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.

30 2.1 The Systems Analysis Model This section includes a gap analysis and identifies the challenges and opportunities that transportation agencies might face under different future scenarios. A basic systems analysis model organizes and shapes this analysis. This model assumes that all public policy is made in discrete, semi-autonomous systems. These systems are connected to the wider political system, but are largely autonomous and dominated by a set of interests, political and institutional actors, and policy outputs unique to that system. Thus, while transportation agencies are part of the larger governmental system, they interact with a particular set of political and institutional actors (e.g., legislative transportation committees, transportation interest groups, state transportation commissions, U.S. DOT), have a particular set of institutional and organization relationships (e.g., DOTs, MPOs, local highway departments), and have distinct responsibilities and operating requirements (e.g., build, operate, and maintain state highway systems; regional transportation planning). Furthermore, the political and institutional system in which transportation agen- cies operate is autonomous in the sense that the work of transportation service provision and regulation is left to them. Other agencies and actors may become involved in transportation, but the day-to-day business of transportation service provision is left to the transportation policy system. The making and implementation of transportation policy can be analyzed separately from the overall policymaking system. Figure 3 shows the basic systems model (Easton, 1965). David Easton first described this model in the mid-1960s. Since that time, it has formed the basis for comparative public policy and public administration analysis (Rissmiller, 2010). The basic systems model assumes that a policy system can be identified as a series of relation- ships, organizations, institutions, activities, or interactions between actors that relate more or less directly to a particular policy domain (e.g., transportation, environment, health). A policy system is a conceptual entity that is generally accepted by most individuals within a society as having the authority to measure demand and allocate public goods4 for a specific geographically defined community (e.g., city, county, state, region, or nation). Thus, a state transportation policy system is the set of organizations, people, processes, and institutions that have the legitimate authority to take demands for transportation goods (e.g., roads, railways, regulations, safety programs) and translate them into specific public goods and services. The policy system is separate from its external environment, which includes all elements that make up the physical, social, economic, legal/regulatory, and institutional world in which the C H A P T E R 2 Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 4 “Public goods and services” means the goods and services a government provides its citizens through the public sector, through financing private provision of services, or through policies that encourage individuals, the private sector, and other groups to provide those goods and services. Even when these things are not provided or financed publicly, they may be subject to regulation.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 31 policy system operates. The environment (via an input–output exchange) affects the policy system, and the actions of a policy system affect the environment. The policy system processes three main elements: • Inputs. Changes in the social or physical environment surrounding a policy system produce demands and supports for action or the status quo directed as inputs toward the political system, through political behavior. • Outputs. Demands and their supporting groups stimulate competition within a policy system, which results in decisions or outputs directed to changing or maintaining some aspect of the surrounding social or physical environment. After a decision or output is made (e.g., a specific policy), it interacts with its environment. If it produces change in the environment, there are outcomes. • Feedback. When a new policy interacts with its environment, outcomes may generate new demands or supports and groups in support of or against the policy (feedback) or a new policy on some related matter. Feedback in turn creates new inputs, which create a new cycle of action. 2.1.1 Inputs Inputs to a policy system should be understood broadly. Inputs may include but are not limited to the following: • Resources. For example, money, time, available raw materials, energy, labor, grants of authority (i.e., recognition by another entity within the political system that a particular policy system has the right to influence the distribution of public goods within a particular domain). • Demands. This involves legislative actions (e.g., laws, budget allocation); executive decisions (e.g., executive orders or direction from top elected officials, such as governors, mayors, or POLICY COMMUNITY Transforms inputs to output FEEDBACK Policy changes, spending, and specific government ac­ons change the environment, create new demand, and change the balance of resources available to the system • Resources • Demands Government acon (e.g., resource allocated, services delivered, rule changes) INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM Figure 3. The basic systems model.

32 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies transportation commissioners); interest group lobbying; lawsuits and court orders; informa- tion collected from citizen outreach; business or citizen requests; or any other method by which demand, requests, or other claims on the direction of public goods can be made. Note: Demand may be positive (i.e., do something), negative (i.e., do not do something), or sustaining (i.e., continue to do something/do not change). Typically, demands emerge through a three-stage process (Ostrom and Ostrom, 1977): • Awareness. All individuals, groups, communities, businesses, and social groups experience a degree of stress between their preferred state and the current state of the environment in which they live. When this stress grows to a certain point, they may attempt to influence the government to reduce this stress. Initially, these demands are rudimentary, but through collaboration and exchanging ideas, they gradually form into coherent demands. • Articulation. This second stage of the process is known as issue articulation, in which various social groups and interested parties express their needs for policy outputs. Issue articulation may range from personal contact with government officials (e.g., lobbying, participation in public planning forums, peaceful protest, phone calls and letters to policy makers) to the development of interest groups (e.g., trade unions, professional associations, single-issue campaign groups). • Aggregation. Issue articulation leads to interest aggregation, where groups and individuals team up to make specific policy demands. For example, a number of local community interest groups, businesses, and environmental groups join together to form a program that demands that a city transportation agency reduce congestion by developing a public transit system. In this example, the presence of congestion would initially give rise to a degree of stress between many groups’ and individuals’ perceived ideal and the actual state of the local environment (e.g., perceived reduced business opportunities, long commutes, increased environmental contamination). Gradually, these groups and individuals would articulate their issues and then aggregate them to develop a coherent set of demands on the government. Clearly, issue articulation is not a unitary process. Outside of the government, a variety of formal and informal mechanisms exist to formulate demands. Public-sector agencies can play a posi- tive role in this process to help various groups and individuals. For example, the development of MPOs and public participation mechanisms in the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) planning process instituted by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provide the government with a positive outreach tool that brings stakeholders and interest groups into a planning process. As transportation agencies improve their support of the articulation and aggregation of public demands, they become better able to support a sustainable society. Another issue to consider is that old demands are rarely replaced by new demands. New demands are added to old demands and the burden on public policy systems increases. For example, the 20th century saw a constant expansion of the demands placed on transportation systems. From the Good Roads movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the current transportation sys- tem, mobility, economic competitiveness, equity, environmental protection, public participation, and safety remain paramount, but new demands are added constantly. Sustainability will be added to the existing set of demands and will have to manage tradeoffs between the old and the new. The key function of the overall policy system is to transform inputs into outputs. That is, resources and demands allocated to the policy system are translated into outputs that change the transportation environment. In recent years, the concept of the policy system has moved from the more mechanist vision of early public policy theorists toward the idea of policy communities or policy networks (Skogstad, 2005). Policy communities are networks with relatively few actors or participants collaborating continuously on a set of policy issues. They share a general agreement over the scope, goals, and general institutional processes leading to policy output. In addition, they share a belief system, accept formal and informal codes of conduct, and follow established patterns of behavior. Policy communities are also involved in the delivery and development of policy.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 33 2.1.2 Policy Community The concept of policy communities is well accepted in public policy literature (Skogstad, 2005). It grew out of the recognition that, as policymaking had become more complex, specialized, and fragmented, the government realized it needed the resources and cooperation of non-state actors. Simply put, democratic, representative governments cannot function without the consent and involvement of its citizens. Their input into policy formation, and hopefully resulting support, is crucial. Focusing on formal and macro-level decisionmaking bodies—like state legislatures, governors, or mayors—ignores the realities of the policy process. Transportation policy issues usually involve a relatively small number of actors or partici- pants who are drawn together because they have a legal requirement or authority to participate (e.g., state DOT staff, MPOs), an interest in the policy outcome (e.g., business interests, envi- ronmental groups), or a technical interest in the issue (e.g., professional societies, academics). Only rarely do transportation issues reach the point where a large number of people and interests become involved (e.g., the development of a major new highway interchange or bridge, the addition of capacity on existing highways, the building of a new transit system, the expansion of a metro system, the adoption of congestion-pricing strategies, proposing new revenue sources to fund transportation projects or programs). In this approach, there are three critical characteristics of any policy community: • Policy paradigms. These are a set of beliefs or basic principles that are used to organize any system and a series of preferences that suggest how policy should be delivered. • Actors. These are specific individuals, organizations, interest groups, or other entities that interact with each other to develop and implement different policy. • Functions. Every policy community has a set of functions (e.g., develop and deliver trans- portation services) and an internal subset of functions that each actor carries out to achieve the overall community’s assigned function. These functions may include needs assessment, budgeting, planning and programming, service delivery, and education and outreach. Policy paradigms are deep-seated psychological and cultural structures that define the scope and extent of a policy community. They define what should be the scope and overall goal of the community (i.e., organizing principles, the actors that can or should be involved, and the relationship between those actors) (Wilson, 2000). The paradigm consists of three components: (1) a deep, core set of beliefs or organizing prin- ciples; (2) a set of policy preferences; and (3) a set of instrumental preferences. Table 6 shows the structure a policy paradigm. Deep core beliefs or organizing principles express foundational beliefs about society, human values, and other related issues. These beliefs color all understandings and are unlikely to change. For example, the transportation policy goal of mobility emerges from a range of core beliefs associated with individual freedom, including free movement. A second set of beliefs, or preferences, is constructed on top of the core beliefs. These policy preferences address fundamental positions on how best to achieve deep core beliefs. For example, an individual may believe that the free market is more effective in achieving social goals than the government. These beliefs tend to apply to specific policy areas but are not held across all policy areas consistently. Finally, instrumental preferences concern instrumental decisions and methods to achieve goals. For example, two individuals may differ substantially on the role of the federal government in environmental policy, but agree that the Federal Register should contain the information about decisions made on environmental policy.

34 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies The policy paradigm determines the actors who should be involved in policymaking and imple- mentation. For this report, actors are divided into three major groups (Kraft and Furlong, 2012): • Group 1. This group includes government-sector actors (e.g., governors, state legislators, state transportation officials, mayors, members of MPOs). • Group 2. This group includes private-sector economic actors (e.g., businesses, banks, farms, small businesses, major local economic interests, system operators [freight railroads, shippers, receivers]). • Group 3. This group includes civic-sector actors (e.g., environmental interest groups, trans- portation use associations, community groups, unions, academics, professional bodies). Sample Policy Paradigm: Transportation Policy 1950–1970 • Based originally on need to support national defense • Financed through a combination of state and local taxes and fees and federal grants funded by national motor fuel taxes • Largely ignored environmental and social equity impacts that were associated with transportation capacity building • Did not consider how decisions promoted long-distance urban–suburban travel and facilitated low-density sprawl developments • Allowed pricing distortions that promoted motoring at the expense of walking, biking, and public transportation • Took a “build-our-way-out-of-congestion” approach, rather than attempting to manage demand • Favored one mode (roads and motor vehicles) and one technology (private automobiles), rather than a balanced multimodal view • Adhered to technocratic decisionmaking and attempts to minimize public participation • Defined safety narrowly, often as motorist safety only (Schiller et al., 2010) Table 6. Structure of policy paradigm. Organizing Principles or Deep Core Beliefs Policy Preferences Instrumental Preferences Defining Characteristics Fundamental normative and ontological axioms (e.g., the Earth is here for humans to use, we are all part of nature and must live in balance) Fundamental policy positions concerning the basic strategies to achieve normative and ontological axioms (e.g., the market is always best, planning and management are the best way to achieve social goals) Instrumental decisions needed to implement a core belief Scope Basic personnel philosophy—influences everything Applies to all policy areas Specific to particular issues—especially technical issues Susceptibility to Change Very difficult to change— requires a conversion experience Difficult to change but can change if experience reveals fundamental anomalies or repeated difficult-to-explain phenomena Moderately easy—this is the area where most policy discussions and debates occur

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 35 The distinction between Group 2 and Group 3 is somewhat arbitrary. Some firms and businesses can be organized into civic-sector groups to attempt to lobby government (e.g., business involved in chambers of commerce). Some actors are sovereigns (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Sovereigns are actors that have the final authority to make a policy decision for different levels. These indi- viduals might be governors, heads of DOTs, or mayors. Actors may be described in terms of their role and responsibility in the policy system, their function or purpose, their power and authority (e.g., ability to allocate resources, ability to direct other actors or participate in decisionmaking), the rules that apply to them, and the process they are required to follow to perform certain functions. Considering all these factors, a number of different types of actors that are present in state trans- portation policy communities can be identified. Table 7 shows a generic overview of these actors. Based on this analysis, several key functions that policy community actors perform in the transportation arena are shown in Table 8. 2.1.3 Outputs and Feedback A policy system produces various outputs. These include a wide variety of public goods, including direct allocation of money to specific groups, spending on investments or operations, or regulations and guidance. Note that one of the decisions of the policy system may be not to do Table 7. Sample generic actors in state transportation policy communities. Actors Govt. Sector Private Sector Civic Sector State legislature (individual legislators, legislative committees) Governors Heads of DOTs Transportation commissions Federal departments (e.g., DOT, EPA) State DOTs MPOs Local governments Other state government agencies (e.g., state environmental protection agencies) Other modal authorities (e.g., airports, ports, passenger rail) System operators (e.g., freight railroads, toll operators) State and local economic interests (e.g., large businesses, small businesses) Developers (i.e., businesses and firms involved in developing property for high-value use) Transportation providers (i.e., businesses and firms involved in the provision of transportation services for both people and goods) Community and civic groups (e.g., community booster groups, chambers of commerce) Environmental nonprofit groups Professional organizations and research organizations (e.g., National Association of Fleet Operators) Single-issue transportation groups (e.g., CorridorWatch.org—concerned Texans and public officials opposed to the Trans-Texas Corridor) Transportation user and advocacy groups (e.g., National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates, American Public Transportation Association, Bay Area Bicycle Coalition, Tri-State Transportation Campaign)

36 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies something. For example, the decision not to make a major investment in public transit may be as important as the decision to invest in public transit and may have major implications regarding who is able to use government resources. A policy system’s decisions have direct and indirect impacts on the environment in which it operates. These, in turn, affect the demands made on the policy system and the resources available for future policy actions. For example, the emergence of cars after World War II as the dominant form of personal transportation encouraged suburban sprawl. This, in turn, changed the resource balance between cities and suburbs and placed new demands on local transportation agencies. 2.2 Policy Change The issue of how policies change is very relevant to this project. Specifically, how transportation policy systems can be induced to change and the processes for framing new policies are important to the understanding of how a more sustainable society could be achieved under different scenarios. This section presents research on models that explain policy change and the dynamics of policy framing. Historically, the literature on policy change tends to emphasize the limitation on decision- making and implementation and the resistance of the American policymaking system to change (Downs, 1967; Wilson, 1989; Moe, 1989). This literature stresses the complex, multifaceted nature of American society and the existence of numerous counterbalancing interests that make Functions Functional Definitions Consensus on Needs and Goals Processes by which transportation policy systems identify needs, gaps, and requirements; build consensus around a prioritized ranking of potential needs; and develop acceptable goals and priorities for transportation. Planning and Programming Processes by which transportation plans are created to carry out the goals developed in the consensus-building, needs-assessment, and goals-setting processes; plans are then turned into processes, which are created and authorized to carry out the goals set in the consensus-building, needs- assessment, project-prioritization, and goals- and objectives-setting processes. Budgeting and Resource Allocation Processes by which transportation policy systems determine how to collect and distribute resources among different projects and programs (includes budgeting and allocation). Regulation and Rulemaking Processes by which rules, regulations, standards, and guidelines are established for compliance with legislated mandates and laws. Service and Product Delivery Processes by which transportation policy systems deliver transportation goods and services to the public and ensure that the level and quality of services meet goals and established standards. Compliance and Dispute Resolution Processes by which the transportation community sees that the intent of legislation, standards, and regulations is complied with—and processes by which disagreements over interpretations or tradeoffs can be resolved. Education, Training, and Culture Change Processes by which the transportation community is educated to understand and embrace evolving organizing principles and to adopt (and invest in) behavioral norms* associated with those principles. Outreach and Communications Processes by which information on needs, strategies, expectations, and results are shared broadly by stakeholders in the public- and private-sector transportation community—critical processes to support consensus- building, policymaking, planning, and decisionmaking. *Some examples of adopted behavioral norms include energy conservation, recycling, seat-belt habit, aversion to littering, acceptance of user charging, pursuit of diversity and social equity, and self-regulation. Table 8. Transportation policy system functions.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 37 change extremely difficult to achieve in an open, highly decentralized system such as that found in the U.S. Given such a system, it is extremely difficult to persuade sufficient people and interests to accept radical, potentially high-risk change. This leads to incremental decisionmaking where policy change is slow and focuses on low-risk innovations. Change only occurs when there is a clear consensus on the need for change and how that change should be achieved. Even then policy change tends to be slow and incremental. A more recent view of policy change is the path-dependent model (Pierson, 1993, 2000). This model attempts to explain continuity and resistance to change as part of the natural consequence of bounded rationality and a pragmatic adjustment to existing conditions. Under this model, policy change is limited by past policies and decisions and the existence of institutions, rules, and laws that limit the extent of policy change. This leads to “lock-in” effects, where current policy paradigms come to dominate the public’s view of what is possible and can be changed. For example, in the area of transportation policy, decisions made decades ago on the transportation infrastructure continue to constrain and limit policy choice. However, while the incremental model and the path-dependent model both explain why change is slow or does not occur when faced with crisis, they both lack an explanation of how change occurs. The punctuated equilibrium model (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) seeks to fill this gap. Under this model, policymaking is characterized by long periods of stability with minor, incremental change (i.e., a policy equilibrium exists), followed by periods of instability (created by endogenous or exogenous change) and major policy change. During these periods of instability, a major challenge to the current consensus emerges that destroys current alliances between important groups, undermines long-held assumptions or beliefs, and renders existing approaches irrelevant. If the challenge is successfully addressed, the system reaches a new equi- librium and policymaking returns to its incremental development. In this model, policies change when they “become stressed, alternative policy paradigms arise, legitimacy crises occur, and shifts in power become evident” (Wilson, 2000). Stressors can be either exogenous or endogenous: • Exogenous Stressors. Stressors that arise from outside the policy system in the form of (1) sudden, unanticipated shock (e.g., 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy) or (2) gradual, external long-term change that increases stress within a system to the point when it suddenly appears to make the existing way of doing business impossible (e.g., increasing energy prices, global change, growing public demands for environmental protection, changing economic conditions) • Endogenous Stressors. Stressors that come from within a system (1) from changes in demands and resources produced by feedback within the policy system (e.g., the rise of the auto mobile and the growing pressure for new roads in the early 20th century leading to the Interstate system) and/or (2) from policy learning within the policy system, as members test out policies and identify those that are successful or fail (e.g., the revival of intercity public transit in the late 20th century) Stressors generate pressure on organizational arrangements, undermine dominant paradigms, and raise the visibility of critical problems or challenges to the current paradigm. If the policy system is placed under sufficient stress, dramatic paradigm shifts can occur when the existing narrative no longer seems to adequately explain events and a new narrative needs to be created. If this occurs, new paradigms may emerge or existing (but dormant) alternatives may be devel- oped. In this case, new relationships, policy paradigms, and policymaking arrangements are established which come to be accepted as the baseline for future policy change. For example, the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) radically changed the U.S. transportation community’s balance of power (e.g., MPOs gained additional

38 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies authority and credibility), policy paradigms (e.g., single mode to multiple modes), and policy- making arrangements (e.g., two new categories of federal funds—the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program and the regional component of the Surface Transportation Program—were created, and a set of rules to use these funds were established). This punctuated equilibrium model explains change within the transportation system. In general, the transportation policy system has been characterized by stable predictable changes punctuated by periods of rapid change. For example, prior to World War II, the states, localities, and the private sector dominated the transportation system. States developed the intercity road system and local governments and the private sector provided local roads, railroads, and most long-distance freight and passenger transportation infrastructure. In metropolitan areas, public transit systems, private street car companies, and private railroads delivered local transportation services. The federal government had been a relatively minor player in the transportation system. Some initial federal investment and regulation had occurred after World War I and during the New Deal, but state and local governments were dominant in transportation. In terms of the punctuated equilibrium model, the policy system had entered a stable policy period. In the 1940s, however, this system became unstable when the demands of World War II illustrated its inadequacy to meet the stresses of global mobilization. In 1941, President Roosevelt responded by appointing the National Interregional Highway Committee, whose recommendation for a National System of Interstate and Defense Highways resulted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. Its goal was to expand the interstate road system by the 1950s.5 Thus, after a period of instability, the system changed and the federal government became the dominant player. Using this as a model, the question becomes what would be needed to shift the policy system from the existing consensus toward a new consensus based around sustainability. The model obvious answer is some form of crisis or dramatic event. To understand what type of event might cause change, the research team reviewed more than 50 major economic problems, natural events, and political and military crises affecting the United States and identified the following characteristics that consistently seem likely to lead to major policy shifts: • Scope of impact. The extent of the impacts of the crisis (both in the people affected and the potential future threats) influences the response strongly. For example, a major fire or tornado may produce a local/regional crisis but usually does not change significantly the broader allo- cation of responses or policy. • Magnitude of impact. The larger the impacts of the crisis (e.g., property damage, loss of life), the more likely there is to be a major policy change, especially when these impacts are distributed over a wide region. • Control. The degree to which the public believes that something could have been done to address or avoid a crisis, the more likely there is to be major policy change. So-called “acts of God” or random events are less likely to produce a major policy change than disasters deemed preventable. • Perceived probability of reoccurrence. If an occurrence is perceived as low probability or rare (e.g., a major hurricane in New England), major policy change is less likely. • Effectiveness of response. If the efforts to avert or mitigate major events are perceived as satisfactory, then major policy changes are unlikely. • Comprehension/understanding/technology. A crisis is more likely to produce real change if its causes are well understood and if tools exist to avert or mitigate it. Crises that have a strong storyline, are easy to understand, and have clear solutions are more likely to lead to policy change than those that disappear from media coverage quickly. 5 The Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 (also known as the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act or Interstate Act) appropriated $25 billion (about $197 billion in 2009 dollars) to build 41,000 miles of multilane, limited-access highways.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 39 • Maturity of the policy system. Established and (perceived as) effective policy systems have more “staying power” through major events. Either the public perceives setbacks and crises as rare, or the public rationalizes the policy system to have worked “well-enough” not to invest in change. These findings explain why the policy systems and institutions associated with the transporta- tion system generally are not prone to change in response to most shocks and short-term crises. In contrast to other policy systems (e.g., defense and national security, education, science and technology, environment), it is difficult for the transportation policy system to experience the dramatic system-wide crisis that can lead to sudden dramatic paradigm change. Specifically, the public experiences transportation issues and challenges on a local and regional level. Although decaying infrastructure is viewed by the industry as a significant challenge nation- wide, the public tends to recognize actual congestion and infrastructure problems regionally—and the issues are not obvious in all localities and regions. Thus, national transportation crises rarely occur. Even highly dramatic events and evidence of problems (e.g., the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse of 2007, the Silver Bridge Collapse of 1967, the I-580 East Connector Collapse of 2007, infrastructure damage from major storms) tend to be seen by the public as local or regional events requiring local solutions, rather than as a call to invest in correcting widespread systemic failures. Instead, transportation issues emerge in public view as a slowly building crisis, and, as a result, momentum for change may take many years to build up. This can be seen in the current shift among many transportation agencies toward sustainability- based programs. Some states and localities, responding to perceived local or regional problems that have undermined the dominant “car-first” paradigm, have moved to more sustainability- based programs (e.g., congestion and gridlock leading to policy innovation to get people out of cars and onto transit or using bikes seen in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California). In other states and localities, these stressors are experienced less and the pressure to change is not present. The danger of policymaking in these systems is that, as has happened elsewhere, by the time the stressors develop to a point when change is necessary, the system will have reached a breaking point and the resources will not be available to affect meaningful change. Thus, the challenge for policymakers is to act in a timely manner and possibly before public demand for change reaches broad consensus. Furthermore, while crisis-driven change may be the best hope for a sudden dramatic shift to sustainability-based transportation policies, it is unlikely to occur given the nature of transportation policy. A much more likely scenario is endogenous change occurring through slow, gradual stresses and policy learning that build up public calls for action over time. For example, in the 1960s, demand grew for public participation in the planning process. This was expressed as growing frustration over the impacts of highways in urban areas (the so-called “Freeway Revolt”). Opposition to top-down freeway planning began as early as 1955, when the San Francisco Chronicle published a map of proposed freeways for the Bay Area. Local activists organized to oppose numerous elements of the plan, and, in 1959, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors canceled seven of ten planned freeways. It was not until the 1970s, however, that the public involvement movement took off. In the 1970s, most of South Florida’s expressway projects were canceled due to a public vote to divert funds from roads toward mass transit projects and toward the planned Miami Metrorail. Similarly, local opposition was the death knell of a number of freeway projects in metropolitan Atlanta that would have created an overwhelmingly complicated system of interchanges and might have destroyed or bisected entire neighborhoods (Schiller et al., 2010). Parallel to this were increased demands for environmental protection. In 1973, environmen- talists in Connecticut filed lawsuits that effectively killed construction of planned interstates and

40 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies expressways in the Hartford area. After these freeways were canceled, the State of Connecticut used those allocated funds to rebuild and expand existing freeways in the greater Hartford area. Similarly, environmental groups and the City of Bloomington long protested the completion of I-69 through southwest Indiana. Their opposition pitted them against residents in the southwest corner of the state and the cities of Evansville, Petersburg, and Washington, which long supported the highway’s construction. For 40 years, opponents held up construction of I-69 through southwest Indiana through litigation, legislative maneuvering, and acts of vandalism, while the highway’s supporters accused opponents of attempting to isolate them from the rest of the state. Ultimately, construction on I-69 began in 2008, with completion between Evansville and Bloomington sched- uled for 2014. At the same time, there was growing concern about mobility opportunities for special groups (minorities, poor, elderly, and persons with disabilities) and the impact of roads and cars on their freedom of mobility. For example, in the 1970s, an extension of the Davison Freeway in Detroit was proposed to connect I-96, the Jeffries Freeway, I-696, and the Reuther Freeway. Detroit neigh- borhoods revolted and opposed having the freeway cut through their neighborhoods, which consisted predominantly of the poor and minorities and had already experienced substantial impacts from road building. As a result, the City of Detroit passed a moratorium on freeway construction and rerouted the planned Jeffries Freeway. These battles changed the top-down, technocratic planning process that had dominated transportation planning up to that point and opened it up to new participants and issues. Most importantly, the 3C process was established and then amended to require citizen participation at all stages of the process, and NEPA introduced the requirement for environmental impact statements. The 3C transportation planning process [jointly developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, now the U.S. Federal Transit Administration] was developed to ensure that effective, coordinated multimodal transportation planning and project implementation would be conducted on a nationwide basis. In this case, the key actors within the system were able to learn from their mistakes and begin to adopt and experiment with new policies as internal pressures forced new paradigm shifts and support for new policies began to emerge. 2.3 Moving from Past and Current Policy System Models to a TBL Sustainability System Model Based on the information collected from practitioner interviews and the literature review (see Appendix D), the research team defined a series of policy system models that represents different levels along a continuum, ranging from the early Safe Mobility system model of the mid-20th century to a future TBL Sustainability system model. These models represent the gradual evolution that transportation agencies undergo to move toward supporting a more sustainable society. The policy system progression is in part based on history and on a future sustainable end state for functions that need to be executed in all the scenarios. The model of the transition policy system is postulated as a logical intermediate between where most agencies are now and the defined TBL end state. The purpose in constructing this framework was to define a TBL sustainability end state or objective that can serve to identify gaps between practices in the predominant current policy systems versus a policy system to support TBL sustainability. The following sections describe each element of these policy systems. State transportation agencies (in general), leading local governments, the federal government, private-sector sustain- ability leaders, and sustainability leaders in other countries were characterized by applying these five levels. The team then conducted a gap analysis and identified potential strategies that would take state transportation agencies from their current level to a more advanced one.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 41 The research team identified the following five levels that transportation policy systems may achieve in moving toward TBL sustainability: • Level 0 Policy System—Safe Mobility • Level 1 Policy System—Compliant Transportation • Level 2 Policy System—Green Transportation • Level 3 Policy System—Sustainable Transportation • Level 4 Policy System—TBL Sustainability The Safe Mobility system model is Level 0 because it does not address sustainability at all but is included to contrast how the traditional transportation policy system model differs from the sustainability-based or -aspiring models. 2.3.1 Policy System Models Based on the public policy literature, the research team identified three distinct elements of a transportation policy system: (1) organizing principles, (2) policy paradigms, and (2) transportation agency roles. Table 9 shows the identifying characteristics of the elements for each policy system model evolving toward sustainability. The first element concerns the organizing principles or core values for the policy system model. The organizing principles vary for each policy system model. As discussed previously, until the 1970s, the key role of transportation policy systems was to expand and support the mobility of people and goods. In the 1970s and 1980s, this changed to where transportation agencies were required by law to consider additional goals as part of their mission. The organizing principle began to focus on balancing mobility along with other legislatively required concerns, such as the environment, economic development, and various sociocultural concerns. Despite the broad social consensus behind these goals, the general orientation of culture and the core values of the Table 9. Characteristics of transportation policy system models evolving toward sustainability. Policy System Model Characteristics Organizing Principles Policy Paradigms Role of Transportation Agency Level 0 Safe Mobility Supports societal mobility Favors government ownership and control of the transportation infrastructure Infrastructure owner– manager and regulator Level 1 Compliant Transportation Supports societal mobility and compliance with environmental, economic, and social legislative requirements Favors government ownership and control of the transportation infrastructure Infrastructure owner– manager and regulator Level 2 Green Transportation Supports societal mobility and environmental, economic, and social needs—emphasizes environment Favors government ownership and control of the transportation infrastructure Infrastructure owner– manager and regulator Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Supports sustainable transportation Favors partnerships between modal agencies and the private sector to influence policy and budget decisionmaking Infrastructure planner, coordinator (some owner– operator and some private), and regulator Level 4 TBL Sustainability Supports societal sustainability Agnostic on issues of ownership or control of transportation infrastructure—whatever is most sustainable Infrastructure planner, coordinator (some owner– operator and some private), regulator, transportation system steward

42 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies transportation agencies were one of compliance. That is, balancing transportation needs against environmental concerns occurred because it was required by law rather than because it was a social good. The Compliant Transportation policy system model evolved into the Green Transportation model. Under this model, there is wide support for balancing transportation needs with the environment. The model has moved beyond seeing environmental, economic, and social needs as merely requirements that must be followed and now accepts and supports their societal benefits. While there is some support for sustainability (and frequently, even sustainability officers, programs, and metrics), sustainability is largely interpreted as environmental. In this system model, there is broad support for such issues as green procurement, green operations, green infrastructure, use of recycled or green materials, use of metrics and management systems that emphasize environmental progress, and a general bias toward considering environmental issues. Typically, the states most advanced in sustainability are at this level. That is, they are developing sustainability programs but still see it largely as an issue of environmental protection and balancing the environment against the demands of economic growth rather than true sustainability. The Green Transportation policy system model is followed by a model that incorporates sustainability more consciously into transportation policymaking, planning, and delivery. However, the focus remains on “sustainable” transportation objectives within the control of transportation agencies—but still not overall societal sustainability. Some states have moved beyond “green transportation” to a sustainable transportation principle. The unspoken assump- tion is that if sustainable transportation is delivered, then societal sustainability will be delivered. This is a practical working assumption for DOTs that must operate within today’s policy system and funding constraints—but it does not sufficiently support societal sustainability today. Some leading “sustainability” cities and local governments in the United States and around the world have been able to progress further toward a sustainable society at a local level, taking advantage of broader local investment influence and authority over multiple aspects of the local society. At the final level, transportation agencies come to see that their organizing principle is to support the overall sustainability of society. Using safety and mobility as an example, a transporta- tion agency’s goals and standards for safety and mobility would be set by public demand and a balance of TBL considerations. This does not mean that the policy system in effect would not have standards and goals that must be met for safety and mobility, nor that agencies would not strive to optimize or maximize safety and mobility over and above those standards and goals. The observation does mean that, the public would demand and set appropriate safety and mobility standards that meet the TBL sustainability policy system. This illustration is borne out by the way that safety and mobility goals and standards have changed and evolved over past decades in evolving policy systems. In the Level 4 policy system model (TBL Sustainability), the organizing principle would be to support the overall sustainability of society. This means that a transportation agency would accept and work toward delivering optimal mobility as defined by needs to balance the TBL. In such a case “optimal” would be defined by society, taking into account broader TBL priorities— as opposed to being defined mainly by transportation agencies. Clearly, in such a scenario, funding sources to meet society’s transportation objectives would have to be broader than—and not constrained by—transportation-specific revenue sources. No state, local, national, or other entity currently operates in a Level 4 policy system. Paralleling these distinctions reveals the evolution of different policy paradigms—that is, what is the best way to implement a particular core value or organizing principle? In the first three system models, the basic assumption is that the transportation agency is the owner and manager of the transportation infrastructure, i.e., the basic role of a transportation agency is as owner,

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 43 manager, and regulator. This role begins to change under the Sustainable Transportation system model. Under this model, there tends to be a move away from strict command and control toward a greater openness for decisionmaking partnerships with other agencies and the private sector. TBL Sustainability involves significant support and hard choices across social, economic, and environmental sector boundaries. The research team sees no logical way for this happening without those sectors having active seats at the decisionmaking table. TBL Sustainability would require mechanisms to share high-level strategy and funding decisionmaking consensus between transportation and nontransportation agencies and with some form of selected and authorized representation of the private sector (perhaps commissions, authorities, boards, counsels). Delivery approaches for programs and projects that emanate from these strategy and funding decisions are not a directly related issue, as delivery could involve many forms of agreements and contracts, command and control, or other concepts. The need for partnership is both because of the initial investments needed and the distributed effects of major transportation programs and because TBL Sustainability requires substantial stakeholder and private-sector involvement if it is to be accepted and funded successfully. In this example, the transportation agency comes to play the role of coordinator and planner as well as the agency to deliver transportation programs to support a sustainable society. Finally, the system evolves into a true societally sustainable model. Under this model, trans- portation agencies are agnostic on the issue of public or private ownership. Instead, they pursue any ownership and management combination that promotes societal sustainability successfully. Their role could more likely be one of development and stewardship of transportation resources. The concept of stewardship is important to the TBL Sustainability model, but it is a difficult concept to define. The World Health Organization has developed a concept of stewardship that identifies six core domains for organizations to practice good stewardship (Travis et al., 2002): • Generating intelligence and understanding of the policy area • Formulating strategic policy direction • Ensuring that the tools exist for the implementation of policy • Building coalitions/partnerships • Ensuring a fit between policy objectives and organizational structure and culture • Ensuring accountability This concept fits well for transportation. Under a TBL Sustainability system model, a trans- portation agency would retain full responsibility for transportation services and stewardship by collecting data, developing intelligence, and understanding 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 always remaining responsible and accountable for infrastructure delivery and operation, DOTs may not necessarily design, build, or operate the transportation infrastructure in the ways typically followed today. 2.3.2 Inputs to the Policy System As discussed in Section 2.1.1, there are two main inputs to any policy system: demands and resources. In the case of transportation, there is a gradual evolution—of demands from mobility, accessibility, safety, and economic development—to TBL Sustainability. Table 10 illustrates this evolution. The system moves from a situation where the public, stakeholders, and political entities demand a simple good (mobility and economic growth) to one where the demand is for additional goods, such as environmental protection, protection of sociocultural assets, and public participation.

44 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies During this transition from Compliant Transportation and Green Transportation to Sustainable Transportation and then TBL Sustainability, the public would begin to demand a sustainable TBL balance and to set goals for risk and performance along each of the bottom lines. At the next level of the evolution (TBL Sustainability), the public demand recognizes the need to balance and optimize TBL, while demanding that standards and goals for risk and performance along each bottom line are met or exceeded. When tools and methods reach a level of sophistication to support this policy system, strategic decisions and priorities based on TBL considerations (and communications on these) could be practical. Under the first three policy system models, the main resources that are provided to the trans- portation system are (1) gas taxes, excise taxes (e.g., tax on tires), and impact and licensing fees; Policy System Model Inputs Public Demands and Priorities Resources Level 0 Safe Mobility 1. Mobility 2. Safety 3. Economic development Gas tax, excise taxes, and impact and licensing fees Intergovernmental transfers Bond issues Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) Level 1 Compliant Transportation 1. Mobility 2. Safety 3. Economic development 4. Environmental compliance 5. Other (e.g., heritage and culture protection) 6. Public participation Note: Each is seen as a separate demand. Gas tax, excise taxes, and impact and licensing fees Intergovernmental transfers Bond issues Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) Level 2 Green Transportation 1. Mobility 2. Accessibility 3. Safety 4. Economic development 5. Environmental compliance 6. Other (e.g., heritage and culture protection) 7. Public participation Note: Each is seen as a separate demand. Gas tax, excise taxes, and impact and licensing fees Intergovernmental transfers Bond issues Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) Level 3 Sustainable Transportation 1. Sustainability (TBL): 1.1. Environment 1.2. Economy 1.3. Social well-being (includes quality of life, accessibility, safety and security, and preservation of natural resources) 2. Mobility and safety 3. Accessibility 4. Connectivity 5. System efficiency 6. Public participation Note: Tradeoffs are possible. Gas tax, excise taxes, and impact and licensing fees Intergovernmental transfers Bond issues Substantial use of user fees and market mechanisms Level 4 TBL Sustainability 1. Sustainability (TBL): 1.1. Environment 1.2. Economy 1.3. Social well-being (includes quality of life, accessibility, safety and security, preservation of national resources) 2. Mobility and safety 3. Accessibility 4. Connectivity 5. System efficiency 6. Public engagement Note: Tradeoffs are possible. Self-financing (e.g., user fees, tax on vehicle miles traveled, infrastructure banks) Intergovernmental transfers Table 10. Inputs to transportation policy systems evolving toward sustainability.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 45 (2) intergovernmental transfers (e.g., grants, revenue sharing, direct financing of projects); (3) bond issues; and (4) user fees (e.g., toll roads). Under the Sustainable Transportation system model, these funding sources are expanded to include broader sources. In addition to the gen- eral fund, more user fees could be assessed, possibly linked to societal benefits not traditionally linked to transportation. There would also be more widespread use of market mechanisms to achieve goals and finance the transportation system. There might also be a much greater move toward partnerships, where government might oversee system development under traditional processes, and then transfer operation of some assets to a private organization for service delivery or to provide income for additional projects. Under a truly sustainable system, transportation could be more directly financed by users of the system based on where, how, and how much they use the system. The presumption is that users in a region, or users that are part of a particular user segment, will have much more to say (through representatives elected or otherwise commissioned) about how and where the funds should be invested for sustainable transportation or other services that are important to them. This could be achieved through a mixture of user fees (e.g., congestion charges, tolls, taxes on vehicle miles traveled). This system of funding would also be more amenable for financing through some semipublic system (a bank) or public–private investment strategy that can depend on a flow of revenues from the transportation system to service debt. 2.3.3 Actors and Their Relationships Table 11 shows the role of actors under different models. As can be seen, most governmental actors are major players under all models. Local governments, MPOs, nontransportation state agencies, and other modal authorities increase in importance gradually as the transportation policy systems move from a purely transportation focus to a societal sustainable focus. Similarly, economic interests are always important. Economic interests include major state and local businesses, small businesses affected by transportation decisions, providers of transportation services (e.g., freight companies and shippers, private transit providers, railroads, and airlines concerned about local intermodal connections), firms involved in highway construction activities, land developers and builders, trade unions, and other entities with (1) a substantial, ongoing interest in the continued economic growth and development of a state and (2) an interest in the distribution of transportation resources to the benefit of one party or another. These interests are always and inevitably active in transportation policymaking and imple- mentation. They influence policy via a number of mechanisms, including formal and informal participation in the development of the goals of state transportation policy (e.g., participation in elections by supporting one candidate versus another; participation in state legislative hearings, blue ribbon panels, and other mechanisms to solicit input for key local interests; formal participation in consultative processes). Furthermore, because one of the key goals of transportation policy is to support the economic development and growth of an area, transportation agencies must under- stand and respond to the economic interests’ competing visions of the transportation system’s future. This does not mean that economic interests control or direct policy. Rather, they are an important and inevitable constituency that must be considered in policymaking and will always be a major consideration in how policy is developed and implemented. The major change that occurs as the system moves from a Safe Mobility model to a TBL Sustainability model is the involvement of civic and social groups. Previously, these groups were involved only in the initial stages of the policymaking process. Specifically, prior to the 1970s, their activities (to the extent they existed at all) were confined to the initial formal and informal political processes (e.g., participating in elections, lobbying elected representatives, testifying before legislative committees). With the emergence of the modern environmental movement

46 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies and local citizens’ activist groups in the 1960s, they became more involved. The NEPA process, as well as the state and local versions of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, gave civic and social interest groups more access to and involvement in the policymaking and implementation processes. Their involvement was strengthened further by their use of the courts and legal system and by direct action (e.g., picketing, land occupations, marches) to resist and delay transportation projects. As the policy system develops toward a more sustainable system, civic and social groups need to become more integrated into the policymaking and implementation processes. The literature Level 0 Safe Mobility Level 1 Compliant Transport. Level 2 Green Transport. Level 3 Sustainable Transport. Level 4 TBL Sustainability GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR State legislature, individual legislators, legislative committees Governors Transportation commissions (if present) U.S. DOT and other federal transportation agencies Other federal departments (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency) State DOTs MPOs Local governments Other state government agencies Other modal authorities (e.g., airports, ports, passenger rail) PRIVATE SECTOR State and local economic interests and businesses Transportation providers and system operators INTEREST GROUPS Community and civic groups (e.g., community booster groups, chambers of commerce) Environmental groups Professional organizations and research organizations Single-issue transportation groups Social, economic, ethnic, and cultural interest groups KEY: No involvement in the policy process Minor involvement in the policy process Regular involvement in the policy process Significant involvement in the policy process Key actors in the policy process Table 11. Actors and relationships in transportation policy systems evolving toward sustainability.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 47 review of successful experiences of sustainability shows that involving civic and social groups from the beginning of the process through implementation is vital to both developing a coalition that will support the process and ensuring it is designed to meet community needs. As the policy system moves from a Safe Mobility to a TBL Sustainability model, public participation and involvement in all levels of policymaking and implementation needs to increase. In terms of the relationship between these groups, the processes in Safe Mobility through Green Transportation policy systems manifest similar power and organizational relationships. In Safe Mobility systems, policymaking and implementation are fundamentally hierarchical, siloed, and linear. That is, elected political entities (e.g., governors, legislatures) decide and determine policy and goals; agencies implement policy with minimal public input and involvement from other agencies; while the federal government provides funding, basic standards, and technical assistance. In Compliant Transportation policy systems, the same overall process occurs; however, there is an active effort to elicit public input during the planning phase. This effort expands in both Green Transportation and Sustainable Transportation policy systems, in which the policy systems become fundamentally more interactive, iterative, and flexible. Agencies work with elected bodies in a cooperative back and forth; mechanisms exist to engage and involve interest groups and citizens to develop goals, policies, and plans at all stages; and transportation agencies work with private sector entities to manage land use and transportation demand cooperatively. The federal government still provides regulation, funding (perhaps more limited), basic standards, and technical assistance. Under any scenario, with or without TBL sustainability, surface people transportation (any mode) is seen as fundamentally a regional, state, corridor-specific, or local service—with linkages pro- viding interregional travel when needed. Freight travel can also be seen as mainly regional or corridor specific but with a much higher proportion of interstate and international travel than people transport. In the long term, policymaking authority will be linked to how, where, and from whom revenue is collected and to how the payers influence allocation of the funds. If user charging for infrastructure continues to evolve to meet infrastructure needs, funding responsibility (and policymaking) is expected to shift in the direction of the regional, state, corridor, and local users that pay more and more of the tab for the service. High-speed intercity passenger rail is a good example of projects that can be (and probably already are) driven primarily by region- specific or corridor-specific needs and revenue models. The federal government will always have national public safety, security, defense, mobility, and interstate commerce interests and regula- tory leverage on the infrastructure—but leverage on funding and transportation planning will likely gravitate toward the regions, states, and localities that will be paying directly for use of the infrastructure. Finally, in TBL Sustainability systems, policymaking and implementation will need to be more integrated. As with Sustainable Transportation systems, policymaking and implementa- tion processes are open to the public and organized interests, but other state, local, regional, and federal agencies will have to be explicitly involved and integrated into decision processes. Thus, under a TBL Sustainability system, transportation policy is linked explicitly to broader societal sustainability and policymaking is coordinated and managed in the broader context of the societal goals. Table 12 summarizes these relationships. 2.3.4 Functions: Developing Consensus on Needs and Goals Table 13 shows the function of developing consensus as needs and goals evolve under different policy systems. As can be seen, the process evolves from a fundamentally reactive system to an interactive, flexible open system. That is, in a Safe Mobility policy system, policymaking is essentially reactive. The process is driven by political decisionmakers and major stakeholders

48 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies (e.g., key economic interests, important electoral groups). Once the policy has been made, a fundamentally technocratic process occurs in which experts implement policy that has been defined by the political leaderships. As the policy system moves toward a Compliant Transpor- tation system model, it becomes more open. In this system, transportation agencies attempt to elicit comments and inputs from economic interests and civic and social groups; however, their involvement is confined fundamentally to the initial stages of the process or to carefully, legally defined opportunities. Transportation agencies view this process as disconnected from the rest of the policy process, because inputs are received from the public and little effort is spent on outreach, shaping public opinion, or developing consensus. Furthermore, public involvement is carried out as part of the legal process rather than as a vital part of the policy process. It is something that must be done as part of a legal mandate rather than to improve policymaking. In a Green Transportation system, public involvement expands. The system seeks to become responsive to public involvement. Public involvement in the needs assessment process is seen Table 12. Relationships between major actors under different policy system models. Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Hierarchical, linear—fundamentally a linear process—Elected bodies decide policy and goals, and agencies implement with minimal public input and involvement from other agencies. Federal government provides funding, basic standards, and technical assistance. Level 1 Compliant Transportation Hierarchical, linear—fundamentally a linear process—Elected bodies decide policy and goals, and agencies implement with active effort to elicit public input; limited involvement from other agencies. Federal government provides funding, basic standards, and technical assistance. Level 2 Green Transportation Hierarchical, linear—fundamentally a linear process—Elected bodies decide policy and goals, and agencies implement with active effort to elicit public input; limited involvement from other agencies. Federal government provides funding, basic standards, and technical assistance. Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Interactive, iterative, flexible—Agencies work with elected bodies, interest groups, and citizens to develop goals, policies, and plan. Public involvement at all stages. Federal government provides funding (more limited), basic standards, and technical assistance. Level 4 TBL Sustainability Integrated, interactive, iterative, flexible—Agencies work with elected bodies, interest groups, and citizens to develop goals, policies, and plan. Public involvement at all stages. Mechanisms exist for all agencies to be consulted and involved in transportation planning. Federal government provides funding (more limited), basic standards, and technical assistance. Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Driven by political decisionmakers, public, and stakeholders to identify transportation needs—waits for stakeholders to identify demands—once identified, public participation limited to formal, legally required processes. Level 1 Compliant Transportation Attempts to elicit demands from stakeholders on pre-existing plans—allows commentary, but not much vehicle for implementing public feedback. Little outreach or consensus building. Level 2 Green Transportation Elicits demands from stakeholders and mandates. Outreach and consensus building occurs. Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Works with stakeholders to identify and prioritize demands—tries to balance against sustainability goals. Developing consensus is a major goal. Active outreach and consensus building. Level 4 TBL Sustainability Approaches decisionmakers and stakeholders proactively with goals and plans to support transportation needs sustainably. Developing consensus is a major goal. Active outreach and consensus building. Table 13. Developing consensus on needs and goals under different policy system models.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 49 as vitally important and considerable effort is devoted to outreach and consensus building. This expands during the Green Transportation phase; then there is a substantial, continuous effort to involve the public not only in responding to plans but also in helping to develop them, identify and prioritize demands, and work toward a consensus. This climaxes in Sustainable Transportation systems, when all major interests are actively involved in developing goals and trading off between different goals. In doing so, the public and major stakeholders take ownership of these tradeoffs and understand and support the outcomes. A good example of public participation and consensus building in Green Transportation and the Sustainable Transportation phases is shown in the experience of Boulder, Colorado. During the 1980s, the political and community leadership decided that a new approach to transportation was needed. As a result, the City of Boulder sponsored a series of planning conferences that brought together citizens, interest groups, and experts to discuss Boulder’s transportation needs. These conferences involved more than 70 stakeholder groups, including the Sierra Club, PLAN- Boulder County, the Environmental Defense League, the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, and numerous community and neighborhood groups. The result was a new Transportation Master Plan that had the main goal of shifting 15 percent of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to other modes by 2010. The broad consensus reached during these confer- ences and the practicality of the approach adopted meant that these goals were largely achieved (Project for Public Spaces, Inc., 1997; Schiller et al., 2010). This form of citizen participation in identifying needs is not limited to the initial stages of the planning process but can be carried on throughout the implementation process to encourage support for and implementation of transportation policies. For example, Seattle has been very successful in implementing traffic circles by involving the public in their siting and maintenance. The City of Seattle invited neighborhood residents to analyze their street problems. It provided them with the technical assistance to conduct these analyses and then encouraged them to submit a proposal if they found that traffic circles would be a useful response to their problems. Once a traffic circle was constructed, the City solicited volunteers from the local community to maintain the traffic circle as a garden spot and provided them with tools, plants, and soil to maintain it (Schiller et al., 2010). Similarly, the City of Portland, Oregon, engages citizens in a repair process. A number of citizen- organized groups responded to declining pedestrian con ditions at local intersections by repairing and improving these intersections on their own. The City adopted their efforts, changed policy to respond to their needs, and involved them in the planning and improvement process. As a result, citizens now organize local celebratory events around intersections, decorate public intersections, and agree to support ongoing maintenance with their own labor (Schiller et al., 2010). Another characteristic of Green Transportation and Sustainable Transportation policy systems is that transportation agencies move beyond being either technocratic managers of public demand or passive responders to politically articulated demands to becoming active in defining and developing public demands and requirements. This helps build a constituency for sustainability. Elder and Georghiou (2007) note that there are many tools available to the public sector to create and manage demand for specific policies and services. These include leveraging public procure- ment, direct provision of financial incentives to support certain behaviors, awareness building, competence building, information provision, and regulatory interventions. For example, tax incentives to adopt electric vehicles are likely to create increasing market pressures for charging stations and lead to increasing demands on the government to adopt policies that encourage the provision of charging stations. Thus, correctly designed public policy can create a virtuous circle, where initial nudges toward a socially desirable behavior can lead to demands for further governmental action that will reinforce and encourage that behavior. The news media relentlessly criticized Portland, Oregon’s light rail transit, known as the Metropolitan Area Express, during its planning and construction; however, the system has

50 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies become such a success that arguments about building extensions have ceased. Now, these communities argue over which should receive an extension (Schiller et al., 2010). Thus, initial public investment and communication made the public more aware of the benefits of sustainability and led to expanded demands for sustainable transportation. In terms of sustainability initiatives, the point is to recognize (1) that the initiative itself can act to shape and define demand and (2) that all initiatives (e.g., regulation, procurement, and outreach) need to be part of an overall strategy to build support for sustainability policymaking. 2.3.5 Functions: Planning and Programming Table 14 shows how planning and programming evolve through numerous changes from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability policy system models. During Safe Mobility, the system focuses fundamentally on the development of one mode (the automobile) and emphasizes quantity and mobility (more roads, faster transportation). Planning follows anticipated travel demands and a “predict and provide” mindset, where travel demand is forecast and then plans are made to provide transportation to meet that demand. Transportation planning is siloed from other governmental functions and is not linked to land use decisions. Performance measures and metric systems are confined to specific transportation-related metrics and do not attempt to capture the broad social and economic impacts of the transportation policies. Furthermore, transportation planning is limited to a single jurisdiction. Regional or megaregional planning and programming are extremely limited, and the extra-jurisdictional impacts of plans are not considered. As the system evolves, there are slow, gradual changes. At first, formal and informal links are built with other agencies and planning entities (e.g., local governments, other modal authorities, MPOs) to coordinate planning under Compliant Transportation and Green Transportation. By Sustainable Transportation, a new approach to planning has emerged. Under this approach, the system now emphasizes flexibility, accessibility, connectivity, and quality (closer, better); emphasizes multiple modes and connections between modes; manages transportation and mobility demand; uses analysis to interrupt and reverse trends; works from preferred vision to planning and provision (deliberate and decide)—in particular, building scenarios, backcast; and makes planning and investment decisions using reliable and up-to-date data that reflect the full range of impacts from investing in transportation. In terms of planning itself, TBL Sustainability requires a change in the specific techniques, time horizons, and disciplinary expertise used. For example, Table 15 shows that the elements of the planning process need numerous changes to incorporate sustainability. In terms of the break between predict and provide/accept and accommodate and deliberate and decide/predict and prevent, several tools are available to help decisionmakers move toward a more sustainability-based system. For example, scenario planning and backcasting have been found to be useful tools for sustainability planning (Schiller et al., 2010). Backcasting is especially useful, because it starts with defining a desirable future and then works backward to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present. It treats the future as the past and asks, “Given attainment of a certain goal, what actions must have been taken to get here?” Figure 4 shows the difference between forecasting and backcasting. By separating policy makers from the present, the technique allows policy makers to free themselves from developing a vision of the future limited by today’s realities and forces them to think into the future and then work backward to identify the route to get there. This technique has been used in a number of sustain- ability initiatives. For example, the Capital Regional District Water Services, which serves the greater Victoria area in British Columbia, Canada, committed to backcasting to the year 2050 as a formal element of all future strategic water planning initiatives.

Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Emphasizes mobility, safety, and quantity (more, faster). Emphasizes one mode (unimodal, automobility). Expands in response to travel demand (accept and accommodate). Transportation planning is siloed and disconnected from environmental, social, and other planning areas. Transportation planning is not connected to land use decisionmaking. Plans and builds based on forecasts of likely demand (predict and provide). Limited by political jurisdiction. Limited data and related performance measures to support current planning goals, objectives, and investment decisions. Level 1 Compliant Transportation Emphasizes multimodal and connections between modes. Expands in response to travel demand. Transportation planning is siloed and disconnected but considers environmental, social, and other planning areas. Transportation planning is not connected to land use decisionmaking. Plans and builds based on forecasts of likely demand (predict and provide). Limited by political jurisdiction. Limited data and related performance measures to support current planning goals, objectives, and investment decisions. Level 2 Green Transportation Emphasizes mobility, accessibility, safety, and quantity (more, faster) but considers flexibility, connectivity, system efficiency, and quality (closer, better). Emphasizes multimodal and connections between modes. Manages transportation and mobility demand. Formal and informal links exist between other planning entities in other governments (e.g., local, regional, federal) and agencies (e.g., environment). Plans and builds based on forecasts of likely demand (predict and provide). Limited by political jurisdiction. Compliance-based reporting. Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Emphasizes flexibility, accessibility, connectivity, system efficiency, safety, security, and quality (closer, better). Emphasizes multimodal and connections between modes. Manages transportation and mobility demand. Uses analysis to interrupt and reverse trends. Works from preferred vision to planning and provision (deliberate and decide)— build scenarios, backcast, deliberate, and decide. Planning and investment decisions are driven by reliable and up-to-date data that reflect the full range of impacts from investing in transportation. Level 4 TBL Sustainability Emphasizes flexibility, accessibility, connectivity, system efficiency, safety, security, and quality (closer, better). Emphasizes multimodal and connections between modes. Manages transportation and mobility demand. Relates planning and programming to wider objectives. Emphasizes integrated planning combining transportation (all modes) with other relevant areas (environment, demographic trends, cultural resources) and levels of government. Uses analysis to interrupt and reverse trends (predict and prevent). Works from preferred vision to planning and provision (deliberate and decide)— build scenarios, backcast, deliberate, and decide. Flexible regional focus that engages multiple jurisdictions. Planning and investment decisions are driven by reliable and up-to-date data that reflect the full range of impacts from investing in transportation. Emphasizes mobility, safety, and quantity (more, faster). Table 14. Planning and programming under different policy system models. Planning Element Characteristics Green Transportation TBL Sustainability Time scale 10–15 years Intergenerational (>30 years) Time frame Static Dynamic Spatial orientation Single jurisdiction Regional, multijurisdictional Disciplinary focus Transportation engineering Multidisciplinary Data Quantitative Quantitative and qualitative Approach Reactive Predict and provide Proactive (precautionary principle) Predict and prevent Deliberate and decide Source: Adapted from Zuidgeest et al. (2000). Table 15. Planning techniques and requirements.

52 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies 2.3.6 Functions: Budgeting and Resource Allocation Table 16 shows the evolution of budgeting and resource allocation systems under different policy system models. The process evolves from a fundamentally antagonistic, competitive system that is highly siloed and inflexible and ignores larger social costs to a system that is integrated and flexible and incorporates the full social, economic, and environmental costs. Note that states and Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Budget process is competitive (e.g., agencies compete for funds), siloed, and driven by previous allocation decisions (e.g., last year’s budget is always the template). Ignores larger social, regional, and economic costs and benefits of transportation—focuses on immediate cost–benefit analysis. Inflexible—funds are bucketed and segregated by legal requirements. Politicized—transportation funding is driven by prevailing trends in politics. Level 1 Compliant Transportation Budget process is competitive (e.g., agencies compete for funds), siloed, and driven by previous allocation decisions (e.g., last year’s budget is always the template). Focuses primarily on immediate direct costs but does include social, regional, and economic costs and benefits of transportation. Inflexible—funds are bucketed and segregated by legal requirements. Politicized—transportation funding is driven by prevailing trends in politics. Level 2 Green Transportation Budget process is competitive (e.g., agencies compete for funds), siloed, and driven by previous allocation decisions (e.g., last year’s budget is always the template). Incorporates full social, environmental, fiscal, economic, and other costs into planning and provision—uses full cost accounting (FCA). Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Budget process is integrated and cooperative. Incorporates full social, environmental, fiscal, economic, and other costs into planning and provision—uses FCA. Independence—funds for transportation are obtained from a politically neutral infrastructure reserve. Level 4 TBL Sustainability Budget process is integrated and cooperative. Incorporates full social, environmental, fiscal, economic, and other costs into planning and provision—uses FCA. Flexible—funds flow to program areas, regions, and modes where they will make the biggest impact on societal sustainability. Independence—funds for transportation are obtained from a politically neutral infrastructure reserve. Table 16. Budgeting and resource allocation under different policy system models. Figure 4. Backcasting versus forecasting. FUTURE PRESENT Forecasng Backcasng PRESENT Vision of the Future

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 53 Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Led by experts Heavily influenced by organized interests and economic stakeholders Minimal public involvement Level 1 Compliant Transportation Led by experts Heavily influenced by organized interests and economic stakeholders Increased public involvement Highly politicized and conflict based Level 2 Green Transportation Led by experts Open to a plurality of interests, stakeholders, and activists Substantial public involvement during post-decisionmaking phase (i.e., do you approve?) Highly politicized and conflict based Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Public–expert partnership in developing regulation and rules—experts invite and encourage public participation Open to a plurality of interests, stakeholders, and activists Substantial public involvement during the entire rulemaking process Less politicized and cooperative Level 4 TBL Sustainability Public–expert partnership in developing regulation and rules—experts invite and encourage public participation Open to a plurality of interests, stakeholders, and activists Substantial public involvement during the entire rulemaking process Less politicized and cooperative Flexible regulation that balances difference goals and processes Table 17. Regulation and rulemaking under different policy system models. localities operate under different budgetary rules and processes [see Head and Sigritz (2008), which describes all the budgeting processes in the 50 states and District of Columbia]. In fact, there are more than 85,000 governments in the United States, including the federal government, 50 state governments, and local governments. Generalizations become difficult when one discusses any government function and its variations. A true analysis of how all these systems must change to support sustainability would require an extremely detailed analysis, which is beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, the research team concentrated on key indicators of changes and identified specific techniques that might be useful in moving toward sustainability. 2.3.7 Functions: Regulation and Rulemaking Table 17 shows the evolution of regulation and rulemaking from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustain- ability policy system models. The system progresses from one that is technocratic, led by experts, and heavily influenced by economic and organized interests with minimal public involvement to one that is much more open and flexible. “Rulemaking” refers to the process executive and independent agencies use to create regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes, and agencies then create more detailed regulations through rulemaking. Transportation is subject to a variety of regulations affecting topics that include safety standards for different modes of transportation and cargo, operational requirements (e.g., speed, maintenance, driver qualification and hours of service, equipment, employee safety and health, transportation of hazardous materials), registration and record keeping, traffic control, and the environmental impacts of transportation. Numerous regulations also affect transportation, although they are not targeted primarily at transportation. For example, due to the importance of transportation as a contributing source of air pollution, clean air regulations affect transportation directly. Water runoff regulations affect roadways, because highway runoff contains pollutants that eventually reach off-road bodies of water. Rulemaking and regulation are major functions of state transportation systems.

54 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies As promulgators of new regulations and implementers of federal regulations, the states play a key role in the process, and regulation drives a substantial amount of state transportation activities. As such, any movement toward sustainability will require major changes in the rulemaking and regulation processes. This section outlines the current process used in many states, describes the core characteristics of this process in regard to transportation, identifies how this may change under sustainability, and describes the gaps between these states (i.e., current, conventional, and sustainable operations). Early regulation of transportation began at the state level. Before the emergence of the U.S. DOT and the federal regulatory system, the states were the main actors in transportation regulation. Initially, state regulation developed out of the common law concept of business affected with the public interest. With the railroad age, however, state statutory regulation emerged with the development of various granger laws to regulate railroad rates and service. In the early 20th century, state regulation played a key role in standardizing U.S. road and car operations and laid the framework for many succeeding federal regulations. In the later 20th century, the involvement of the federal government in transportation meant that many states had to expand their rule- making activities to develop regulations that met federal requirements and brought their systems into compliance with national standards (frequently under the threat of federal funding loss or inducement for additional funding). Paralleling these trends was a greater movement at both the federal and state levels toward greater openness and standardization of the rulemaking process. In general, the goal was to open the rulemaking process to the public and affected parties and increase the transparency and accountability of government. In support of this, numerous legislative requirements were established to demonstrate the economic benefits of regulation and to place regulation on a more standardized, predictable, and scientific basis. This legislation follows a number of general principles: • The agency promulgating the rule should be able to demonstrate that it has used the admin- istrative discretion granted it by the authorizing statute to create a regulation that processes net economic and social benefits, is informed by the best available information and scien- tific and technical insight, and has explained clearly how the authorizing statute justifies the proposed rule. • Rulemaking should follow general rules of due process. • The public should be informed of proposed rules before they take effect. • The public should have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules and provide additional data to the agency. • The public should be able to access the rulemaking record and analyze the data and analysis behind a proposed rule. • The agency promulgating the regulation should analyze and respond to the public’s comments. • The agency promulgating the regulation should create a permanent record of its analysis and the process. • To ensure the correct process was followed, a judge or others may review the agency’s actions. The result was a series of statutes at the state and federal levels that mandated a standardized process for developing and promulgating regulations. For the purposes of this study, the follow- ing characteristics of this process are key: • Highly structured, legalistic process. The current rulemaking process is highly structured and legalistic. Regulations emerge from a standardized, routine process that identifies the require- ments for each stage of the process and controls the degree of interaction between different actors in the process (e.g., when and where in the process the public and affected parties may

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 55 be heard). As a result, arguments about regulations degenerate frequently into discussions of the process and whether it has been followed. Furthermore, the openness of the process to the public and affected parties (via the public comment period and the opportunity for judicial review) means that opponents of regulations have numerous opportunities to challenge or influence rules. The result is that rulemaking can often be stymied by numerous efforts to slow down or halt proposed changes and that the structure of the process discourages cooperation and encourages legalistic opposition frequently. • Confrontational system. The regulatory system in the United States is characterized by a high degree of confrontation. During the research team’s interviews with transportation agencies, a number of agency staff members emphasized that their regulatory actions are often accused of too heavily favoring industry, environmental groups, or particular interests. Honest debates over regulatory standards can degenerate to name calling and a perception that whatever final decision is made, it has been made in the interest of one party or another. Facing this, agencies tend to retreat into process-based decisionmaking, where one justification for the decision becomes that the agency has complied with the required process. • Prescriptive and process-based outcomes. Current regulatory efforts tend to mandate specific actions to be undertaken and describe how they should be undertaken. The ratio- nale for this is that the problems that regulations attempt to address are complex and the affected parties naturally try to evade regulatory costs; therefore, regulations must be either overly complex (to specify exactly what regulated parties should do) or overly simplistic (where inflexible mandates are introduced in an effort to avoid ambiguity). The result is that regulatory compliance costs tend to increase and further confrontation and resistance are encouraged. One of the key challenges to this process that TBL Sustainability will require is the development of flexible standards that can consider tradeoffs between different elements of the TBL. This development will require regulators to understand the following: • The opportunities for potential tradeoffs between different regulatory and policy initiatives (i.e., how to establish standards between competing regulations and policy alternatives to achieve optimal sustainability, while not overly burdening regulated parties) • The abilities of, and opportunities for, regulated entities to achieve sustainability goals within the constraints of their budgets This situation has double information asymmetry: • Regulatory agencies can understand the necessary big-picture tradeoffs between different regulatory options and potential methods for regulated parties to comply but lack information on the specific circumstances of individual regulated parties and the options for compliance they may face. • Regulated parties (e.g., individual firms, local governments, households, individuals) have detailed information about their individual situation and options for complying with regulations but lack information on potential innovative methods to comply or how their apparently minor actions may affect the overall sustainability equation when acting collectively. Information asymmetry occurs often in regulation, but the asymmetry is worsened when sustainability is at issue. For sustainability, the options for compliance, potential tradeoffs, and potential impacts increase exponentially over traditional regulatory problems. One proposed response is to increase the number of voluntary or negotiated rulemakings. Under this system, regulatory agencies and affected parties negotiate voluntary codes of compliance that embrace a wide variety of behaviors and options. Table 18 shows the range of potential voluntary regulatory arrangements that could be used to replace more top-down regulation and rulemaking.

56 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies The advantage of these arrangements when applied to sustainability is that they leverage the asymmetries of information inherent in multiplayer and multigoal tradeoff problems, and they allow each participant to bring its own best information to the process to negotiate or create rules best suited for the situation. The results of such arrangement-based programs are mixed. In some cases [e.g., the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Energy Star Program], they have achieved substantial benefits. In others cases, critics accuse regulatory agencies of becoming captured by their regulatory community. In general, the evidence suggests that these voluntary or negotiated programs work best in the following situations: • Benefits symmetry. Compliance is in the best interest of all parties, and substantial gains can be demonstrated to be achieved by all major parties. • Threat of regulation. Agreement on meaningful behavioral changes seems to occur when there is a real or perceived threat of a worse outcome from unilateral government regulation— the more realistic and draconian, the greater the willingness to compromise. • Mutually supported asymmetries of information. When all parties have knowledge and information that will benefit the others (as is typically seen in complex technical problems where there is no single right answer and a number of about-right answers), agreement over goals and process occurs most likely in the form of a meaningful exchange of information. • Culture of cooperation. Systems with a high degree of cooperation (or few large actors that dominate the regulatory community) promote voluntary rulemaking (e.g., there are more than 31,000 regulatory agreements in Japan and a far smaller number in the United States). • Preexisting behavioral codes or agreements. Voluntary programs work best when they build on preexisting agreements (e.g., industry standards, professional ethics) that can then be codified or expanded. Sustainability appears to have all these characteristics. In the future, it would seem that a greater move to sustainability in transportation may support and move to collaborative, negotiated, or voluntary rulemaking. Table 18. Sample voluntary rulemaking and regulation arrangements. Type of Arrangement Key Features Examples Individual Firm Standards Unilateral action on dimensions of environmental performance chosen by the firm 3P—Pollution Prevention Pays Trade Association Specific actions or codes of conduct agreed upon by at least a large segment of an industry Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan, Chemical Industry Responsible Care Program Cross-Industry Efforts Codes of conduct or commitments designed by industry to address performance across a range of industries International Chamber of Commerce, Global Environmental Management Initiative Standards Organization System for verifying performance through third-party certification International Organization for Standardization 14000 Nongovernmental Organization Voluntary codes of conduct developed by organizations focused on objectives for corporate social responsibility Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies Principles Government-Led Voluntary Challenges Opportunities for firms to take voluntary action and receive technical assistance in coordinating with other actors and public recognition Energy Star SmartWays Government-Led Voluntary Agreements (Negotiated Rulemaking “Reg-Neg”) Contractual agreement, in lieu of regulation or as part of regulation European Union voluntary regulatory agreements

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 57 To date, the United States has been characterized by a general bias toward voluntary rulemaking for sustainability. For example, a benchmark survey of corporate sustainability programs identified nine major components: energy conservation, renewable energy purchases, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building construction, greenhouse gas emissions, produc- tion and transportation, supply-chain accountability, product stewardship, solid-waste conser- vation, and water conservation (The Global Reporters, 2000). All this had been achieved despite the absence of a specific set of federal rules, regulations, or generally accepted guidelines that specify what practices or related requirements are sustainable. Consensus on industry standards has long coexisted with regulations (and in some cases, it has been incorporated in regulations over time), and sustainability seems to be no exception. For example, the U.S. Green Building Council is conducting a pilot project to grant LEED credits for sustainability (including energy savings, water efficiency, and improved indoor environmental quality). Also, the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) released a compilation of Standards for Sustainability in Buildings (fourth edition), including the Standard Guide for General Principles of Sustainability Relative to Buildings, which describes methods of decisionmaking in applied sustainability (real-world sustainability involving cost–benefit tradeoffs). The ASTM standards have been incorporated into (1) the Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers, (2) the current public draft of the International Green Construction Code, and (3) the Green Globes sustainability rating system (Bennett, 2011). This consensus on industry standards suggests that a more flexible sustainability regulatory system may be developing in the United States as a result of long-term culture change and the demands of customers and suppliers. The emergence of this model suggests that it is possible for sustainability systems to emerge from the current regulation process to create a more open, flexible regulatory policy. 2.3.8 Functions: Service and Product Delivery Table 19 shows the evolution of service and product delivery from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability policy system models. Moving toward sustainability in service and product delivery involves embedding sustainability in every element of the service delivery, from sustainable procurement to service delivery. This means not only organizing transportation to support sustainable transportation and a sustainable society but also delivering transportation service in a sustainable manner. For example, the District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Efficiency and best value in all business processes Transportation and mobility performance measured and reported Level 1 Compliant Transportation Ad hoc sustainability initiatives Efficiency and best value in all business processes—some environmental and social issues considered Transportation and mobility performance measured and reported Some environmental performance management reports Level 2 Green Transportation Sustainability organizations established within agencies Sustainability performance reporting and management Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Sustainability embedded in all business processes (e.g., procurement, planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance) Sustainability performance measured and reported for continual improvement Level 4 TBL Sustainability Sustainability embedded in all business processes (e.g., procurement, operations and maintenance) Sustainability performance measured and reported for continual improvement Table 19. Service and product delivery under different policy system models.

58 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies sustainability plan incorporates and integrates sustainable practices throughout the department’s work, ranging from office operations to construction and maintenance. Paralleling the inclusion of sustainability into business practices, transportation agencies would need to develop a series of indicators to measure and manage sustainability. To date, this is where most agencies have focused their attention (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011). In fact, states and local transportation agencies are in many ways the leaders in this area; thus, further progress will be able to build on a solid basis of achievement. 2.3.9 Functions: Compliance and Dispute Resolution Table 20 shows the evolution of compliance and dispute resolution from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability policy system models. The compliance and dispute resolution process evolves slowly out of a highly politicized, conflicting system with a dependence on informal brokering of compromises between powerful stakeholders. As the process becomes more law based and compliance driven, informal brokering diminishes (but never quite disappears) and is replaced by more formal challenges via the courts. In many ways, this is the state of the current system when dissatisfied groups turn to litigation to slow down or reverse transportation issues that do not favor their interests. Policy systems under Sustainable Transportation and TBL Sustainability models would attempt to minimize these occurrences by involving the public in a participatory process and moving toward a deliberate-and-decide approach. The idea is to involve as many inter- ests in decisionmaking as possible and allow them to compromise and take ownership of decisions, and thus avoid unresolved issues. 2.3.10 Functions: Internal Education, Training, and Culture Change Table 21 shows the evolution of internal education, training, and culture change from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability policy system models. The critical elements in this process are to move away from an organization whose key function and self-perception is to provide transpor- tation services to one that supports an overall sustainable society. This requires changing every element of a transportation agency’s operation. A more diverse workforce must be developed that contains numerous different specialties, ranging from transportation engineers to ecologists, social scientists, communication experts, and community specialists. Extensive internal education and training needs to take place to educate staff on sustainability issues, practices, and processes. Furthermore, performance standards and promotion criteria need to be changed to reward Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Highly politicized Informal brokering between powerful stakeholders Level 1 Compliant Transportation Highly politicized Informal brokering between powerful stakeholders Dependence on law and courts Level 2 Green Transportation Highly politicized Dependence on law and courts Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Politics are minimized Emphasizes deliberate and decide Avoids law and courts Level 4 TBL Sustainability Politics are minimized Emphasizes deliberate and decide Avoids law and courts Table 20. Compliance and dispute resolution under different policy system models.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 59 behavior that supports the sustainability mission of the agency. The overall aim is to develop a culture of sustainability and stewardship in which every individual understands the mission and is committed to achieving that goal in all aspects of his or her work. 2.3.11 Functions: Outreach and Communications Table 22 shows the evolution of outreach and communications from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability policy system models. A great deal of the discussion on functional changes required to achieve a sustainable organization has focused on the importance of public outreach and communication. The key element that is useful to emphasize here is the importance of moving from one-way outreach (e.g., “This is what is going to happen”) to more open two-way outreach (e.g., “What do you think? How can we better understand your needs?”). As a policy system moves from Safe Mobility to TBL Sustainability, it needs to develop an outreach system that encourages and incorporates citizens and affected parties into the decisionmaking and policy- making processes. This will build support for sustainability, ensure that policies address citizens’ and affected parties’ interests, and encourage people to use and gain the full benefit of sustainability- related investments. Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility Focus on technical specialties (transportation engineers) and standards Performance standards and incentives associated with traditional performance measures Level 1 Compliant Transportation Focus on technical specialties (transportation engineers) and standards Performance standards and incentives associated with traditional performance measures Level 2 Green Transportation Focus on multidisciplinary workforce—acceptance of flexible standards Commitment to sustainability education, training, and internal incentives to be sustainable Emerging culture of sustainability and stewardship Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Focus on multidisciplinary workforce—acceptance of flexible standards Commitment to sustainability education, training, and internal incentives to be sustainable Culture of sustainability and stewardship Level 4 TBL Sustainability Focus on multidisciplinary workforce—acceptance of flexible standards Commitment to sustainability education, training, and internal incentives to be sustainable Culture of sustainability and stewardship Performance standards and incentives associated with sustainability Table 21. Internal education, training, and culture change compliance under different policy system models. Policy System Model Characteristics Level 0 Safe Mobility One-way communication to explain transportation priorities and plans Level 1 Compliant Transportation One-way communication to explain transportation priorities and plans Level 2 Green Transportation Two-way communication to explain transportation priorities and plans and assess and incorporate feedback Level 3 Sustainable Transportation Two-way active engagement and communication between transportation agencies, the public, stakeholders, and decisionmakers Level 4 TBL Sustainability Two-way active engagement and communication between transportation agencies, the public, stakeholders, and decisionmakers Table 22. Outreach and communications under different policy system models.

60 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Figure 5. Safe Mobility (Level 0) policy system model. TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMUNITY Organizing Principles: • Supports societal mobility • Favors government ownership and control of the transportaon infrastructure • Transportaon Agency as infrastructure owner manager & regulator Key Actors include: • State government execuves and legislators • U.S. DOT • State DOTs • Local governments • Economic interests INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM • Resources: • Gas tax, excise taxes, impact and licensing fees • Intergovernmental transfers • Bond issues • Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) • Demands: • Mobility • Safety • Economic development • Increase spending on road building (focus on construcon) • Spending and policy focused on Interstate development and suburbanizaon • Development of Interstate system • Rapid suburbanizaon • Decline in intercity rail • Decline in public transit • Increasing requirements for O&M • Increasing demands for more road building to relieve congeson FEEDBACK 2.3.12 Summary of Policy Systems Models The following series of diagrams (Figure 5 through Figure 9) summarizes the key elements of the policy system models described previously. The inputs, key characteristics of the policy community, key players (including regional planning organizations or RPOs, not previously mentioned), outputs, and feedback are identified. Note that, as the system moves toward sustainability, the feedback loops tend to reinforce and strengthen the trend toward sustainability. 2.4 Current Position of Transportation Agencies and Gap Analysis Table 23 shows the current position of transportation agencies and other entities vis-à-vis the different policy system models identified and described previously. Additional follow-up tables at the end of this section summarize ratings for specific groups on different functions. Most states currently operate in a manner between the Compliant Transportation (Level 1) and the Green Transportation (Level 2) models. Specifically, many of the leading states have gone beyond strict processes and rules for compliance and moved into a more green system, where internal initiatives support sustainability practices; expanded participatory policymaking practices; and developed advanced sustainability indicator and planning systems. None has yet developed a Sustainable Transportation or true TBL Sustainability policy system. Similarly, federal

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 61 TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMUNITY Organizing Principles: • Support societal mobility • Compliance with environmental, economics, and social legislave requirements • Transportaon agency as Infrastructure owner manager & regulator • Top down planning Key Actors include: • State government execuves and legislators • U.S. DOT & other federal agencies • State DOTs • Local governments • Interest groups • Economic interests INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM • Resources: • Gas tax, excise taxes, impact and licensing fees • Intergovernmental transfers • Bond issues • Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) • Demands: • Mobility • Safety • Economic development • Environmental compliance • Other (e.g., heritage and culture protecon) • Public parcipaon • Increase spending on road building (focus on construcon) • Spending and policy focused on roads – O&M major concern • Connuing road expansion • Rapid suburbanizaon • Decline in intercity rail • Decline in public transit • Increasing me & resources for compliance • Increasing requirements for O&M • Increasing demands for more road building to relieve congeson FEEDBACK Figure 6. Compliant Transportation (Level 1) policy system model. agencies are emphasizing compliance, internal standards, and performance metric development and culture change. To date, Sustainable Transportation (Level 3) policy systems have been observed mainly at the local and international levels, with a few states exhibiting some characteristics of Level 3. This is for several reasons. First, localities and other major countries have great authority over land use and other issues that are critical to sustainable transportation. For example, the success of Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Vancouver are partly because they have the ability to control land use via zoning and have authority over or are able to influence all modes of transportation in their jurisdiction. In contrast, most state transportation agencies control only the state highway system and have limited influence over other modal agencies and no control over land use. Second, transportation is a regional or local issue inevitably. Its impacts are always keenly felt at a local level. Transportation problems, such as congestion, are felt first at a local level, and the pressure to respond to them is first attempted at the same level. States are generally larger and more diverse than the local levels. A transportation problem in one part of the state may not be experienced in another part of the state, and there will be little statewide political support to address this problem. Therefore, localities (and possibly smaller states with highly concentrated populations) are the first to address problems.

62 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMUNITY Organizing Principles: • Supports societal mobility & environmental, economic, and social needs Emphasizes Environment • Transporta on agency as infrastructure owner manager & regulator Key Actors include: • State government execu ves and legislators • U.S. DOT & other federal agencies • State DOTs • Local governments, MPO, RPO • Interest groups • Economic interests INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM • Resources: • Gas tax, excise taxes, impact and licensing fees • Intergovernmental transfers • Bond issues • Some user fees (e.g., toll roads) • Demands: • Mobility • Safety • Economic development • Environmental compliance and sustainability • Other (e.g., heritage and culture) • Public par cipa on • Road spending s ll dominant but increasing spending on transit, rail & mul modal transport • Focus on preserva on of exis ng infrastructure & priori za on of investments • Improved environmental compliance • Revival of public transit • Growing support for sustainability • Increasing demands for alterna ves to roads to relieve conges on FEEDBACK Figure 7. Green Transportation (Level 2) policy system model. Third, localities often have more tools and options to generate revenues to support sustain- ability initiatives. Because of the previous two issues (local versus state government powers and concentrated versus distributed transportation problems), it is easier for local governments to develop a consensus around change, gain widespread support for the change, and then develop the local solutions (e.g., transit) to respond, than it is for more diverse states. Furthermore, as cities can build supportive coalitions from individuals that experience transportation problems directly, they are more likely to gain their support for bond issues, user fees, or increases in local taxes. For example, in Northern Virginia, special local districts were established in 2010 to levy a special tax on retail businesses to support the expansion of the Washington, D.C., metro system. This was after the state had failed to provide funds, because it was viewed as a project that benefited only one part of the state. For all these reasons, cities and local governments are the leaders in sustainability. States, despite considerable progress, still lag behind. For them to catch up to cities, they would have to change a number of key factors. Critically, they would have to build a coalition within the state to support sustainable transportation. Local governments provide numer- ous examples of how this could be done; however, the proximity of the local governments to citizens makes it much easier for them to develop support. This suggests that one model for building sustainability at the state level may be to build sustainability from the ground up. For example, according to the interviews conducted for this project, southeast Florida’s regional partnerships found themselves blocked by unresponsive leadership at the state level,

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 63 TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMUNITY Organizing Principles: • Supports sustainable transportaon • Favors partnerships between public and private sector • Transportaon agency as infrastructure coordinator (some owner operator & some private) & regulator Key Actors include: • State government execuves and legislators • U.S. DOT & other federal agencies • State DOTs & other agencies • Local governments, MPO, RPO • Interest groups • Economic interests • Cizens groups INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM • Resources: • Gas tax, excise taxes, impact and licensing fees • Intergovernmental transfers • Bond issues • Substanal use of user fees & market mechanisms • Demands: • Sustainability (TBL) • Mobility • Safety • Accessibility • Connecvity • System efficiency • Public parcipaon • Road spending sll dominant but increasing spending on transit, rail & mulmodal transport • Increasing support for alternave transportaon modes (e.g., walking, biking) & alternave fuel vehicles (AFVs) • Substanal coordinaon with local governments, other modal authories • Focus on preservaon of exisng infrastructure & priorizaon of investments – increasing reuse & refocusing of older transportaon assets to new purposes • Improved environmental, social (e.g., heritage, equity) compliance • Growth in public transit, alternave modes & AFVs • Growing support for sustainability • Greater coordinaon between key actors FEEDBACK Figure 8. Sustainable Transportation (Level 3) policy system model. and they began to develop coalitions to pursue their own transportation and sustainability initiatives. These islands of sustainability can expand gradually to include more communi- ties and eventually reach a tipping point when sufficient political support has been built to change overall state policy. Finally, the research suggests that cities and localities with strong growth economies are more likely to support comprehensive, advanced sustainability initiatives than localities with weak economies. The programs cited for leadership are predominantly connected with economically strong and growing cities, such as Portland, Seattle, Boulder, and New York. Other cities are more likely to focus scarce resources on specific bottom-line needs that can (or must) be met in the near term, and various public interest groups tend to focus more on specific needs at hand. Many improvements can be made for the transportation system to enhance long-term sustainability, but most transportation programs face significant fund- ing constraints. Considering the competing goals that transportation agencies face today (e.g., mobility, safety, and fix-it-first) and the overall scarcity of funding, it is likely that, for a while, sustainability decisionmaking will be more focused on making choices and bal- ancing priorities, and on compliance with regulations. For agencies currently experiencing major funding constraints and with a range of diverse needs within their jurisdictions, focus on long-term sustainability (in the TBL sense) can often take a back seat to more pressing issues.

64 Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMUNITY Organizing Principles: • Support societal sustainability • Agnosc on issues of ownership or control of transportaon infrastructure – whatever is most sustainable • Transportaon system steward Key Actors include: • State government execuves and legislators • U.S. DOT & other federal agencies • State DOTs & other agencies • Local governments, MPO, RPO • Interest groups • Economic interests • Cizens groups INPUTS OUTPUTSPOLICY SYSTEM • Resources: • Self financing (e.g., user fees, VMT tax, infrastructure bank) • Intergovernmental transfers • Demands: • Sustainability (TBL) • Mobility and safety • Accessibility • Connecvity • System efficiency • Public parcipaon • Road, transit, rail & mulmodal transport balanced as needed • Strong support for alternave transportaon modes & AFVs • Substanal coordinaon with local governments, other modal authories • Focus on preservaon of exisng infrastructure & priorizaon of investments – increasing reuse & refocusing of older transportaon assets to new purposes • Support for sustainable society • Growth in public transit, alternave modes & AFVs • Growing support for sustainability • Greater coordinaon between key actors • Greater social sustainability FEEDBACK Figure 9. TBL Sustainability (Level 4) policy system model. Leading Localies Federal Government Private Sector Leading Non-Use Examples 0 1 2 3 4 States Sustainability Model Levels Table 23. Current position of different organizations and sectors vis-à-vis sustainability models.

Policy Systems and Transportation Functions 65 In line with the definitions of TBL sustainability as serving long-term generational equity and values, cost of TBL requires assessment through a larger lens. A measure of the total economic, social, and environmental capital gained or lost is the best indicator of the cost and benefit of a given sustainability strategy. Under the TBL sustainability principle, if the balance between the bottom lines is optimized to address society’s needs and priorities and the total capital for the three bottom lines is maintained as constant or increasing over a long period, then cost should not be an issue and generational equity is well served. So, it can be accepted that particular projects might incur increased short-term cost to incorporate sustainability objectives, but the long- term life-cycle cost can be lower, the local economy may benefit, environmental capital may be preserved, and social benefits can accrue. The question of whether a sustainability program or project is expensive depends not on upfront project-level cost but rather on the life-cycle cost and value of the plan. The following chapters review how transportation might be able to support and advance beyond Sustainable Transportation policy systems to TBL Sustainability policy systems in the future.