies and among public and state leaders. Widespread public support will be needed to drive legislation, policy, and executive orders. Given the current fiscal and economic climate, many agencies lack legislative, executive, and even public support to engage in new initiatives; most are focused on ways to save money and provide more efficient service delivery rather than on long-term benefits that are difficult to demonstrate. There is a need for TBL-based ROI tools to develop and communicate strong and credible business cases for sustainability. Local Government Sustainability Programs Most of the sustainability literature indicates that cities and local governments are well positioned for leadership in government sustainability initiatives. Cities experience problems and challenges that often require close integration of economic, environmental, and social policies and ready access to key stakeholders helps in developing consensus for action. Control or influence over land use decisions provides leverage to implement sustainability policy. Through a concentrated footprint, cities’ economic and transportation needs are more uniform (than most states), somewhat simplifying transportation policy alternatives. Trends in Local Government Sustainable Transportation Programs Sustainability programs in several large and medium-sized cities were reviewed, and the research team found that programs tend to integrate a range of public services, rather than just transportation. If a local government initiates a Smart Growth program that requires changes in land use and zoning, it will inevitably require coordination from water and waste management authorities, school departments, and other agencies that need to be included

10 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies in coordinated land use planning. This leads to better integration of transportation planning with societal needs, including opportunities for recreation and social interaction, and accessibility for children and the poor. Managing a transportation mission within a larger decisionmaking and funding framework requires a supportive organizational culture, an agency structure, and planning structures that integrate sustainability culture. No matter what size the community, transportation funding has remained 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 business metro tax), bond issues, or coordination with state and federal efforts. Initiatives are also funded out of local use charges, including parking, tolls, taxes, and bonds. Federal Sustainability Programs Federal sustainability programs are developing and expanding, deriving their authority from a series of executive orders (FedCenter.gov, 2012). To date, these orders have focused primarily on internal federal agency priorities and operational efficiency, energy use, and GHG reduction. Executive orders have established a federal environmental executive, required agency senior sustainability officers, chartered an interagency steering committee on federal sustainability, and required agency-specific strategic sustainability performance plans. There are also a range of federal programs to assist communities, states, and the private sector in developing sustainability programs. The federal government has also invested in the develop- ment of various tools and resources to assist the public and private sector. These resources included Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES 4.0), the Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE), Sustainability Tool Earth 911 Reuse and Recycling Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program, various GHG impact assessment tools, the U.S. General Services Administration’s Sustainable Facilities Tool, READ-Database, and Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools-electronic (SMARTe). Sustainability Programs and Policies in Other Countries A number of other countries have developed strong sustainability and sustainable transportation 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 the U.S. context. 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 integrated transportation and climate change into a single sustainability program. This program has special mention here, because (1) the targets are statutorily enforced through the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, which establishes short-term system goals that will be achieved by prioritizing funding over the next 6 to 10 years, and (2) the New Zealand Transport Strategy will also be evaluated through a Transport Monitoring Indicator Framework, which is being made available to the public via an online interactive version. High-Level Conclusions from the Research A number of overarching conclusions can be drawn from the research and analysis documented throughout the report.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 11 The current policy system is far from able to support a TBL sustainable society. The U.S. overall policy system and institutional framework today is not yet capable of making the strategy, policy, and funding decisions that are truly driven by TBL considerations. It cannot, as a practical matter, even consider generational perspectives in a concrete, data- driven way today. The research team framed the future scenario conditions and characteristics of TBL sustainability policy systems and found that the needed closures of functional gaps to suit the TBL system are likely far off in time. Two key findings are: • U.S. society will not come close to developing a TBL policy system as long as individual governing entities make policy and funding decisions focused mainly on each of the three bottom lines, with practically independent accountability. This goes for every step in the governing chains from federal, state, and local legislative committees all the way to the executive agencies at those levels. The research team did not find any political jurisdiction that has experience implementing the TBL concept. • Transportation funding (and related policymaking) is significantly driven and limited by tax revenues on fuel consumption. For many reasons, this revenue has declined relative to overall transportation needs. Allocation of the funds remains structured and formulaic, leaving little flexibility to channel significant investments to TBL priorities that could be driven by high-level sustainability policy. TBL policy is neither explicit nor supported by institutional and funding arrangements today. A TBL policy system will evolve slowly, because of the significant changes needed in institutional, governance, and funding mechanisms. A TBL sustainable society is likely to evolve slowly from now, because of the very significant changes that will be needed—in institutional, governance, and funding mechanisms—for the TBL system to work. Policy systems tend toward policy monopolies around issues—political alliances, institu- tional configurations, and conceptual understandings—that structure participation and policymaking over long periods of time (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). The persistence of these systems generates patterns of political mobilization, citizens’ ways of thinking about issues, and institutional structures that become ingrained and locked-in (i.e., difficult to change and resistant to outside influence). Paradigm shift usually comes from outside the policy system in the form of gradual, long-term change and growing stress (e.g., increasing energy prices, global climate change, growing public demands for environmental protection, changing economic conditions)—with the will of the public eventually driving the transformation. The stressors build slowly. It can take decades for policy systems to tilt in a major way toward stress solutions. Energy price concerns and foreign petroleum dependence have been on the public agenda since the 1970s, and these stresses exert strong influence on all three of the sustainability bottom lines. Now technology development may stabilize or temporarily forestall these concerns going forward. Petroleum technology development and production investments such as shale oil extraction and synfuel manufacturing have been limited in the past by the ready availability and closely controlled pricing of benchmark crude oils, mostly from foreign sources. Because of increasing world demand, the foreign benchmark prices have risen to a level that makes increasing investment in new and alternative liquid fuel production capabilities financially feasible. In part because of the huge energy reserves in North America (shale oil and coal for synfuel), enough growth in liquid fuel supply can be expected to stabilize domestic (and world) fuel price growth and supply in the near-to-mid term.

12 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies When and if TBL policy systems do evolve, decision models for policy and funding will probably cross organizational and jurisdictional lines as they are currently known. Responsibility for supporting, planning, and executing sustainable TBL will likely extend beyond the traditional jurisdictional and modal organizational boundaries of national, state, and local transportation agencies, because TBL policymaking and resource decisions will involve coordinated selection and execution of strategies by agencies and entities focused on all three bottom lines. Transportation will likely be called on to support and participate in policy (and possibly funding) decisions directly related to all three bottom lines as well. As authorities and TBL planning and management process requirements are gradually developed, the agency and interagency organizational structures will emerge based on specific needs for oversight, decisionmaking, execution, and compliance. Existing agency roles and functions would necessarily continue, but TBL management could take a matrix form, cutting across not only internal organization units but also across multiple external agencies. Private- and public-sector entities could jointly occupy points in that management matrix. The final point above adds importance to the idea that agencies may consider a focus on making public involvement and communications a much more positive force in transportation priority-setting and management. Technological, social, legal, institutional, political, and economic changes have created an environment in which citizens, social groups, activists, and “super-empowered individuals” play strong roles in public policymaking. Whatever happens in the future, it is unlikely that this environment will change or diminish (Friedman, 2000). Most aspects of public policymaking and implementation are transparent and will likely become more open to citizen review and public comment, as well as more open to direct public engagement in decisionmaking. This does not necessarily mean that decisionmaking will be slowed down or impeded by public involvement processes. Public participation can be a vital, positive force. Citizens would need to be “co-producers” of TBL outcomes—that is, they would be directly engaged in the success of a policy, since significant behavioral change may be needed from citizens if a policy is to deliver its full benefits (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006). Successful approaches are likely to be those that design policy around the assumptions that the public is involved in decisionmaking; the public is critical to successful implementation; and public trust must be built to enable the “right” decisions in periods of uncertainty. These last principles are of critical importance in preparing for the shift to a TBL-based policy system. Effective public policy development requires a democratic foundation, but traditional participation models would need improvement and expansion to handle the increasingly complex challenges of TBL. In spite of positive strides in public participation today, there remains much room for expanded public roles—even under today’s policy systems. As (and if) a TBL policy system evolves in the future, agencies that have acted to build external decisionmaking models and lines of communication will be best prepared to transi- tion to the more holistic transportation funding and management approach needed. Transportation agencies are likely to always have similar roles and responsibilities, but the models to plan and execute these will need to change. DOTs are most likely to continue to be responsible for design; construction; and safe, efficient operation of transportation systems. The point intended is that the way in which these responsibilities are executed in the future may continue to change.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 13 This concept fits well for transportation. Under a TBL sustainability model, a transporta- tion agency would retain full responsibility for transportation services and stewardship by collecting data, developing intelligence, and analyzing transportation needs and how they affect societal sustainability; formulating strategic policy; developing tools for implementation; building support for policy; developing the appropriate structures to implement policy; and ensuring responsiveness and accountability. While remaining responsible and accountable for infrastructure and service delivery and operation, DOTs may not necessarily design, build, or operate the transportation infra- structure, in the way they do today. For example, DOTs could in the future assume broader responsibilities (possibly under a different name) for all infrastructure and operations that move energy, water, people, goods, communications, etc. Conversely, DOTs could eventually be subsumed under broader entities that manage commerce, or other functions related to all three of the TBL pillars. The concept of ideal TBL balance and optimization is not prescriptive or idealized—TBL priorities will be driven by the public will, based on existing conditions and outlook. There is no idealized formula or balance that is likely to achieve TBL under all scenarios in the future. The “acceptable” balance will be specific to the scenario, circumstances, and pub- lic demands that exist. Under any scenario, the challenge would be to preserve or improve conditions for the future, with practical strategies, resources, and technologies available. In each case, the will of the public—acting through representatives or commissioned authority— would likely drive the desired balance. Three points elaborate on this idea: • TBL sustainability is a concept that seeks to achieve a particular (and sustainable) balance of social, economic, and environmental factors—to meet and preserve a standard of living quality demanded by the public at a time and a place, region, or nation. • “One size” of TBL sustainability definitely does not fit all. The specific TBL balance demanded by the public is affected by existing conditions (under various future scenarios described later), including politics, culture, demographics, history, and probably many other factors. • In each scenario case, the priorities for TBL sustainability will seek to preserve or improve all of the bottom lines, but where conditions permit, society may focus on improving the value of one or more of the bottom lines. High-level, data-driven policy evaluation models are needed to support TBL consensus and policy system development. There is a need for tools, which do not currently exist, to demonstrate the strong business case for TBL sustainability. Interviewees and the literature both conveyed the need to develop comprehensive business case assessment tools for sustainability that can clearly and credibly reveal—and communicate—ROI for TBL sustainability, expressed in monetary or monetary- equivalent terms, and take into account long-term intergenerational considerations. The ROI tools needed have to address the full range of social, economic, and environmental elements of sustainability. Several such tools exist, or are under development [e.g., INVEST, PRISM™, HDR’s sustainability ROI (SROI)], but such tools have not yet gained wide use or acceptance in the United States. This report focuses on deeper research into key tools and methods to help agencies support and measure evolutionary sustainability initiatives today. The concentration is on rating and

14 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies assessment models, various decision-support tools (ROI-based) to assess multiple effects of transportation investments, and related cost-analysis tools. User-funded and -financed transportation is a likely ingredient of effective transportation support of a sustainable society. Today, transportation is funded primarily through fuel taxes that are collected based on road users’ need to use fuel to move people and goods. The fuel taxes are not directly tied to “wear and tear” on the infrastructure, nor quality of service received, nor safety, nor efficiency— nor to the contribution of the transportation service to public goals for social, environmental, and economic well-being. Revenues have not met transportation investment needs in recent years because of vehicle fuel-efficiency improvements, changes in travel patterns, and other factors. Transportation performance and level of service do—to some extent—affect the long-established formulae for distribution of tax revenues to states, but funding levels do not respond very directly and quickly to high-level policymaking. In a user-funded and -financed structure, it is possible that state and regional transporta- tion users would be charged for system use in accord with the quality of service they received as well as for the value contributed by transportation to meeting overarching public needs, including economic and environmental health and social welfare. That same transportation user community (the public) would logically exercise more holistic and direct control of major allocation decisions. This control of priorities could overarch and direct the particu- lar agencies responsible for executing chosen programs—whether they are transportation, environmental, social, or otherwise. In this model, state and regional agencies would have increased ownership and decision- making leverage on collection and use of transportation revenues, subject to public policy in those states and regions. It can be concluded that if or when user-based charging accounts for more of the funding to support transportation services, transportation will be in a better posi- tion to support and respond to TBL sustainability strategies as they evolve in states and regions. There are many complexities to the user-financed transportation model. For example, the highway system supports interstate commerce, as well as real and potential national security and defense needs. For these needs, it may always be appropriate to support basic capability and condition of the infrastructure to some extent through a national action. Near-term strategies include TBL readiness monitoring, and building external dialogue and relationships on TBL decisionmaking. Initiating and promoting multiagency and public dialogue is a very important component of agencies’ anticipating and preparing for evolution of a TBL policy system. Some agencies have invested time and resources in developing useful tools, rating systems, and measurement criteria for “sustainability” assessment and decisionmaking. The principal features of these initiatives can be applied much more broadly today. These tools and rating systems are developing, and application experience is building. If more widely accepted and adapted, they may exert significant influence on industry decisionmaking and standards in ways similar to how LEED is acting on the building industry today. The report includes considerable research material and treatment to cover key developing tools in the industry. Looking forward to future TBL policy systems, the research outlines several approaches for agencies: (1) strategies to monitor evolution of the current policy system and to engage in dialogue on how cross-agency and cross-sector consensus might be reached on TBL decisions; (2) a questionnaire-based rating concept to assess specific agencies’ readiness and functional

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 15 gaps (maturity) relative to a future TBL policy system end state; and (3) needed tools for TBL ROI analysis, total cost accounting (TCA), and life-cycle cost accounting (LCCA) that consider generational equity. These tactics are well along in some agencies and represent tangible and relevant initiatives to pursue for many agencies. External dialogue on TBL consensus-building models may be the most valuable element of preparation. These still-developing tools and methods are useful to help move agencies in the direction of transportation-initiated actions that contribute to societal sustainability, but further decision modeling, computing, and data acquisition advances will help the tools become more useful and universal in the near-to-mid term. Chapters 7 and 8 of the report elaborate on tools and methods recommendations to support high-level functions, and provide deeper information on the most mature ROI and analysis tools. Scenario Development The policy system for sustainable TBL will represent large and gradual societal culture changes evolving over a long period. Because that system would evolve in future conditions, the research team used a scenario-planning approach to help frame the plausible conditions for transportation in a sustainable TBL society. The research team synthesized five plausible future scenarios, each with variations in some basic assumptions and scenario drivers. The team then evaluated these scenarios to determine key future challenges and opportunities for transportation. The five scenarios are briefly described as follows: • Crisis World, the most “pessimistic” scenario the research team developed, is a world under- going persistent, recurrent, multidimensional crises. Under this scenario, environmental crises and resource depletion are occurring much sooner and more quickly than currently anticipated, while the economy is trapped in an ongoing economic recession with slow growth. • Mega World is one of two “as-expected” scenarios. The future is viewed as a general continuation of current trends. Economic and population growth are concentrated in growing megaregions; technology is anticipated to develop along all anticipated paths; and there is a slow adoption of new transportation funding mechanisms. • Suburban World is also an “as-expected” scenario. The future is viewed as a general continuation of current trends. Technology is anticipated to develop along all anticipated paths and enables people to disperse to suburbs, small towns, and second-tier cities. There is slower adoption of new transportation funding mechanisms. • Wonder World is one of two “positive” scenarios. In this scenario, there is better-than- currently-expected economic growth, and technology development is more rapid than currently anticipated. Environmental challenges remain manageable, and population grows rapidly. The dynamic economy, personal wealth, and technology lead to a more dispersed population. • Green World is a mostly positive scenario. In this scenario, there is rapid economic growth, technology development, and population growth. There is also broad social and political consensus to strive to manage a “greener” sustainable society. As a result, there is substantial investment in green technologies and infrastructure, with substantial regulation and greater social and economic control. Future Challenges and Opportunities for Agencies Tables 3 and 4 list key expected challenges and opportunities that would plausibly arise under each of the scenarios developed. Please note that these are presented in the present tense, as from a future point of view.

16 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Scenario Challenges Crisis World • Recurrent environmental crises that have dramatic negative impacts on transportation infrastructure; greater demands to maintain basic services. • Gradual, persistent, long-term economic decline and slow growth mean fewer resources available to achieve goals. • Reduced federal government spending and transfers to state and local government mean greater inequality between regions. • Lack of technological progress reduces the likelihood of technological solutions. • Difficulty maintaining all transportation facilities with constrained resources; need to prioritize crucial assets. • With assets that can be maintained and operated through user fees being privatized, agencies must decide whether to maintain low-demand bus routes, bridges, and roads. • Limited resources to enforce traffic rules and user safety. • Difficulty maintaining funding (i.e., worsening economic growth). • State government shrinks in response to declining revenues, resulting in fewer staff at transportation agencies. • Mishandled, poor, or missing information leads to bad decisions about funding priorities. • Fewer amenities (e.g., goods, healthcare, parks) available. • Entities’ priorities differ, forcing the agency to make tradeoffs in deciding where to allocate limited funds. • Need for a process for decommissioning unsustainable infrastructure. Mega World • Gradual centralization to megaregions and megacities requires changing funding mechanisms and increasing spending on infrastructure. • Need to address social and economic equity impacts on the “left-behinds” outside megaregions (i.e., regions that are trapped in long-term decay and economic decline). Suburban World • Gradual decentralization from megaregions and megacities requires changing funding mechanisms. • Need to address social and economic equity impacts of regions trapped in long-term decline. Wonder World • Recurrent disruptive technologies cause dramatic change to society and the economy. • Increasing population growth and greater diversity of population (e.g., more diverse ethnic population and aging population). • Increasing economic and technological growth, leading to greater demand for mobility of goods and people. • Rapid technology innovations, leading to one region implementing a technology that quickly becomes outdated; technologies may not link across regions. • Some technologies may require new infrastructure (e.g., new right-of-way for smaller, lighter vehicles; “air train” rapid transit; multijurisdictional management systems). • Agency staff unable to keep up with technologies and needed changes. • New technologies require new standards and safety considerations. • Need for new transportation revenue sources as new sources of fuel and propulsion are used. Green World • Increasing population growth, greater diversity of population. • Demand that all sectors of society become substantially “greener.” • Greater concentration of population in green urban areas results in need to address social and economic equity impacts on the “left-behinds” in less dense regions. • Major decrease in personal vehicle travel, requiring agencies to provide sufficient alternatives for intra- and intercity travel. • Moving away from carbon-based fuels requires new vehicles and new infrastructure. Table 3. Challenges under various scenarios.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 17 Key Functional Gaps for Agencies The research team compared the high-level functional characteristics of the current pre- dominant transportation policy systems (Green Transportation, Level 2) to the functional characteristics needed for a TBL Sustainability (Level 4) policy system. The principal gaps to fill in those functional characteristics are as follows: • Credible and widely applied performance measurement framework for TBL • Application of LCCA, TCA, and sustainability accounting based on TBL • Broad consensus on performance assessment processes to address TBL and the contribution of transportation to TBL • Increased incorporation of TBL impact assessments in planning and programming • Direct public- and private-sector engagement in needs development • Market and business incentives for private industry to share and engage in TBL goal setting and decisionmaking • Integration of sustainability tools in decisionmaking • Established multimodal, multiagency, multisector, and multijurisdictional planning and decisionmaking to address evolving regional needs and consensus on TBL issues • Multimodal, multiagency, multisector, and multijurisdictional programming with clear mandates and authorities (e.g., for megaregions) to better leverage resources Addressing the Functional Gaps under the Scenarios The research team then reviewed the functional gaps in the context of the scenarios and identified basic principles to prepare for change as the real future emerges. These principles are summarized briefly below and discussed in greater depth in the body of the report: • Adopting a precautionary (risk-based) approach to policymaking and decisionmaking. A precautionary approach to decisionmaking means taking into account the level of risk, using existing knowledge, and accounting for uncertainties. The approach recognizes a social responsibility to minimize the community’s exposure to harm as much as possible when detailed situational analysis and investigation have found a plausible risk arising from a decision or policy choice. Scenario Opportunities Crisis World Crisis allows for local and regional response to problems. Region-specific crises create more need for regional, state, and local action and more flexibility. Austerity forces transportation toward “low-level” sustainability, that is, reduce the size of the network and focus on key sustainable elements. Mega World Gradual centralization to megaregions and megacities means cities and regions are more likely to have the resources to address problems. Suburban World Gradual decentralization means cities would still have resources, but resources would be more dispersed along with populations and funding sources (infrastructure users). Wonder World Resources are available to support expansion of sustainability-based transportation system. Technology facilitates new planning and participation mechanisms, real-time performance management, and controlled and flexible resource allocation. Green World Widespread support for sustainability. Green technologies that will be developed will support sustainability. Table 4. Opportunities under various scenarios.

18 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies • Choosing flexible or adaptive management options. Flexible or adaptive management strategies are based on the insight that knowledge and understanding of social, economic, and environmental conditions is inevitably partial; limited; held in different forms (e.g., data, tacit knowledge and understanding, experiential information); and widely distributed among different individuals, groups, and organizations. Therefore, one single entity can never develop an all-encompassing vision of the world that correctly models all factors and elements likely to affect the outcome of a decision or public policy. • Using “no- or low-regrets” options. No- or low-regrets options are built around the idea that “good” policy should bring near-term benefits as well as future benefits. Although this might reduce the potential for a policy to maximize benefits by “doubling down” on an attractive near-term policy option, caution may ultimately increase constituent value because it can help agencies deal with uncertainty. • Avoiding shift of burden. This principle suggests that decisionmaking and policymaking should not resolve problems by shifting them to other areas, jurisdictions, modes, or other economic or social sectors. This principle is difficult to apply, but it is vitally important in a TBL policy system. • Dealing with complicated or “messy” futures, citizen cooperation, and government- as-enabler. Social, environmental, and economic innovation can be messy and confusing. The future rarely comes as a unitary, easily understood event that everyone immediately comprehends and accepts. The future arrives at an uneven pace and is interpreted differently according to point of view, region affected, and many other factors. • Building internal adaptive capacity. Agencies must build on capabilities needed to operate in unforeseen circumstances and volatile environments. For TBL to work in these environ- ments, a broad framework for governance, decisionmaking, and strategic planning may be needed to connect and direct multiple bureaucratic organizations and private-sector leadership to mandate both focus and operations. Organizations need to develop more flexible internal structures, a capacity to recognize and accept change, and the ability to adjust traditional bureaucratic, hierarchical structures. In addition, organizations need to build more open, responsive, and resilient structures that focus on outcomes rather than process. • Making public participation a more positive force. Technological, social, legal, institu- tional, political, and economic changes have created an environment where citizens, social groups, activists, and “super-empowered individuals” are a reality in public policymaking. Citizens are, in the terminology of current public administration literature, “co-producers,” that is, they are critically involved in the success of a policy because substantial behavioral change is required from them if the policy is to deliver its full benefits (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006). As such, transportation agencies need to adopt an approach to public participation with the assumption that the public is involved in decisionmaking and will be critical to successful policy implementation. Strategies for Transportation Agencies to Consider Selecting strategies to prepare for a future in which transportation can best support a sustainable TBL policy system depends on understanding the challenges and opportunities to be found in the envisioned TBL policy system and the gaps; that is, where do agencies need to go from here? The research team addressed the key issues for evolution to a new TBL policy system, followed by what agencies can reasonably do to assess, prepare for, and participate effectively in that evolution. However, it is clear that a viable TBL policy system will place great importance on close collaboration and strategic consensus among all levels of government—as well as private and institutional sectors.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 19 Although the research shows that significant activity and momentum have been building around green transportation and context-sensitive development, there is no established experience with TBL sustainability to conclusively show that it is practicable. TBL sustain- ability is a concept whose practicality and results have to be measured over a period of years if not decades. Continuous situational assessment of society’s perceptions and acceptance of the need for TBL sustainability—as well as the rate of adoption of measures and rating systems for TBL—will be useful for multiple agencies in decisionmaking on priorities, levels of commitment, and potential ROI for TBL initiatives. General strategy development actions for agency consideration (in addition to tracking relevant legislation and rulemaking) include the following: • Establish and/or participate in a national dialogue on evolution of a TBL policy system, including all levels of government and the private sector. • Monitor and assess development and spread of sustainability rating systems and measures, particularly those sponsored by independent rating bodies. • Monitor and assess measurement and certification standards development and adoption, particularly those that deal with two or more elements of the TBL. • Monitor and assess deployment of sustainability tools and methods, particularly those adopted by several peer agencies, focusing on those involving two or more elements of the TBL. • Conduct periodic discussions with stakeholders and constituents of the agency to take stock of the outlook for sustainable TBL; significant events, rulemaking, or trend changes in the factors monitored could trigger the timing of these discussions. General-purpose tools and methods that agencies can adapt, develop, and use broadly to support a number of high-level agency functions include the following: • Self-assessment tools to continuously gauge the “TBL maturity” and capability of the agency to be prepared for the next phase in sustainability policy system development; these will help prioritize near-term actions to improve or strengthen focus, if needed. • Adoption and adaptation of appropriate sustainability-related ROI assessment tools that could support communication and decisionmaking for many agency functions. • Surveys and scans to follow up on previous sustainability initiatives and decisions; these could confirm or calibrate logic and assumptions. Transportation agencies today could implement these actions and tools at a relatively low expense. They are easily reversible, no- or low-regrets actions that would produce strategic information, including insight into future demands and benefits. The following summaries are function-by-function strategies to prepare for and operate under a sustainable TBL policy system: • Development of Consensus on Needs: – Reach consensus with stakeholders and partners on a definition of sustainability that is built on the TBL and accounts for the needs and priorities of the state and region. – Map agency goals to the proposed definition on sustainability. – Develop associated measurable objectives to track agencies’ progress in addressing needs and achieving progress in meeting goals. – Develop performance measures tied to the proposed objectives and each focus area. – Develop mechanisms to communicate progress (using sustainability performance measurement tools) to the public and use these to develop a consensus. • Planning and Programming: – Expand existing modeling and planning tools to account for multimodal options and impacts, as well as regional quality of life.

20 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies – Coordinate data collection activities with engaged partners, including state and local agencies, as well as system operators and the private sector. – Connect the prioritization process and project development process to proposed TBL goals, measures, and objectives, such as ROI estimators, the Economic Assessment of Sustainability Policies of Transport (ESCOT) model (Schade, 2005), and the Assessment of Transportation Strategies (ASTRA) model (Schade et al., 2005). • Budgeting and Resource Allocation: – Increase flexibility in budgeting, which may be needed to support risk sharing within and between agencies over multiple budget cycles. Agencies should consider long-term budget accounting and management and control of reserve accounts. – Consider the institution of TCA. – Consider integrating LCCA tools in the planning and budgeting processes. • Rulemaking and Regulation: – Anticipate and prepare for new TBL-related rulemaking activities by, for example, initiating capture of data and measures likely to be required under new regulations. – Obtain a common understanding of the shared concerns, issues, and opportunities connected with TBL. – Determine overall ROI (the value proposition) for the participants in the collaborative effort (e.g., What is the benefit for each party and for all parties? What is the potential cost and risk of not acting?). – Monetize the impacts of potential regulatory requirements. – Connect impacts to jobs, commerce, and state/local revenues. – Develop high-level TBL-related planning and decisionmaking concepts. – Obtain TBL-related viewpoints, standards, and expectations. – Craft TBL-related measures. – Determine measures of success and rating. – Assess acceptance and adoption barriers and issues. • Service and Project Delivery: – Adopt standards and approaches to identify sustainable options and ensure selected materials or systems purchased meet sustainable requirements (as defined in the development of goals, objectives, and associated performance measures). – Consider embedding sustainability/TBL-related ratings and standards into operational activities related to provision of transportation services, products, and infrastructure— including development, design, construction, operations, traffic management, main- tenance, and preservation. • Education and Cultural Development: – Consider the development of a sustainability code of ethics for the agency that focuses on supporting a sustainable society. – Develop and conduct training activities with internal staff on incorporating sustainability principles in transportation decisionmaking processes. – Set employee initiative and performance incentives associated with sustainability. – Set up and maintain an internal news forum and discussion on sustainable TBL. – Support the development of sustainability-related coursework in regional education institutions and encourage/support study by agency personnel. • Outreach and Communications (to Public and Stakeholders): – Establish intra- and interagency coordination on TBL issues. – Conduct regular communication and information exchange activities with trade/ professional groups, the private sector, and the public. – Keep outreach and communication activities ahead of the evolution of the transportation policy system. – Support overall outreach activities with relevant facts and figures as sustainable TBL initiatives progress.

Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 21 Sustainability Tools and Methods—Key Directions for Development A substantial body of knowledge and opinion has been growing in the last few years on sustainability performance measures and assessment/rating systems that address one or more of the three sustainability bottom lines addressed throughout this report. At the level of transportation support for societal TBL and generational equity, models for the contributions of transportation investments and returns on TBL are easier concepts to visualize but challenging to develop and implement with current data and available algorithms. Key challenges include the following: • Quantifying the full life-cycle cost of transportation programs (not necessarily projects) • Total cost accounting at program levels • Linking transportation performance and services to economic, environmental, and social bottom lines in simple and data-driven ways • Valuating future (generational) transportation performance and TBL impact Transportation agencies are adopting useful tools and methods today that will help agen- cies prepare for a sustainable future. These tools and methods include (1) sustainability rating systems and performance measures; (2) sustainability ROI estimators; and (3) LCCA, life-cycle assessment (LCA), and sustainability cost–benefit analyses of various kinds. These approaches focus on transportation planning and programming, and project delivery—mainly from within transportation agencies’ mission and modal perspectives. Key methods and tools evaluated include the following: • Various approaches and methods in use for evaluating and rating sustainability charac- teristics under the planning and project delivery functions • Models and issues for determining sustainability ROI • LCCA, LCA, and cost–benefit analysis for sustainability • Concept for Maturity (TBL) Assessment and Survey workbook Possibly the most important need is a simple and easily communicated tool for determining sustainability ROI. There are several approaches that have been tried. None is sufficiently developed to serve the needed purpose. The principal development needs are for credible models relating the specific linkages between transportation investment and each of the three sustainability bottom lines. Addressing TBL Sustainability—Now, and in the Not-Too-Distant Future A true TBL policy system has not existed in the past or present, due in part to the lack of full consensus around implementable policy and investment decisions to drive TBL across jurisdictions, agencies, and multiple public and private sectors of society. Nevertheless, progress is being made by agencies in the United States and around the world that have undertaken many sustainability initiatives and are advancing sustainability objectives and tools. In spite of this, there is not yet sufficient data or supportable models to link transportation investments to results at the three bottom lines, and to communicate the effects of TBL strategy alternatives simply and clearly to the public and to high-level decisionmakers. However, there is good reason to believe that via dramatic technological advances over the next 10 years, the data and TBL modeling challenges seen today will greatly diminish, dramatically transforming the ability to make and communicate informed high-level TBL

22 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies decisions with confidence. Major technological and scientific advances are envisioned in four critical areas: • Credibly supported and clearly understandable public information and measures to inform the public on TBL conditions and expectations—possibly including an authoritative quality-of-life index that incorporates the three bottom lines. • “Big data”–driven TBL decision models to be used (and possibly integrated across multiple agencies and sectors) for effective management and execution of TBL sustainability policies by agencies and other actors. • TBL-based policy evaluation models to support high-level consensus and policy system development across U.S. governance structures, based on data and measures that are sufficiently broad, yet reliable, to support effective policymaking and investments at a regional and national scale. With the emergence of dramatically faster communication via the web and cloud, com- bined with improvements in artificial intelligence, processing power, and the availability of data, it will be much more likely that TBL decision-support challenges can be met in the next decade.