Programmatic Issues of Future System Performance (2022)

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.

79 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW Transformational Technologies Transformational technologies and services are evolving rapidly to improve the lives of society. Rapid changes in multimodal transportation are increasingly coming to the forefront of transportation considerations for State Transportation Agencies (STAs). Key questions on transformational technologies and services raised by the unified framework will help to assist State Transportation agencies to examine issues raised by the CIT2019 and CIHS reports. Changes driven by smart technologies such as Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs), Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), ride-sharing services, remote and ubiquitous sensors, construction automation, app-based mobility services, and “Personal life” technologies (e.g., remote work/telework, remote shopping) have the potential to drastically change the transportation system we currently utilize. New technologies are overturning the traditional transport market, affecting our lifestyle, jobs, and communications; nevertheless, many questions remain unsolved, mainly those affecting liability, insurance, security, etc. (Zmud et al. 2017). How to improve social benefits of transformational technologies that impact system use and access With new technologies at the forefront of implementation, there are many areas that STAs should focus their resources to plan for their emergence instead of taking a reactionary approach to them. There is a potential to improve social benefits but we must also be cognizant of the threat of creating negative impacts. Technological developments and social change will impact the way people live, work and relate to one another (Pitkänen & Lee 2018). There are also gaps in research exploring key governance questions that the transition of these technologies pose in their disruption to the status quo, and changes to governance that may be required for the achievement of positive social outcomes (Ashmore David et al. 2018). Drastic changes in technology can create jobs but also make others obsolete. Workers with low skills and low wages tend to be affected more by technological substitution of labor, and the transferability of their existing skills is also more limited (Wang 2019). Another consideration is when one transportation option over another is selected it may cause disparity for the public to utilize them. For instance, in Los Angeles when light rail was prioritized over bus lines it attracted more affluent residents to use transit. This can have a profound effect on housing around the stations driving up costs, which can prevent lower-income residents from using a transportation system that they relied upon (M. K. Anderson 2017). Ridesharing and app-based mobility services may drastically impact vehicle ownership. The rapid adoption of ride- hailing poses significant challenges for transportation researchers, policymakers, and planners, as there are limited information and data about how these services affect transportation decisions and travel patterns. There are also concerns that new technologies may not be viable or affordable for all users. College-educated, affluent Americans have adopted ride-hailing services at double the rate of less educated, lower-income populations (Clewlow et al. 2017). The cost of daily use of ride-hailing may be cost-prohibitive for all transportation users. Other areas of concern are limitations of the existing infrastructure as it relates to electricity requirements and connectivity. The majority of these emerging technologies require electricity for charging batteries and connectivity networks to integrate into the systems such as Digital Short Range Communication (DSRC), or 5G networks. Automation in construction also increases quality and productivity, which can drive down costs and make the bidding process more competitive. Significant work in transformative technology areas will need to be completed to accommodate the needs required for successful adoption.

80 What strategies (e.g., standards, policies, investments) need to be in place to foster technological innovation and steer the safe and fast transition to technologies such as Connected and Automated Vehicles and Drones? With technological advances rapidly advancing it demands changes to accommodate them in order them to become implemented. Some limitations may present themselves with the current infrastructure. The present power system could face huge instabilities with enough EV penetration, but with proper management and coordination, EVs can be turned into a major contributor to the successful implementation of the smart grid concept (Un-Noor et al. 2017). This may be a larger effort in rural areas that already struggle to maintain their current infrastructure. With electric vehicles minimally sharing in the cost to support the infrastructure at this time, another system of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), usage fees, or tolls will be needed to fund the future transportation system. As CAV technology continues to advance, there will be a need to develop common technical standards to address the interoperability of systems, safety design, liability, and litigation policy, the role of government, and even privacy and information security (Khan et al. 2012). Rural communities face many obstacles for implementation. They may not have the resources for upgrades to the electrical grid or improved communications networks. Currently, rural communities are struggling with limited funding, poor connectivity, deficient conditions on roads, highways, and bridges, and an exodus of their population due to a lack of jobs locally. With many items already in desperate need of funding, it may limit their willingness to adopt new technologies. With proper planning, it could alleviate some of the issues they face. The problem typically lies in their lack of finances and resources which can prevent proper planning. A disproportionate amount of rural communities have outdated comprehensive plans and with limited resources aren’t able to update them to address disruptive technologies. One method to help address this issue is through technical planning assistance grants. This can often provide funding to implement proper planning to address the needs of the community. For advanced UAS and AAM operations, it will require full integration of new users into the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA BEYOND and Integration Pilot Programs, are set up to allow the FAA to work with partners to expedite use cases and better understand how to safely integrate UAS. In addition to these programs, more research is needed into acoustical impacts, flight corridors, operating altitudes, and public perception. There are broad concerns about how public acceptance may influence this technology. In Australia, the public viewed drones as being of comparable risk to that of existing aviation with a neutral attitude toward them. Their greatest concern was regarding privacy, military use, and misuse. As public knowledge increases, the current position is likely to change (Clothier et al. 2015). It will be imperative to have public input or it could negatively impact their integration efforts. Media coverage and propagation of information on how they are beneficial can help to alleviate unrealistic or uneducated opinions regarding UAS. It is also imperative to have good safety records and demand performance and reliability from the manufacturers. Owing to a century of innovation in aircraft design, for the first time in history, air transport presents a potentially competitive alternative to road, for hub-to-door and door-to-door urban services (Bulusu 2019). Advanced Aerial Mobility (AAM) & Urban Air Mobility are predicted to enable the next revolution in transportation. There are many challenges to integrating unmanned recreational, commercial, and manned aircraft operations. Many questions need to be addressed on what the real impacts of AAM will be. Bulusu found that UAM has distinct advantages when traveling distances of more than 2 miles. The findings also conclude that congestion on roads more than doubles the advantage of air to road travel and reduces CO2 emissions (Bulusu 2019). The study from Bulusu was based on

81 numbers on our current transportation network. If more work was completed to redesign the environment it would increase these savings even further. Urban freight transport (UFT) is fundamental to the livability of our cities, but it also contributes to the unsustainability of the same cities (Kin et al. 2017). This is typically due to poor planning and not involving all stakeholders. Companies are looking to automated vehicles, robots, and unmanned aircraft to innovate this area, however, there is a broad range of logistics that need to be studied before implementation and full integration. Rapid innovation needs to be balanced against the risks to public safety from poorly engineered or hastily released systems competing for first-on-the-market status (Shladover & Nowakowski, 2019). Success may be realized by turning to traditional infrastructure that is often overlooked. It will be important to recognize existing infrastructures' potential value to the community as with smaller general aviation airports. General aviation airports are often overlooked for their economic value. These airports can be a multimodal anchor to integrate multiple smart technologies. The airports could serve as a central hub for micro freight at inland ports increasing their utilization and economic value for the city. By utilizing existing infrastructure and incorporating smart technologies it can drastically improve the current system. By solely creating collaborative governance models for urban freight, Italy found an increase in commercial vehicle speed and a reduction in CO2 emissions (Marcucci et al. 2017). Additional improvements could be accomplished by utilizing this same approach with emerging technologies. A study of San Francisco found that 10,000 free routed sUAS flights are possible per day and also feasible for hub-door and door-to-door services (Bulusu 2019). For transformational technologies to integrate properly into a multi-modal system, Authorities and the rest of the stakeholders must proactively face challenges to establish a common thorough, and reliable framework of rules and guidelines, and to avoid eventual rebound and undesirable effects (López-Lambas 2017). Transportation officials often can become comfortable in their silos which can create myopic solutions. For true efficient multi-modal transportation system it will require more collaboration with airports, housing, and land-use planners. It will also be imperative to communicate effectively with the public to foster no regret, low regret, and incremental solutions to better collaborate with the public for a successful implementation. How to establish roles and responsibilities of federal and state regulatory oversight for vehicle technologies that cross state borders? Concerns about differing regulatory environments between state borders are on the forefront of OEM’s for EVs, UAS, & AAM. Little has been completed in this area that will be needed for the integration of vehicle technologies across state lines. The last legislation was from 2017 when the House of Representatives passed legislation to speed the adoption of self-driving cars and bar states from setting performance standards, however, the legislation stalled. From this point, a catastrophic hit to the industry happened when a self-driving car killed a pedestrian in March 2018. This event caused a major setback for this industry. Overall on the Federal level, there is very little regulation related to the operation of autonomous vehicles. Due to licensing and testing standard inconstancies across states, interactions with other components of the transportation system, and uncertain implementation details it would be beneficial if the federal government expands research to create a nationally recognized framework for AVs (Fagnant & Kockelman 2015). Car & Driver interviewed automakers and found that prospects of laws differing from State to State could make travel across state lines legally untenable. Federal oversight of interstate travel may be necessary to prevent a bottleneck of issues regarding border crossings. International travel could become even more problematic, especially as it relates to customs. The other area to address is the port of entries when it relates to commercial truck traffic across state lines. Some studies have been performed between

82 Michigan and Canada International Border, but limited research has been found otherwise. For International borders, The Cross Border Institute identified the following challenges for commercial truck traffic (B. Anderson et al. 2017). • Challenges of managing the importing process • Challenges of navigating and maneuvering through the inspection plazas • Cybersecurity issues This is an area that needs more studies and research performed to give a comprehensive understanding of all the issues and propose solutions. What are the behavioral responses of customers and public-at-large to transformational technologies? How do they impact mode choice, ride sharing, auto ownership, land-use patterns, response to safety features, and risk perception? Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) have the potential to drastically change the way we live and work. The AAA Foundation’s American Driving Survey shows that Americans spend 70 billion hours behind the wheel. CAVs are navigating highways in the US and those of many nations around the world. As more people move toward CAVs they could significantly increase traffic flow, lower transportation costs, reduce pollution, increase mobility, reduce accidents, and increase the productivity of workers. The Department of Telematics and Informatics created a study on “An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving.” They highlighted 5 items toward opinions on autonomous vehicles which included: • Perceived ease of use seems to have a smaller impact on the intensions of consumers to have or use AVs. • Perceived usefulness is the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions to have or use AVs. • 62% of respondents considered themselves, late adopters on the technology adoption curve. • 44% of respondents indicated that if they were to use AVs they would be feeling safer. • 47% of respondents stated neutral against system security and data privacy concerns on AVs. As automation is slowly being implemented into vehicles it is being more accepted and at times demanded by drivers. This will eventually lead to more acceptance of fully automated vehicles. Electric Vehicles (EVs) can drastically reduce the dependence on oil and the environmental impacts of an internal combustion engine. They also enable mobility for individuals with disabilities or the inability to drive a traditional automobile. Some concerns are the amount of power required to charge the vehicles and demand on the power grid with other smart technologies utilizing the same resources. Battery electric cars are still relatively expensive and suffer from short drive ranges and the absence of a wide-spread recharging infrastructure (M. Weiss et al. 2015). Charge times and endurance may be a limiting factor on full adoption and will require continued work in this area to meet demand and expectations. Charging while driving technology may be a viable option. The concept of charging lanes has made remarkable progress and could be deployed to allow EV’s to charge while driving (Chen et al. 2016). Due to the limited range and length of time to charge electric vehicles, it may impact long-distance personal travel by car. This may push more passengers onto the airlines for travel over 500 miles (LaMondia et al. 2016). For full integration, it may require following the example of Norway in their transition to one of the largest fleets of EV vehicles worldwide through cross-geography policy effects

83 (e.g., Skjølsvold & Ryghaug 2020). The safety and productivity gains from using EVs would bring significant economic benefits, but the potential societal benefits from EVs will not be achieved unless these vehicles are accepted and used by a critical mass of drivers (Wagner 2016). With CAVs the possibility of having the vehicle utilization increase while reducing vehicles on the roadway is a potential benefit. The vehicles could be operating to earn a profit or be part of a vehicle sharing network or shared app-based mobility, when not needed by the primary owner. This could reduce the need for parking lots in the future, freeing up valuable real-estate. Several speculations by experts showed that AVs will affect many aspects of life, but their impact on the transportation system and people’s lives may not be realized until AVs are fully functional (Mohammad et al. 2016). There is still a lot of work and research that needs to be completed before full adoption is feasible. Some of the greatest obstacles to the growth were identified by (Dermot Putnam et al. 2019) as: • Safety concerns • Price of investment • Cybersecurity or data privacy concerns • Consumer readiness to adopt • Lack of a regulatory framework • Infrastructure issues • Creating and implementing digital city mapping platforms with easy-to-update features • City infrastructure requirements that need immediate attention so that autonomous vehicle technology testing/implementation can be facilitated further • Upgrade highways and thoroughfares with smart technology for road signs, traffic lights, and merge lanes/ensure lane markings on city streets are visible and consistent/optimize intersections and streetscapes • Upgrade pedestrian accommodations • Upgrade parking areas Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are drastically changing traditional business processes. UAS are being utilized by many public and private agencies nationwide to help increase productivity and safety. The advent of easy to fly airframes with remote sensing technologies has created a new era of data collection. They also have the potential to drastically change many other industries, including package delivery. Last-mile drone delivery is gaining attention, making the possibility of consumers encountering a drone at their doorstep a reality. This can drastically beneficial for those who live in hard-to-reach areas (Beninger & Robson 2020). With the current regulatory environment, there are many limitations to their use, yet they are still being used and tested extensively. As regulations evolve many operations currently limited will be allowed which will have a drastic effect on the industry and open up the way for a vast array of uses. (e.g., medical delivery, food delivery, parcel delivery, passenger air vehicles, ubiquitous connections for vehicles, etc. UAS are considered to be an important element of the Internet of Things (IoT). The aircraft can be integrated with ground vehicular networks to improve system performance as illustrated in the study on Drone-Assisted Vehicular Networks (DAVN) (Shi et al. 2018). Due to limitations on battery life, this may not be practical for long durations. Once the additional battery or fuel innovations are integrated into

84 UAS it could enable longer duration practical use cases. More research focusing on practical solutions of DAVN should be considered. For metropolitan airspace such as San Francisco Bay, the potential exists when there are far more aircraft in the urban airspace than boats in the bay, if not more than cars on the highway (Bulusu 2019). Freight delivery in on the rise in recent years with the ease of eCommerce. Freight travel accounts for a major share of the energy consumed in the transportation sector in any country (Jeong et al. 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic UPS and FedEx were inundated with millions of extra daily packages after many retail stores were closed. UPS along indicated a 65% increase in shipments to homes (UPS Rides E- Commerce Surge to 21% Jump in Package Volumes - WSJ, n.d.). With fewer people purchasing locally through retail stores it has created a large demand on package delivery and increased load on the transportation system. The convenience of home delivery is also gaining momentum due to expectations of free delivery. As more employees are remote working it also plays an important role for on-demand delivery as it ensures that people are home for the delivery, reducing repeated delivery attempts. Since last-mile delivery is both the most expensive and time-consuming part of the shipping process, the industry is working to innovate to meet demands and lower costs. What regulatory compliance frameworks are available to oversee performance assessment and safety assurance of automation technologies? Higher levels of road vehicle automation pose a regulatory challenge in the United States. No uniform approach from states to regulating autonomous vehicles have been passed. The key challenges are how to ensure public safety without discouraging technical innovation (Nowakowski et al. 2015). Further challenges arise due to limited technical standards for automated driving systems. In the case of ride- hailing further research is needed to understand how ride-hailing may influence future trajectories of traffic volumes and associated emissions so that cities can effectively plan for transportation infrastructure and public transit investments (Clewlow et al. 2017). As automation becomes more commonplace consumers will expect the convenience they have become accustomed to. With new technologies come additional concerns such as safety, privacy, and legal responsibility. With AAM and UAS, the FAA is working toward oversight of safety assurance through 14 CFR Part 135 & Part 107. The current release of regulations for Remote ID and Operations Over People will further advance a growing industry. The FAA has been proactive to embrace the coming aerial revolution and has been working with NASA, industry, and state and local government to make informed decisions on new rules and policies. The FAA Integration Pilot program has been successful and the BEYOND program has now started to further advance their goals of Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations. This will all tie into integrating new users into the airspace. These programs are beneficial to understand complex issues and to help create new regulations that support innovation and still provide safety assurance. What policy options are available at the federal, state, or local level are available to handle unintended consequences of shared mobility services Shared mobility is on the rise as seen from the influx of multiple shared mobility solutions (e.g., scooters, bikes, Lyft, Uber, etc.) With the emerging uses of CAVs and UAM along with the ability to share resources, the prospect of reducing vehicles on the roadway becomes closer to reality. ITS Berkley created a study that found some common ways that local, regional, and state policies impacted shared mobility. Some of these same items could also be used to mitigate unintended consequences which include:

85 • Public Rights-of-Way: Numerous procedures focus on managing public rights-of-way, which allow the passage of people and goods, along with public and sometimes private property (typically through licenses and easements). Local governments and public agencies can implement formal and informal policies to allocate public rights-of-way, such as curb space and parking. • Land Use (Zoning and Parking): Implement an array of policies aimed at easing zoning regulations and parking minimums to promote the inclusion of shared mobility in new developments. • Zoning: Policies that allow increased density include greater floor-to-area ratios, more dwelling units permitted per acre, and greater height allowances for the inclusion of shared mobility into developments. • Parking: Common parking policies include parking reductions (downgrading the required number of spaces in a new development) and parking substitution (substituting general use parking for shared modes) • Insurance: Insurance regulations can make shared modes cost-prohibitive or they can ban operations in a jurisdiction altogether. Common insurance policies impacting shared mobility include provisions for peer-to-peer car-sharing insurance and insurance coverage for, for-hire vehicle services, such as ride-sourcing/transportation network companies (TNCs) and taxis. • Taxation: Taxing shared mobility can raise end-user service costs. References Anderson, B., Leardi-Anderson, M., & Tannous, L. (2017). Automated Trucking and Border Crossings. Anderson, M. K. (2017). Metrics for Equity in Transit-Oriented Development: A Case for Sustainable Investment in Los Angeles. In uep_student. https://scholar.oxy.edu/handle/20.500.12711/8942 Ashmore David, Curtis Carey, Davis Diane E., Docherty Iain, & Dowling Robyn. (2018). Governance of the Smart Mobility Transition. In Governance of the Smart Mobility Transition. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787543171 Beninger, S., & Robson, K. (2020). The disruptive potential of drones. Marketing Letters, 31(4), 315– 319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09542-8 Bulusu, V. (2019). Urban Air Mobility: Deconstructing the Next Revolution in Urban Transportation- Feasibility, Capacity and Productivity. Chen, Z., He, F., & Yin, Y. (2016). Optimal deployment of charging lanes for electric vehicles in transportation networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 91, 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.05.018 Clewlow, R. R., Shankar Mishra, G., Clewlow, R., Affiliate, R., & Kulieke, S. (2017). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES. Clothier, R. A., Greer, D. A., Greer, D. G., & Mehta, A. M. (2015). Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones. Risk Analysis, 35(6), 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12330 Dermot Putnam, Mária Kováčová, Katarína Valášková, & VOJTECH STEHEL. (2019). The Algorithmic Governance of Smart Mobility: Regulatory Mechanisms for Driverless Vehicle Technologies and

86 Networked Automated Transport Systems. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice , 11(1), 21–26. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003. Jeong, K., Garikapati, V., Hou, Y., Birky, A., & Walkowicz, K. (2020). Comprehensive Approach to Measure the Mobility Energy Productivity of Freight Transport. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2674(7), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120920879. Khan, A. M., Bacchus, A., & Erwin, S. (2012). Policy challenges of increasing automation in driving. IATSS Research, 35(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2012.02.002. Kin, B., Verlinde, S., Mommens, K., & Macharis, C. (2017). A stakeholder-based methodology to enhance the success of urban freight transport measures in a multi-level governance context. Research in Transportation Economics, 65, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.08.003. LaMondia, J. J., Fagnant, D. J., Qu, H., Barrett, J., & Kockelman, K. (2016). Shifts in Long-Distance Travel Mode Due to Automated Vehicles: Statewide Mode-Shift Simulation Experiment and Travel Survey Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2566(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3141/2566-01. López-Lambas, M. E. (2017). The socioeconomic impact of the intelligent vehicles: Implementation strategies. In Intelligent Vehicles: Enabling Technologies and Future Developments (pp. 437–453). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812800-8.00011-4. Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Marciani, M., & Cossu, P. (2017). Measuring the effects of an urban freight policy package defined via a collaborative governance model. Research in Transportation Economics, 65, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.09.001. Mohammad, S., Sadat, A., Bozorg, L., Bozorg, S. L., & Ali, M. (2016). Potential Implication of Automated Vehicle Technologies on Travel Behavior and System Modeling Recommended Citation “Potential Implication of Automated Vehicle Technologies on Travel Behavior and System Modeling” (2016). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://doi.org/10.25148/etd.FIDC001241. Nowakowski, C., Shladover, S. E., Chan, C.-Y., & Tan, H.-S. (2015). Development of California Regulations to Govern Testing and Operation of Automated Driving Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2489(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.3141/2489-16. Pitkänen, P., & Lee, Y. J. (2018). Humans and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Canon&Culture, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.31280/cc.2018.10.12.2.5. Shi, W., Zhou, H., Li, J., Xu, W., Zhang, N., & Shen, X. (2018). Drone Assisted Vehicular Networks: Architecture, Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Network, 32(3), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2017.1700206. Shladover, S. E., & Nowakowski, C. (2019). Regulatory challenges for road vehicle automation: Lessons from the California experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 122, 125– 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.006. Skjølsvold, T. M., & Ryghaug, M. (2020). Temporal echoes and cross-geography policy effects: Multiple levels of transition governance and the electric vehicle breakthrough. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.06.004.

87 Un-Noor, F., Padmanaban, S., Mihet-Popa, L., Mollah, M. N., & Hossain, E. (2017). A comprehensive study of key electric vehicle (EV) components, technologies, challenges, impacts, and future direction of development. In Energies (Vol. 10, Issue 8). https://doi.org/10.3390/en10081217. UPS Rides E-Commerce Surge to 21% Jump in Package Volumes - WSJ. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/ups-rides-e-commerce-surge-to-21-jump-in-package- volumes-11596105832. Wagner, J. (2016). Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles Final Report. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32687. Wang, X. (2019). Preparing the public transportation workforce for the new mobility world. In Empowering the New Mobility Workforce. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816088-6.00010-9. Zmud, J., Goodin, G., Moran, M., Kalra, N., & Thorn, E. (2017). NCHRP Research Report 845: Advancing Automated and Connected Vehicles: Policy and Planning Strategies for State and Local Transportation Agencies. Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/24872. System Performance and Condition What are the best strategies for leveraging technology, road pricing, and other demand management techniques for integrated corridor and demand management in urban and large metropolitan areas? How to improve modally integrated urban mobility using alternative transport, pricing, technology, and other approaches? In the U.S., the population migration trends indicate that the urban, suburban, and small metropolitan areas have been growing steadily, while the population has declined in at least half of the rural counties, especially in the Northeast and Midwest. Changing population trends generate significant travel demand in heavily motorized urban and suburban areas. Noting that about 77 percent of traffic are single occupancy vehicles, growing population leads to many negative externalities, such as congestion, crashes, emissions, and public health issues. To manage demand, transportation agencies adopt several integrated corridor and demand management strategies to manage demand and optimize the use of existing capacity without building new capacity. Dynamic road or congestion pricing is a common demand management strategy that transportation agencies adopt to relieve road congestion. Congestion pricing comprises of a wide range of fee and non- fee based strategies to manage the efficient use of road capacity. Many transportation agencies across the U.S. and the world continue to experiment and implement various congestion pricing strategies. In the US, three pricing types are being used: • Variably priced lanes, such as express toll lanes and high-occupancy toll lanes (e.g., District of Columbia, San Diego, Denver) • Variable pricing on entire facilities (e.g., Midpoint and Cape Coral toll bridges in Lee County, Florida) • Cordon charges to drive within or into a congested area (e.g., New York City Central Business District) Various studies report the positive impacts that congestion pricing generate on both demand and other externalities. FHWA reported that the congestion pricing on the SR 520 bridge in Washington resulted in 34 percent reduction in traffic volumes and 38 percent increase in transit ridership (Zimmerman et al. 2015). Similar implementation on I-35 in Minnesota and I-95 in Florida showed similar increase in

88 person throughput and reduction in travel time. In New York City, the number of single-occupant vehicles and taxi trips fell by 30% and 40% respectively in response to the $20 cordon pricing in the Central Business District. This change resulted in 32 percent decrease in aggregated delay, 17.5% decrease in particulate matter, and 6% growth in transit ridership (Baghestani et al. 2020). In the Singapore context, Agarwal and Koo (2016) reported that the bus ridership increased by 10-12 percent in response to a $1 increase in peak hours. Because of its ability to reduce vehicle throughputs, various congestion pricing schemes also reduced negative externalities of traffic, including fewer crashes and lower CO2 emissions. The beneficial effects of congestion pricing correlates with land use patterns. Higher density population and employment centers with better public transportation respond well to road pricing (Zhong et al. 2015). Similarly, as Agarwal and Koo (2016) observed, commuters from low income areas responded well to peak-hour pricing by switching to public transit. However, public acceptability is critical to the success of congestion pricing schemes. Many factors influence the public attitudes towards congestion pricing acceptability: equity or fairness in the distribution of toll burden among various socio demographic groups, robustness of mass transit, available travel choices and personal privacy (Selmoune et al. 2020). Integrated corridor management (ICM) is a coordinated and integrated approach that comprises of various active traffic management and multimodal transportation elements to make the system more effective. Many agencies have been implementing a wide range of ICM technologies, such as bus rapid transit, signal coordination, managed lanes, ride sharing, and parking management, and the benefits are well documented. Guidance is available to help practitioners with planning, design, implementation, and operations of ICM systems. NCHRP 03-131 provides guidance on how ICM planning fits into the current corridor planning process and key lessons synthesized from other metropolitan areas with planning and implementation experience (Miller et al. 2020). Wunderlich and Vasudevan (2019) presents additional guidance on how to deploy ICM deployment and supporting Decision Support Systems incrementally. Furthermore, this study lists top ten challenges associated with ICM deployment. Institutional and interagency coordination still remain a challenge for agencies to understand stakeholder and operational constraints (Lukaski and Chylinski 2020). Similarly, practitioners need guidance on how best to integrate land use coordination with transportation with due consideration to sustainability, livability, and equity (SLE) objectives (Appleyard et al. 2020). Shared mobility, including public transit and ride sharing, has long been a key part of multimodal integration of passenger transport. The emergence of mobile-based apps and related technologies has solved the long-standing “last-mile” problem with public transit. Both ride sharing and non-motorized transportation options have served as feeder systems to public transit hubs to provide a seamless interchange among different transport modes. The relationship between public transit and ride sharing are well documented. Utilizing the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, Zhang and Zhang (2018) showed that an increased use of public transit had a positive correlation with frequency and profitability of ridesharing use. In the Paris region, ride sharing has contributed to 2-17% reduction in traffic congestion, while the share of single occupancy vehicles decreased (Yin et al. 2017). Overall, the efficacy of integrating ridesharing with public transit is influenced by many factors, such as weather, demographics, vehicle ownership, land use patterns, sharing type (e.g., inclusive or detour), and trip purpose (e.g., casual vs commute). These observations, which are based on limited studies, may not fully exhibit the causal relationships. More efforts are necessary to fully integrate the non-traditional modes in the ICM planning process.

89 Many local and regional transportation agencies, including Salem, Oregon, Wilson, North Carolina, and California’s Santa Clara Valley, are leveraging smartphone applications to provide on- demand microtransit services in the low population density areas. While these services strive to solve a critical equity issues in rural areas, there are lessons to be learned from the failure of Helsinki’s Kutsuplus transportation service. How best to allocate transportation investments among competing priorities with constrained funding modernization, preservation, rebuilding from foundations, operations management?  Transportation agencies typically operate in a constrained funding environment with revenue uncertainties. Facing resource constraints and revenue uncertainties, the agencies allocate available funds across various regions, modes, assets, and functions with a goal of maximizing system performance. The transportation agencies continually strive to make optimal and cost-effective decisions at various levels from resource allocation to repair and replacement decisions. While the performance management principles have greatly improved the decision-making process, some challenges and opportunities still remain. The decision processes should move away from siloed contexts to a holistic system-of-systems; in addition, the decision processes should address other emerging priorities and technologies, such as climate change, sustainability, and autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, as various innovative technologies and alternative sources for data collection emerge, the agencies need data-related technologies, such as interlinking of databases, consolidated repository, object-oriented data structuring, advanced analytical and optimization techniques, computing power etc., to support their decision processes. Transportation decisions are often fraught with risks and uncertainties. Incorporating the effects of uncertainties in decision-making is particularly essential when making long-term investment decisions. Many analytical approaches proposed in the literature, such as scenario planning, iterative risk management, real-option analysis, and portfolio analysis, should be further evaluated to support making investment decisions under uncertainty. What next in improving infrastructure life cycle performance using advanced materials, design, construction, and maintenance techniques?  Transportation agencies explore, evaluate, and adopt various construction technologies, materials, design methodologies, and maintenance techniques on a continuous basis to improve economic effectiveness, life cycle performance, sustainability, and productivity. Examples of such improvements include Bridge information modeling, green cement, increased use of recycled materials, robotic applications for inspection, augmented reality technologies for construction. To ensure reliable lifetime performance, the agencies typically require a long lead time from evaluation through institutionalization. This long-lead time is attributed to the challenges associated with the limited availability of implementation data. The agencies may have devise new approaches to fast track the acceptance of new materials and technologies, such as applying probabilistic techniques to evaluate future performance with limited data, and developing provisional transfer functions that can be applied to deterioration functions of existing materials. How to incorporate risk management into transportation planning and decision-making?  The applications of risk management in the transportation context is prevalent. As evident in its demonstrated use in planning, project development, infrastructure and enterprise management, transportation agencies are gradually and steadily adopting the principles and processes of risk management in the decision process. A plethora of risk management framework and their applications in the transportation context is reported in the literature.

90 At the decision-level, the risk management builds on the ability to estimate the likelihood of threats, their consequences, and associated uncertainties qualitatively or quantitatively. The agencies require reliable data and robust quantitative models to enable the implementation of the risk management framework; however, on the other hand, the traditional risk management process is apparently built based on shaky foundational issues that must be addressed (Aven 2016). For instance, the traditional risk management process relies on hindsight knowledge, expert perspectives, failure reporting, probability estimates based on historical data, which is prone to misguided and biased decisions. Literature calls for revitalization and an integrative approach to risk and resilience framework, such as better understanding of knowledge and lack of knowledge, understanding the positive and negative aspects of normal performance variability, incorporating uncertainties associated with threats and consequences, transition to dynamic assessment and management approaches, and communication to decision-makers (Aven 2016; Aven and Flage 2020; Steen and Aven 2011; Hollnagel 2002; Khan et al. 2015).   What changes are needed to design/construction/maintenance standards to incorporate resilience?  What are the best approaches to adaptation planning to overcome or manage system vulnerabilities? Protection, adaptive re-use or strengthening?  What are some of the strategies to find “pay fors” for resilience to support local, regional, state and national needs?   Resilience is an emerging strategy in the management of transportation infrastructure in response to climate change, extreme weather, and other natural and human-caused adverse events. Transportation agencies follow a risk-based decision framework to incorporate resilience that entails identifying threats, estimating spatial, temporal and magnitude of potential hazard events, system vulnerabilities, evaluating direct and indirect consequences of failure, and adaptation planning. In addition to available literature, several national research is currently underway to incorporate resilience in transportation planning, design and construction, infrastructure management, and system operations (Henning et al. 2017; PIARC 2019; Choate et al. 2017). Many state and local transportation agencies are developing adaptation and mitigation plans as standalone documents or as a part of long-term transportation planning in response to climate change and other hazards. The AASHTO Center of Environmental Excellence serves as a clearinghouse of resilience- related studies and plans, such as vulnerability studies, hazard mitigation plans, climate assessments, screening tools, and roadmaps (AASHTO 2020). Literature indicated many challenges and gaps associated with resilience, and the key issues are briefly discussed as follows: • Definition of Resilience: Many formal definitions are available in the literature (Hickford et al. 2018; Steen and Aven 2011) however, these definitions indicate more or less the same. The basic premise of resilience is the intrinsic ability of a system to be operational and functional during or aftermath a hazard event. The resilient system inherits the following qualities: (i) respond to regular and irregular threats in a robust, yet flexible manner; to monitor what is going on, including its own performance; to anticipate risks (risk events) and opportunities, and to learn from experience. • Reliance on Robustness: The resilience of transportation infrastructure is traditionally viewed through an engineering lens of redundancy and robustness where the engineered capacity of the facility or system is built to exceed service and environmental demand to prevent or minimize disruptions caused by hazard events. Most adaptation plans are devised in alignment with this

91 philosophy. Markolf et al. (2018) opine that the overreliance on robustness-centric approach to resilience can cause can result in less-than-desired tradeoffs, increased vulnerabilities, and unforeseen consequences. Furthermore, as Markolf et al. (2018) elaborate, the effectiveness of robustness-centric design solutions can be diminished by a variety of social and ecological factors, such as climate variability and unpredictability, changes in demographics and demand- related preferences, and human behavior. • Predictability of Future Events: Some studies highlight the issues associated with the predictability of future threat events. Steen and Aven (2011) observed that the probabilistic approaches to estimate future threat intensity and the severity consequences using available knowledge-based expected values have limitations for they fail to capture the hidden uncertainties associated with them. Markolf et al. (2018) concluded that the predictions based on historical data, given the non-stationarity of climate, can lead to inaccurate predictions and overconfidence. • Holistic Approach: In recent years, there is a growing recognition to view transportation infrastructure as a complex and interconnected system. Mostafavi (2017) proposed a systems-of- systems approach to integrate resilience in transportation infrastructure. This structured approach builds on three dimensions – interdependencies of assets, interactions among stakeholders, resources, operational needs, and policies related to resource allocations, and integration of analyses through hierarchical levels from regional to asset levels. Markolf et al. (2018) emphasized the need for integrating social, ecological, and technological system (SETS) equitably in the planning, design, and implementation of infrastructure. The authors observed that the overdependence on technological aspects alone can result in underestimating of social and ecological considerations, such as equity, public health, air quality, and water quality, etc., and eventually undermining the adaptive capacity of the system. Based on the meta-analysis of 54 urban adaptation plans of US cities, Hughes (2015) concluded that many of the existing adaptation plans did not adequately address equity, social vulnerability, and other non-climatic factors. Similarly, based on the content analysis of 44 US local climate adaptation plans, Stults and Larsen (2020) and Woodruff and Stults (2016) emphasized the need for improved plans as they failed to provide detailed implementation processes or adequately consider impacts and uncertainties. • Adaptation Strategies: Traditionally, engineering robustness and economic effectiveness have been the underlying principles for adaptation planning. In recent years, new resilience regimes are recognized as listed below (Markolf et al. 2018): o Rebound—the ability of damaged/degraded systems to return to predisruption conditions. o Robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk-based approach and emphasis on control and strengthening. o Graceful extensibility—the ability to improvise solutions and extend system performance to mitigate the consequences of surprising or sudden events. o Sustained adaptability—the long-term ability to transform and balance system conditions in response to constantly evolving external circumstances. o Fail to Safe - allowing infrastructure to fail but minimize the consequences of failure (Kim et al. 2017). These new resilience regimes can be coded into the current design and construction standards. NIST has developed a research roadmap to develop guidelines and standards for designing disaster resilient infrastructure systems (McAllister 2013). The NIST research roadmap intends to

92 develop new standards, and supporting metrics, tools, and guidelines, to provide a unified and holistic approach to design and build risk-based infrastructure systems. New design approaches, such as performance-based engineering, are also being considered to equitably hazards, demand, and damage in the design of infrastructure. • Evacuation Planning: Approximately 26 million people are evacuated from natural disasters every year in the US. Transportation agencies generally rely on accessibility- based traffic assignment models for evacuation planning. Such models make an inherit assumption that the evacuees access the shortest path, both spatially and temporally, in making route choices. To enable a more precise estimation of evacuation response rates, timing and route choice, human behavioral aspects of evacuees should be considered in evacuation planning and management (Bayram 2016; Zhu et al. 2020). Thompson et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of 83 publications to evaluate how evacuation behavior during natural disasters correlates with demographic, storm-related, and psychosocial factors. Risk perception of the evacuees emerged as the consistent and strong predictor of evacuation behavior. This study emphasized the need for a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior, including risk perception, prior exposure, the role of governmental alerts, and other social and demographic factors, in developing evacuation policies and plans. • Paying for Resilience: In the context of chronically constrained funding environment, the transportation agencies might face to perception-related challenges: does implementing adaptation measures for infrastructure resilience incur higher costs? how to make a case for higher initial spending? what would be the sources of additional funding needs? Adaptation planning follows sound economic principles that presents the rationale for higher initial costs of assets or additional costs for retrofitting through savings in life cycle costs. Transportation agencies that invest in climate change adaptation and resilience are expected to save costs in the long run. Schweikert et al. (2015) concluded California could save $1.9 billion between 2015 and 2050 by implementing proactive adaptation strategies to address existing vulnerabilities with their road network. Zimmerman et al. (2019) identified three financial mechanisms-federal disaster relief and emergency assistance, bonds, and green infrastructure grant and loan opportunities- to help support New York City’s infrastructure resilience efforts. Other transportation agencies can avail similar sources of funds. Tonn et al. (2018) and Keenan (2018) recommend exploring the feasibility alternative revenue sources that leverages cost savings associated with resilience, such as augmenting state trust funds with surcharges on insurance. How to make continual improvements to road user safety? Safety is one of the performance goals of transportation. While many efforts are underway to improve safety systematically, transportation agencies continue to struggle with lack of safety data, robust analytical models, incorporating safety into decision-making, and staffing. Big data technologies could address existing gaps and deficiencies, such as leveraging unstructured textual content, developing enhanced collision prediction models using emerging algorithms, and understanding human behavior. Future work can focus on leveraging third-party data sources and big data technologies in research and analytics of safety performance (Das et al. 2020; Welch and Widita 2019). What are the approaches to understand, manage, and mitigate adverse public health outcomes from transportation?

93 The linkages between transportation and public health are qualitatively well established. Various studies show that motorized transportation contributes to significant premature mortality and morbidity through roadway crashes, physical inactivity, and exposure to noise and emissions, and reduction in green space. The NCHRP Report 932 developed a research roadmap to support the linkages between transportation and public health. This study identified challenges with quantification of health outcomes, stakeholder engagement, leveraging emerging technologies, health disparities among socially and economically disenfranchised groups, and data systems for better understanding of the linkages between system impacts and health outcomes (Sandt et al. 2019). How to manage the safety impacts of proliferating transformational technologies (e.g., drones and connected or automated vehicles)? The proliferation of emerging technologies, including drones and autonomous vehicles, has created several challenges relating to safety, security, privacy, and liability, and associated legal implications. The need to regulate the use of drones is more than ever. The lack of regulatory and enforcement clarity also creates bottlenecks that hinder with more rapid adoption of drones for transportation purposes. Rao et al. (2016) identified five primary challenges with civilian drone applications from a societal perspective: privacy invasion, security-related vulnerabilities, lack of registry of owners and devices, lack of UAV trackers, lack of comprehensive rules and uniformity across jurisdictions, and lack of regulations for various business models. Altawy and Youssef (2016) identified various challenges and future research needs relating to security, safety and privacy of civilian drones. This study outlined the requirements for a robust cyber security regime to protect drones against attacks, such as denial of service, jamming, and spoofing. Autonomous vehicles are generally perceived as a “somewhat low risk” technology; however, this perception may change among various demographic groups with higher acceptability among young people (Hulse et al. 2018). Additional studies are required to understand the safety issues and risk perceptions with autonomous vehicles. References AASHTO, Resilient and Sustainable Transportation Systems Technical Assistance Program, AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. https://environment.transportation.org/center/rsts/state_by_state_listing.aspx Agarwal, S., & Koo, K. M. (2016). Impact of electronic road pricing (ERP) changes on transport modal choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, 1-11. Altawy, R., & Youssef, A. M. (2016). Security, privacy, and safety aspects of civilian drones: A survey. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, 1(2), 1-25. Appleyard, B. S., Stanton, J., & Allen, C. (2020). Toward a Guide for Smart Mobility Corridors: Frameworks and Tools for Measuring, Understanding, and Realizing Transportation Land Use Coordination (No. 20-54). Mineta Transportation Institute. Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13. Aven, T., & Flage, R. (2020). Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2128-2136. Baghestani, A., Tayarani, M., Allahviranloo, M., & Gao, H. O. (2020). Evaluating the Traffic and Emissions Impacts of Congestion Pricing in New York City. Sustainability, 12(9), 3655. Bayram, V. (2016). Optimization models for large scale network evacuation planning and management: A

94 literature review. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 21(2), 63-84 Choate, A., Dix, B., Wong, A., Rodehorst, B., Jaglom, W., Keller, J., Lennon, J., Dorney, C., Kuchibhotla, R., Mallela, J. and Douglass, S., 2017. Synthesis of Approaches for Addressing Resilience in Project Development (No. FHWA-HEP-17-082). Federal Highway Administration (US). Das, S., & Griffin, G. P. (2020). Investigating the role of big data in transportation safety. Transportation research record, 2674(6), 244-252. Henning, Theuns Frederick Phillip; World Bank. 2017. Integrating Climate Change into Road Asset Management. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26505 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.” Hickford, A. J., Blainey, S. P., Hortelano, A. O., & Pant, R. (2018). Resilience engineering: theory and practice in interdependent infrastructure systems. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(3), 278- 291. Hollnagel, E. (2002, September). Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th conference on human factors and power plants (pp. 1-1). IEEE. Hulse, L. M., Xie, H., & Galea, E. R. (2018). Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Safety science, 102, 1-13. Keenan, J. M. (2018). Regional resilience trust funds: an exploratory analysis for leveraging insurance surcharges. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(1), 118-139. Khan, F., Rathnayaka, S., & Ahmed, S. (2015). Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future. Process safety and environmental protection, 98, 116-147. Lukaski, D., & Chylinski, R. CALIFORNIA’S MIGRATION TOWARD INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT. IRF, 1. Markolf, S.A., Chester, M.V., Eisenberg, D.A., Iwaniec, D.M., Davidson, C.I., Zimmerman, R., Miller, T.R., Ruddell, B.L. and Chang, H., 2018. Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth's Future, 6(12), pp.1638-1659. McAllister, T. (2013) Developing Guidelines and Standards for Disaster Resilience of the Built Environment: A Research Needs Assessment. NIST Technical Note 1795. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Miller, K. T., Alexiadis, V., Chu, A., Ticatch, J., Shah, A., Phaneuf, A., & Huang, T. (2020). Planning and Implementing Multimodal, Integrated Corridor Management: Guidebook (No. NCHRP Project 03-131). PIARC (2019). Adaptation Methodologies and Strategies to Increase the Resilience of Roads to Climate Change – Case Study Approach. PIARC Ref. 2019R25EN, Technical Committee on Rural Roads and Earthworks (D.4), World Road Association (PIARC). Paris, France https://www.piarc.org/en/order-library/31335-en- Adaptation%20Methodologies%20and%20Strategies%20to%20Increase%20the%20Resilience%20 of%20Roads%20to%20Climate%20Change%20%E2%80%93%20Case%20Study%20Approach Rao, B., Gopi, A. G., & Maione, R. (2016). The societal impact of commercial drones. Technology in Society, 45, 83-90. Sandt et al (2019). A Research Roadmap for Transportation and Public Health: Research Methods and Background Materials Supporting the Research Roadmap. NCHRP Report 932. Transportation Research Board of The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and

95 Medicine. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_932MethodsBackground.pdf Schweikert, A., Espinet, X., Goldstein, S., & Chinowsky, P. (2015). Resilience versus Risk: Assessing Cost of Climate Change Adaptation to California's Transportation System and the City of Sacramento, California. Transportation Research Record, 2532(1), 13-20. Selmoune, A., Cheng, Q., Wang, L., & Liu, Z. (2020). Influencing factors in congestion pricing acceptability: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2020. Steen, R., & Aven, T. (2011). A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering. Safety science, 49(2), 292-297. Stults, M., & Larsen, L. (2020). Tackling uncertainty in US local climate adaptation planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(4), 416-431. Thompson, R. R., Garfin, D. R., & Silver, R. C. (2017). Evacuation from natural disasters: a systematic review of the literature. Risk analysis, 37(4), 812-839. Tonn, G. L., Czajkowski, J. R., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2018). Improving US transportation infrastructure resilience through insurance and incentives. University of Pennsylvania. Wharton School. Risk Management and Decision Processes Center. Welch, T. F., & Widita, A. (2019). Big data in public transportation: a review of sources and methods. Transport reviews, 39(6), 795-818. Woodruff, S. C., & Stults, M. (2016). Numerous strategies but limited implementation guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 796-802. Wunderlich, K. E., & Vasudevan, M. (2019). Build Smart, Build Steady: Winning Strategies for Building Integrated Corridor Management Over Time (No. FHWA-HOP-19-039). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Operations. Yin, B., Liu, L., Coulombel, N., & Viguié, V. (2017). Evaluation of ridesharing impacts using an integrated transport land-use model: a case study for the Paris region. Transportation Research Procedia, 27, 824-831. Zhong, S., Wang, S., Jiang, Y., Yu, B., & Zhang, W. (2015). Distinguishing the land use effects of road pricing based on the urban form attributes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 44-58. Zhu, Y. J., Hu, Y., & Collins, J. M. (2020). Estimating road network accessibility during a hurricane evacuation: A case study of hurricane Irma in Florida. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 83, 102334. Zimmerman, C., Klein, R., Schroeder, J., Pessaro, B., Burris, M., Turnbull, K., ... & Schreffler, E. (2015). Contemporary approaches to congestion pricing: lessons learned from the national evaluation of congestion pricing strategies at six sites (No. FHWA-JPO-2015-217). United States. Department of Transportation. Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. Zimmerman, R., Sheila Foster, Jorge E. Gonzlez, Klaus Jacob, Howard Kunreuther, Elisaveta P. Petkova, Ernest Tollerson. New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 7: Resilience Strategies for Critical Infrastructures and Their Interdependencies. System Use Key research questions addressed in this white paper include those shown below. The questions have been organized into topical areas that reflect the structure of this white paper. It should be noted that several of the topics are covered in more detail in other white papers, e.g., technology applications are

96 also discussed in the Transformational Technologies white paper. Some of the technology applications that are specific to passenger and freight transportation use are discussed in this paper. Underlying Socio-demographic Factors and Disruptions Influencing System Use D1. What are the most effective transportation strategies for changing socio-demographic characteristics and spatial distributions of the population? D2. How to anticipate and plan for large-scale disruptions to travel such as a pandemic? Multi- and Inter-modality for Enhancing Connectivity D3. How to understand and anticipate new forms of mobility? D4. How to accomplish better integration of multimodal freight and passenger transportation concepts in the context of multimodal transportation planning? D5. How to leverage private sector data to identify bottlenecks in the transportation system? Analysis/Impacts of Freight Strategies D6. How can urban freight strategies contribute to sustainability? D7. How to enhance overall freight efficiency to improve network utilization and reduce emissions through technology and innovative business practices? Technology Applications D8. What are the primary issues related to keeping pace with private sector automation in freight movement, including automation of trucks? D9. How to prepare for the transformation to drone-based delivery and passenger movements? D10. What are the potential benefits and risks of electrification for passenger travels and freight movements? For purposes of this paper, system use includes those factors that influence the use of the transportation system. Thus, for example, socio-demographic characteristics of the population have always been an important input into assessing the performance of transportation systems. In the context of the future, this entails looking at the changing characteristics of the latest population cohorts (Gens X and Z) and how they reflect travel behavior. Land use and urban design will also have an important influence on future travel patterns. This will particularly be an important concern as they relate to how personal and household technologies will affect day-to-day behavior of the population. Market characteristics, which reflect changing consumer demands (e.g., more on-line purchasing) will likely affect freight movements in terms of the types of products transported and the distribution of goods transport throughout the U.S. In the long-term, changing national energy and climate change policy and consumer demands could dramatically affect railroads, which have a large market share in the transportation of coal. For many of these issues, an increasing focus on equity of mobility options, resource allocation, and of resulting impacts will likely continue to be a critical issue in the future (discussed in the Equity white paper). Many of these issues have been comprehensively examined and reported on in the literature. For example, the changing American demographic profile has been studied extensively, and thus many of the questions that are of interest to transportation officials are found in these studies. The questions relating to these types of issues in this white paper are targeted on topics that do not appear widely in the literature and that could have long-term consequences to transportation agencies. For example, although the changing socio-

97 demographic profile of the U.S. population has been studied extensively, very few studies have examined the question of how these changes could affect the support for future transportation funding, e.g., likely support for transportation referenda or the implications to future staffing capabilities in transportation agencies. The white paper gives attention to freight transportation as an important user of the transportation system. This is not to suggest that freight transportation is more important than passenger transportation, but simply to reflect the lack of attention in the literature to some critical questions and research gaps that are of great importance to transportation officials. Underlying Socio-demographic Factors and Disruptions Influencing System Use What are the most effective transportation strategies for changing socio-demographic characteristics and spatial distributions of the population? How to anticipate and plan for large-scale disruptions to travel such as a pandemic? The Transportation Research Board (TRB) in its Critical Issues 2019 report identified “Serving a Growing and Shifting Population” and “Institutional and Workforce Capacity: Providing a Capable and Diverse Workforce” as two of the important issues facing the transportation profession, both relating to the socio-demographic shifts the nation has seen over the past several decades (TRB 2019) Travel demand for passenger transportation is closely influenced by the socio-demographic characteristics of the traveling public. This relationship has been fundamental to travel demand forecasting since the first models were developed in the 1950s. Numerous studies have shown that there are very distinct differences among and between the different population cohorts, and in particular the labor force, from the Baby Boomers to Gen Z (those born between mid-1990s and 2010) (see, for example, Corwin and Pankratz 2019; D’Vera and Caumont 2016; Zmud et al. 2014). Geography/Spatial characteristics: The TRB Critical Issues report noted that Millennials are “settling in urban centers, and more are locating on the edges of cities where Baby Boomers also prefer to live. How do we adjust to and guide travel demand so we are not overwhelmed with more roads, traffic, and emissions as a result of these geographic preferences?” In addition, the report identified evolving megaregions and the need to provide transportation connections as a key policy concern. The trend toward urbanization that has been seen in the nation over the past 60 years will likely continue in the future, leaving important questions about the needs of, and investment strategies for, rural areas (discussed in the Equity white paper). Rural and urban/suburban transportation needs vary, with different emphases on system modernization and connectivity, and having different types of road safety challenges. The key research questions for transportation officials relate to understanding these differences, analyzing the relative benefits and costs of transportation investments in these different contexts, and of viewing transportation investments in a broader perspective of what urban/suburban/rural areas desire in terms of quality of life and equity. Generational differences: Some demographic studies have examined the differences among population cohorts with respect to travel behavior, household decisions, and purchasing preferences. More recent studies of Gen Z have highlighted some of the important characteristics that could influence the future workforce as well as travel behavior. For example, NCHRP 08-125, Attracting, Retaining, and Developing the Transportation Workforce: Transportation Planners, looking at the challenges facing transportation agencies in attracting and retaining transportation planners, noted that the most recent generation, Gen Z, are:

98 • The most racially diverse entry-level employee pool of all generations • The most educated entry-level employee pool of all generations • Technology savvy • Often seeking more personal interaction especially with authority • More socially, culturally, and environmentally aware and concerned • Prioritizing job security as the most important factor in job satisfaction • Expecting opportunities for recognition and professional/career growth • More comfortable with and often expect flexible work arrangements (Meyer et al. 2021) Some of these characteristics are common to other employee cohorts, whereas others are relatively new to the workforce. Many of these characteristics also foreshadow some of the key challenges of transportation policy, infrastructure and service provision, and general support for funding transportation agencies. When these population characteristics are superimposed on new and evolving household, personal, and transportation technology applications, assessing how future land use decisions will likely occur (as well as the potential long-lasting effects of Covid-19) become particularly challenging. The type of research questions relating to evolving socio-demographic characteristics examine the different dimensions of: To what extent do the Gen Z characteristics and those generations that immediately precede it likely affect the types of transportation services, policy issues, funding strategies, and workforce requirements of transportation agencies? Anticipating and planning for large-scale disruptions to travel such as a pandemic: The Covid-19 pandemic and corresponding strategies in response (e.g., quarantines, lock-downs, distance meetings, work-from-home, cutbacks in mass gatherings, and the like) represent a “shock” to the transportation system. The impacts have been felt by both passenger and freight transportation systems. Several studies have offered strategies to public agencies in preparing for and responding to the consequences of large scale disruptions to the nation’s transportation system (see, for example, Fletcher et al. 2014; Matherly et al. 2020). However, the long-lasting impacts of Covid-19 on the transportation system and on the personal behavior of travelers deserve further research. For example, although it might be too soon to assess how the pandemic will shift work behavior, some preliminary evidence suggests there will be some potentially significant changes. John Orr from the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board that 37 percent of the company executives surveyed in the Atlanta metropolitan area stated that their companies are looking at down-sizing their labor force and that the same percent expect more of their employees to work either partly or full time from home in the future (D’Ignazio et al. 2015). Neil Pedersen (2021), presenting at the same conference, identified some of the preliminary results of changes in system use due to Covid-19, including: • Further telecommunications substitution for physical travel, especially for work travel • Public confidence in using transportation modes requiring mass travel or gatherings • Long-term impacts on auto ownership • Long-term impacts on land use and urban design • Willingness of governments to continue subsidies for modes that are significantly under utilized

99 • Shifting roles for ride-providing companies, e.g., deliveries of food or medicines • Reduction in micro mobility options (especially those relying on shared use vehicles) • Supply chain impacts, especially for labor-intensive industries • Effects on last mile deliveries There is a need for a comprehensive examination of the short- and long-term impacts of Covid-19, placed within the context of a longer term understanding of how transportation agencies need to prepare and respond to such disruptions. Multi- and Inter-modality for Enhancing Connectivity How to understand and anticipate new forms of mobility? How to accomplish better integration of multimodal freight and passenger transportation concepts in the context of multimodal transportation planning? How to leverage private sector data to identify bottlenecks in the transportation system? An important evolutionary characteristic of transportation planning (and to some extent decision-making) over the past decades has been the increasing emphasis on improved and enhanced connections among the many different modes and services that are part of the transportation system. In the public sector, this has taken the form of a multimodal perspective on the many modes of travel available in a travel market; in the private sector, this is viewed primarily as intermodal connections, that is, the transfer of cargo/goods from one mode to another (such as at a port). In the future, new forms of vehicle and system technologies in both sectors provide opportunities for improved integration of different modes and services from the perspective of a transportation “system.” Understanding new forms of mobility: The past 10 years have seen an explosion of new concepts in urban mobility, including Mobility as a Service (MaaS), micro transit, Transportation Network Company (TNC) services, ride share services, and the like. Many of these innovative mobility options have been introduced outside the traditional structure for approving and regulating transportation services (e.g., the efforts on the part of cities to “catch up” with the use of electric scooters on city streets). The need for on- going research in this area reflects the lack of understanding of how such innovative mobility options are introduced into the transportation system and the potential impacts on more traditional forms of transportation such as transit services. In addition, if one adds autonomous operations to MaaS, a different level of research need results. For example, one study recommended research on efficient control algorithms for increasingly autonomous operations and the need for real-world test beds, as well as financial analyses for a larger number of deployment options and accounting for positive externalities (e.g., increased safety) in the economic assessment (Salazar et al. 2018). From the perspective of analysis tools, the study also noted that important contributions could come from improved analysis of time- varying setups (e.g., with periodically time-varying arrival rates), inclusion of mesoscopic and microscopic effects into the models (e.g., increased throughput due to platooning or automated intersections), and (more complex models for the transportation requests (e.g., time windows or priorities). Another conceptual study showed that the coordination between autonomous on-demand fleets and public transit could yield significant benefits compared to autonomous on-demand systems operating in isolation. The combined, systems effects of an integrated mobility strategy is an issue that will continue to

100 be an important research need (Liu et al. 2019; Pavone 2015). Studies on ride sourcing strategies suggest that an integrated mobility strategy needs to include these types of strategies (Jin et al. 2018; Wang and Yang 2019). Better integration of multimodal freight and passenger transportation concepts in the context of multimodal transportation planning: Meyer and Miller (2019) define multimodal transportation planning as “the process of defining problems, identifying alternatives, evaluating potential solutions and selecting preferred actions that meet community goals in a manner that includes all feasible transportation modes.” They further note that “at its most fundamental level, multimodal transportation planning recognizes the fact that often there is no single solution to the transportation problems facing a study area. A coordinated program of action is necessary to deal with the complex nature and interactions of the transportation phenomenon.” Others have developed these concepts further by linking many societal policies and goals to an effective multimodal transportation system (for example, see Litman 2020). Some of the key research questions relating to the evolving multimodal transportation planning process reflect many of the issues discussed earlier with the changing socio-demographic characteristics of the population and long-term desires reflected in land use decisions. Whereas the transportation planning process has historically focused on the provision of infrastructure with recent attention provided on transportation services, one possible future suggests that transportation planning might focus more on service provision and less on infrastructure (except for providing resources for a state-of-good-repair). In urban/suburban areas, this changing emphasis is already, and will likely be more so, catalyzed by the introduction of new and creative mobility concepts (e.g., rental scooters and bikes, transportation network companies (TNCs), and the like). The introduction of electric and automated motor vehicles will be even more disruptive to the status quo. A multimodal, systems perspective provides a framework for considering a wide range of public policy options and system investment. The overlap and connection between passenger and freight transportation occurs in many different ways – sharing of the road (e.g., trucks on highways and last mile), environmental impacts (e.g., rail and truck energy and air quality emissions), land use (e.g., freight intermodal yards located next to urban neighborhoods), impacts on asset condition (e.g., size and weight limitations), and the like (IHS Global Insight 2009). Many multimodal transportation plans focus exclusively on passenger transportation, with perhaps a section or appendix devoted to freight transportation issues. One challenge to transportation agencies in future years will be integrating evolving mobility and accessibility concepts for both passenger and freight transportation into a systems perspective on multimodal transportation. This has consequences to needed staff skills, resource utilization, analysis tools, the types of transportation strategies to be considered, and ways of collaborating on the most effective strategies among different levels of government and with private firms. Leveraging private sector data to identify bottlenecks in the transportation system: Travel data for both passenger and freight movements represent critical inputs into transportation planning and into many other transportation agency functional responsibilities. One of the key advancements in data collection in freight movement has been the widespread application of global positioning systems (GPS) and vehicle identification systems. Where agreements can be reached in accessing such data, it becomes a powerful part of an analysis, in particular in helping identify congestion and bottlenecks locations. An example of this is the American Transportation Research Institute’s (ATRI) GPS data collected onboard a large sample of trucks traveling on the U.S. road network. These data provide both spatial and temporal information. According to the Florida DOT (undated), such data can be used for:] • Freight Performance Measures • Regulation and Enforcement

101 • Congestion Management • Model Validation • Traffic Operations/Services • Terminal and Border Access • Safety Planning and Analysis • Sustainable Transportation Investment • Environmental Planning • Freight Transportation and Land Use Planning • Emergency Preparedness and Security Planning • Urban Tour-based Freight Modeling • Roadway Pavement and Bridge • Maintenance Planning As shown in this list, such data can be useful to transportation agencies in many different ways. This is especially true as transportation system management and operations (TSM&O) strategies continue to utilize real-time data for dynamic operations system management strategies. One of the key questions for transportation agencies today and in the future will be how such data should be obtained? Several studies have examined the feasibility of using third-party data collectors (see, for example, Khan and Patire 2020; Pack et al. 2019). This will be particularly relevant as data collection technologies evolve with increased automation of vehicle fleets in the future. Analysis/Impacts of Freight Strategies How can urban freight strategies contribute to sustainability? How to enhance overall freight efficiency to improve network utilization and reduce emissions through technology and innovative business practices? The literature shows that considerable attention has been given to understanding a wide range of transportation impacts and in developing the analysis methods and tools to identify such impacts. With increasing attention given to sustainable communities and the contribution of different sectors in achieving sustainability goals, the analysis and evaluation of transportation strategies for their contribution to sustainable communities are discussed widely in the literature. The literature not only discusses the general concepts associated with the transportation and sustainability relationship, but also identifies methods and tools for analyzing this relationship. Not much attention has been given to the freight sector’s role in achieving sustainability goals outside studies looking at the potential for emissions reductions from particular strategies or actions. Using urban freight strategies to enhance sustainability: The examination of freight trip-making and logistics in the context of urban sustainability has been a subject of several European studies. Schliwa et al. (2015), for example, developed a concept of a sustainable city logistics framework for metropolitan areas. The study also emphasized the role for local authorities in creating conditions that incentivize large logistic companies to view their supply chains from a sustainability perspective. Nenni et al. (2019) review models and decision support systems for urban freight transportation to determine the extent to which sustainability concerns have been included. An example of a strategy aimed at sustainability goals, crowd logistics (sharing of truck loads), is examined by Buldeo et al. (2017) The study found several characteristics of the freight trip that had strong sustainability linkages, and that if applied more

102 comprehensively would lead to more sustainable communities. Other recent strategies include micro hubs and cycle logistics. In the U.S., government, industry, and academic studies have looked generally at freight sustainability- related strategies (see, for example American Transportation Policy Institute 2020; California Air Resources Board 2021; and Ruamsook and Thomchick 2012). Many of these studies examine sustainability from the perspective of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. And recently, studies have examined the last mile of the freight trip and how such trips affect the communities through which they occur. One study in assessing the literature on the last mile concluded that for many trips the last mile was going to utilize smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles in the future (Oliveira et al. 2017). As noted in this study, “the scientific literature indicates that the size reduction of the vehicles (and likewise capacity) used for last mile deliveries in urban areas as a more sustainable and efficient alternative for this type of operation.” One of the most important questions relating to freight and sustainability is how individual strategies, often under control of individual firms and companies, can be viewed systematically as part of a state- or metropolitan-wide sustainability strategy. This relates not only to how different strategies mix and match with each other, but also how sustainability benefits can be assessed in such a mix, and how from an implementation perspective different stakeholders can work collaboratively to implement such a sustainability plan. Enhancing overall freight efficiency to improve utilization and reduce emissions through technology and innovative business practices: One category of sustainability impacts that is not readily available in the literature is a body of information on the effects of private firm efforts at enhancing the efficiency of freight movement that result in more efficient movements and reduced pollutant emissions. This is understandable given that private firm efforts and strategies by definition rest with the firm, and results are not often made available to the public or in the literature. The exception to this is when (usually) a state regulatory agency mandates performance targets or even specific strategies aimed at reducing emissions (for example, the California Air Resources Board). While not the responsibility of state transportation officials, understanding what can be achieved with such strategies could be important input into the development of sustainable transportation strategies. For example, freight trade journals and some academic papers have looked at the following types of freight efficiency improvement strategies (Zimmerman and Wiginton 2017): • Voluntary off-hour delivery programs • Receiver-led consolidation • Development of a chassis pool of pools fully integrated system • Improvement of traffic mitigation fee programs • Implement advanced appointment/ reservation systems • Developing an integrated system for dray operations and services • Load matching and maximizing capacity Similar to the observation above, reporting on individual strategies focuses on one or two criteria, such as freight throughput or emissions. Very little attention is given to the impact of these types of strategies if implemented in combination.

103 The gap in knowledge in this area is similar to that noted above: how do individual freight efficiency and sustainability strategies ramp up to a much larger sustainability strategy or plan? How can the benefits of such strategies, especially those not controlled by public agencies, be estimated and accounted for in judging which public strategies are most effective in promoting sustainable practices? Technology Applications What are the primary issues related to keeping pace with private sector automation in freight movement, including automation of trucks? How to prepare for the transformation to drone-based delivery and passenger movements? What are the potential benefits and risks of electrification for passenger travels and freight movements? The Transformational Technologies white paper addresses some of the major trends in transportation- related technologies and their importance to transportation agencies. The following section looks at some of the technology issues from the perspective of potential influences on system use. In particular, the section links the application of new technologies in the transportation system (with emphasis on the freight sector) as an issue that transportation agencies need to be aware of. In one case, drone deliveries, the technology is already in use, but it is discussed below in the context of its potentially significant impact on short distance, last mile deliveries. Identifying primary issues related to keeping pace with private sector automation in freight movement, including automation of trucks: Most transportation agency and company officials quoted in the literature believe that automated trucks will be an important part of freight use of the transportation system in the future (see, for example, Alvarez et al. 2020; Jaller et al. 2020; and Poorsartep and Stephens 2015). In aggregate, studies such as these explore the state of autonomous truck technology and the benefits and drawbacks of its adoption from multiple stakeholder perspectives. As noted by Jaller et al. (2020), “on one hand, [this innovation] could help mitigate the disproportionate impacts of freight transportation on externalities and improve efficiency; on the other hand, they could generate additional issues such as right-of-way conflicts, crashes, and traffic incidents.” In a few studies, the regulatory landscape and the types of policy measures needed to responsibly bring fuel-saving autonomous trucking technology to market are examined. However many studies have viewed truck automation from the perspective of fuel savings (Slowik and Sharpe 2018; He 2018). The key concept in this topical area is noted in the title as “keep pace with private sector automation ….” The challenge is one of anticipating the introduction of automated trucks into the vehicle fleet and thus of understanding the implications to a range of challenges to transportation agencies. The pace of introduction has been addressed by several authors who refer to the much broader changes in automotive technology as the Third Revolution including electrification, automation, and shared mobility (Sperling 2018). In passenger transportation, these three dimensions have been studied extensively such that expected benefits in terms of mobility and externalities have been identified and bounded. However, as noted by Jaller et al. (2020), “for freight transportation, the penetration level of these three dimensions is not as widespread or analyzed; the revolution has just begun.” Industry estimates suggest that long-haul autonomous trucks will be introduced into the market in substantial margins by 2030, with several different autonomous models available by the end of 2022. Transportation officials need to have a sense of the key parameters of introducing automated trucks into the vehicle fleet and of how such introduction is likely to occur over time. What will be the operating

104 parameters of such vehicles? What, if anything, needs to be in place in the highway network to provide for safe travel of such vehicles (such as electronic payment systems)? How will other travelers along the highways react to driverless trucks? Will truck weight rules and regulation enforcement be any different when monitoring autonomous trucks? Preparing for the transformation to drone-based delivery and possible passenger movements: One type of autonomous vehicle will likely be even more prevalent in the near term than autonomous trucks. Autonomous mobile (or delivery) robots (AMRs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) also known as “drones” use sensors and navigation technologies to move with minimal human intervention. Drones received a great deal of attention during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic as a means of delivering products and in particular medical supplies to destinations without human contact. Some well- known companies have been testing such technology, including DHL, Amazon, Kiwi, Yelp’s Eat24 and FedEx. Put in the context of the supply chain, drones could be a major means of achieving the last mile delivery in an urban area (Aurambout et al. 2019; Müller et al. 2019; Shearer and Moss 2020; and Guidehouse Insights 2020). However, a study by Stanford University (Lee et al. 2016) laid out the general uncertainty in the last mile market as it relates to the feasibility of different technologies: Tomorrow, drones, robots, and driverless cars may become formidable new choices in various geographic settings and markets.… There may eventually come a time when drones, robots, driverless vehicles, and other technologies make it such that humans no longer conduct product delivery. In this scenario, delivery providers would need to rethink their business models and shift to offering services such as delivery orchestration and more. In the distant future, automated systems such as the Physical Internet, envisioned by a coalition of researchers, may develop that would deploy an open global logistics system and would continuously route and monitor products, leveraging the Internet of Things. Transportation agencies need a comprehensive understanding of drone technologies, the roles they can play in the urban freight market, the needs for safe and productive movement through an urban environment (e.g., one possible pathway would be above state roads), and what the use of drones might mean for other issues of interest to transportation officials such as congestion and revenue generation. Potential benefits and risks of electrification for passenger travel and freight movements: Vehicle electrification is considered one of the most attractive means of decarbonizing major segments of the transportation sector and can also directly contribute to improvements in urban air quality and public health (Jadun et al. 2017). Such a transition received a recent boost with the Biden Administration’s policy to replace the federal government fleet with electric vehicles and General Motors’ decision to stop producing hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles by 2035. Although many studies have examined the likely performance of electric vehicles, only a few studies have examined the environmental impacts of such fleet conversion from the perspective of the electric power grid, especially in the transition period where single digit or low double digit power requirements are made on the electric power grid. From a larger public policy concern, this issue is important to gauge the total impacts of electric vehicle penetration into the U.S. economy. And also noted in a 2017 Department of Energy study (Limb 2017), “few literature sources offer cost and performance estimates of electrification technologies through 2050. In the transportation sector, light-duty vehicles (LDVs) are best represented in the literature; even in that subsector, few independent projections exist.” Studies have also examined the power source for the electric motive power of electric vehicles. Most attention has been given to electric storage batteries, but there is still some concern over the capacity of such batteries for long distance travel. One of the options for a complementary power source is in-road recharging technologies (Habib and Lynn 2020). As noted in one study, “One solution to decrease

105 dependence on large battery systems has focused on charging vehicles in-motion using wireless power transfer. In-motion charging of electric vehicles would allow for longer range travel with smaller onboard battery systems which would lead to cheaper vehicles and, in turn, greater consumer acceptance.” Such an application of power transfer would have significant impacts on road infrastructure. From a public policy perspective, the literature suggests an important gap in understanding how practitioners anticipate the planning considerations and research needs to prepare for the energy transformation of the transportation system. A recent study by Jallera et al. (2020) on the electrification of the passenger fleet (as well as of autonomous operations) based on focus groups of the industry experts noted that the discussions with the focus groups “raised more questions, highlighting a need for further understanding of policies, infrastructure, land use and equity issues.” The participants identified specific issues with respect to ways and means of developing regulations, standardizing infrastructure design and rethinking land use planning and addressing economic and equity issues.” The focus groups also noted that an important gap in knowledge is how to maintain other modes of transportation when autonomous and electric vehicles enter into the vehicle fleet. Some of the topics identified included: 1) how to incentivize walking, 2) how to maintain transit priority in a world of autonomous vehicles, 3) implications to parking strategies, 4) impacts of autonomous and electric vehicles will have on poverty and equity, and 5) how to ensure the safety of vulnerable road users. With respect to freight, electrification strategies have focused on vehicle technology and to some extent have examined the impact of electrification on road use (Jallera et al. 2020). There are important transportation policy implications of freight truck fleet electrification and of operational strategies that might be employed. For example, one of the strategies considered for vehicle operations includes truck platooning. As noted in Bridgelall et al. (2020), “truck platooning can reduce petroleum consumption by only 4% by 2060, whereas truck electrification can reduce the consumption 13-fold relative to platooning.” The primary finding of this study is thus that truck electrification would have a substantially larger impact on fuel consumption reduction than platooning. References 1. Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2019. Critical Issues in Transportation 2019, Policy Snapshot., National Academies, Washington DC. Accessed January 7, 2021 at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/policystudies/criticalissuesbrochure.pdf 2. Corwin, S. and Pankratz, D., 2019. “Forces of Change: The Future of Mobility.” Deloitte Insights. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/future- of- mobility/overview.html?id=us:2ps:3gl:confidence:eng:cons:102218:nonem:na:aPwxo9ME:11238 01384:339118380640:b:Future_of_Mobility:Future_of_Mobility_BMM:nb 3. D’Vera, D. and A. Caumont, 2016. “10 demographic trends that are shaping the U.S. and the world.” Pew Research Center. Accessed February 3, 2021 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/ 4. Zmud, j., V. Barabba, M. Bradley, R. Kuzmyak, M. Zmud, and D. Orrell, 2014. Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 6: The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand, NCHRP Report 750, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.nap.edu/download/22321# 5. Meyer, M., J. Mallela, A. Nwankwo, N. Bennett, L. Washington and S. Lockwood, 2021. Attracting, Retaining, and Developing the Transportation Workforce: Transportation Planners,

106 Draft Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program 08-125, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. 6. Fletcher, K., S. Amarakoon, J. Haskell, P. Penn, M. Wilmoth, D. Matherly, and N. Langdon, 2014. A Guide for Public Transportation Pandemic Planning and Response, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 769, Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.nap.edu/download/22414# 7. Matherly, D. P. Bye and J. Benini, 2020. A Pandemic Playbook for Transportation Agencies. National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transit Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington DC. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.nap.edu/download/25993# 8. Janet D’Ignazio, J., S. Rhodes, and C. Secrest, 2015. “The Role of Planning in a 21st Century State Department of Transportation—Supporting Strategic Decision-making.” NCHRP Report 798. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. Accessed February 3, 2021 from file:///C:/Users/mm39p/Downloads/R1-7.pdf 9. Pedersen, N. 2021. Planning for a New Normal. Presentation at the 100th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. 10. Salazar, M., F. Rossi, M. Schiffer, H.C. Onder, and M. Pavone, M. 2018 On the Interaction Between Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand and Public Transportation Systems. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2262-2269). IEEE. November. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.11278 11. Liu, Y., P. Bansal, R. Daziano, and S. Samaranayake, 2019. A Framework to Integrate Mode Choice in the Design of Mobility-on-Demand Systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 105, 648-665. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968090X18313718 12. Pavone, M., 2015. Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems for Future Urban Mobility. In Autonomes Fahren (pp. 399-416). Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-45854-9_19 13. Jin, S. T., Kong, H., Wu, R., & Sui, D. Z., 2018. Ridesourcing, The Sharing Economy, and the Future of Cities. Cities, 76, 96-104. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275117311952 14. Wang, H., & Yang, H., 2019. Ridesourcing Systems: A Framework and Review. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 129, 122-155. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019126151831172X 15. Meyer, M. and E. Miller. 2019. Transportation Planning: A Decision-oriented Approach, Atlanta, GA. 16. Litman, T. 2020. Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning, Principles and Practices, May 4. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia, Canada. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.vtpi.org/multimodal_planning.pdf 17. IHS Global Insight. 2009. “Public and Private Sector Interdependence in Freight Transportation Markets,” National Cooperative Freight Research Program Report 1. Transportation Research

107 Board. Accessed at http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/Public_and_Private_Sector_Interdependence_in_Freig_1 62257.aspx 18. Florida DOT. Undated. Multimodal Freight Data Inventory and Management. Tallahassee, FL. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default- source/statistics/multimodaldata/multimodal/trucksvehiclesdatabases.pdf?sfvrsn=3ac3cb36_2 19. Khan, S.M. and A.D. Patire, 2020. Is Third-Party Provided Travel Time Helpful to Estimate Freeway Performance Measures? ResearchGate. Sept. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344180518_Is_Third- Party_Provided_Travel_Time_Helpful_to_Estimate_Freeway_Performance_Measures 20. Pack, M., N. Ivanov, J. Bauer, and E. Birriel, 2019. Considerations of Current and Emerging Transportation Management Center Data. Report FHWA-HOP-18-084, Federal Highway Administration. Washington D.C. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/43582 21. Schliwa, G., R. Armitage, S. Aziz, and J. Evans, 2015. Sustainable city logistics — Making cargo cycles viable for urban freight transport. Research in Transportation Business and Management, Vol. 15. March. DOI: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.02.001. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273705547_Sustainable_city_logistics_- _Making_cargo_cycles_viable_for_urban_freight_transport 22. Nenni, M.E., A. Sforza and C. Sterle, 2019. Sustainability-based review of urban freight models. Soft Comput 23, 2899–2909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03786-x 23. Buldeo H., S. Verlinde, J. Merckx, J. et al. 2017. Crowd logistics: An opportunity for more sustainable urban freight transport?. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 9, 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544- 017-0256-6 24. American Transportation Policy Institute. 2020. Sustainable Freight Practices for the Trucking Industry. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://truckingresearch.org/atri- research/environment/sustainable-freight-practices-for-the-trucking-industry/ 25. California Air Resources Board, 2021. The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan. Sacramento, CA. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/california-sustainable-freight-action-plan/about 26. Ruamsook, K. and E. Thomchick, 2012. Sustainable Freight Transportation: A Review of Strategies. 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012. 1. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267981426_Sustainable_Freight_Transportation_A_Re view_of_Strategies/citation/download 27. Oliveira, C., R. Bandeira, G. Goes, D. Gonçalves, and M. D’Agosto, 2017 Sustainable Vehicles- Based Alternatives in Last Mile Distribution of Urban Freight Transport: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 9. 1324. 10.3390/su9081324. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318823689_Sustainable_Vehicles- Based_Alternatives_in_Last_Mile_Distribution_of_Urban_Freight_Transport_A_Systematic_Lit erature_Review

108 28. Zimmerman, D. and L. Wiginton. 2017. Improving Urban Freight Efficiency Global Best Practices in Reducing Emissions in Goods Movement. Pembina Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. April. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.pembina.org/pub/improving-urban- freight-efficiency 29. Alvarez, M., C. Xu, M.A. Rodriguez, A. Al-Mamun, M. Wahba, S. Brennan and H.K. Fathy, 2020. Reducing Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption by Exploiting Connectivity and Automation: A Literature Survey. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2011/2011.14805.pdf 30. Jaller, M., C. Otero, E. Pourrahmani, and L. Fulton, 2020. Automation, Electrification, and Shared Mobility in Freight. University of California, Davis, CA. DOI 10.7922/G2RV0KZB. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://escholarship.org/content/qt91h9v9zm/qt91h9v9zm.pdf?t=qgswrb 31. Poorsartep, M. and Stephens, T. 2015. Truck Automation Opportunities. In, Meyer and Beiker, Road Vehicle Automation 2 (pp. 173-185). Springer, Cham. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319190778 32. Slowik, P. and Sharpe, B., 2018. Automation in the Long Haul: Challenges and Opportunities of Autonomous Heavy-Duty Trucking in the United States. The International Council on Clean Transportation. March 29. Washington DC. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://theicct.org/publications/automation-long-haul-challenges-and-opportunities-autonomous- heavy-duty-trucking-united 33. He, C., 2018. Saving Fuel for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using Connectivity and Automation. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/147523/hchaozhe_1.pdf?sequence=1 34. Sperling, D. 2018. “Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future.” Island Press. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://islandpress.org/books/three- revolutions 35. Aurambout, JP., K. Gkoumas, and B. Ciuffo, 2019. Last Mile Delivery by Drones: An Estimation of Viable Market Potential and Access to Citizens Across European Cities. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 11, 30. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0368-2. 36. Müller, S., C. Rudolph, and C. Janke, 2019. Drones for Last Mile Logistics: Baloney or Part of the Solution?, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 41, Pages 73-87, ISSN 2352-1465. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.09.017. 37. Shearer, N. and R. Moss. 2020. Researchers Say Drone Technology Will Change the Face of Last-mile Logistics. Business & Entrepreneurship, June 25. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2020/drone-technology-impacts-last-mile-logistics 38. Guidehouse Insights. 2020. Delivery Bots and Drones Could Revolutionize Last-Mile Logistics, Strategy Insight Report. Accessed February 3, 2021 from https://guidehouseinsights.com/reports/delivery-bots-and-drones-could-revolutionize-last-mile- logistics

109 39. Lee, H. L., Y. Chen, B. Gillai, and S. Rammohan. 2016. Technological Disruption and Innovation in Last-Mile Delivery. Value Chain Innovation Initiative. Stanford University Graduate School of Business, June. Accessed February 3, 2021 at https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty- research/publications/technological-disruption-innovation-last-mile-delivery 40. Jadun, P., C. McMillan, D. Steinberg, M. Muratori, L. Vimmerstedt, and T. Mai, 2017. Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through 2050. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20- 70485.Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70485.pdf 41. Limb, B. J., 2017. Optimization of Roadway Electrification Integrating Wireless Power Transfer: TechnoEconomic Assessment and Lifecycle Analysis. Graduate Thesis 5261. Utah State University, Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5261 42. Habib, M. A. and R. Lynn, 2020. Planning for Connected, Autonomous and Shared Mobility: A Synopsis of Practitioners’ Perspectives. Procedia Computer Science, 170, 419-426. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050920305214 43. Jallera, M., C. Otero-Palencia A. Pahwa, 2020. Automation, Electrification, and Shared Mobility in Urban Freight: Opportunities and Challenges. Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 46, Pages 13-20. Elsevier Press. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146520303586 44. Bridgelall, R., D. Patterson and D. Tolliver, 2020. Policy Implications of Truck Platooning and Electrification, Energy Policy 139:111313, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111313, June Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340357346_Policy_implications_of_truck_platooning_ and_electrification System Impacts and Externalities How to reduce the contribution of transportation to negative environmental outcomes (low-GHG energy sources for transportation, decarbonization, etc.)? How to reduce the contribution of transportation investments on negative societal outcomes (e.g., divided communities, negative income inequities, etc.)? The transportation sector’s contribution to climate change has been the subject of intense study and debate in terms of policy response, including at the international level, as exemplified by the Kyoto Protocol (Kontovas & Psaraftis, 2016). The precise effect of changes to transportation sector emissions on climate change, however, is not well understood, although advances in modeling have helped to better answer questions related to emission projections by on-road and non-road source, subject to various technology and policy options for control (Campbell, Zhang, Yan, Lu, & Streets, 2018). Research indicates that the climate-emissions interplay varies depending on pollutant, season, and US location (Campbell, Zhang, Yan, Lu, & Streets, 2018). Frey (2018) enumerates various challenges with empirical assessment of vehicle emissions at a global scale: “myriad fuels and technologies, intervehicle variability, multiple emission processes, variability in operating conditions, and varying capabilities of measurement methods.” In addition, the efficacy of data and modeling is limited by “convenience samples, small sample sizes, large variability, and unquantified uncertainty.” GHG emission inventories and methods in urban environments is a particular challenge (Arioli, Dagosto, Amaral, & Cybis, 2020;

110 Reyna, Chester, Ahn, & Fraser, 2014), especially to answer research questions about land use and urban development policies, which are typically linked to transportation needs (Pan, et al., 2019). Further research is also recommended into methodologies that measure GHG and air pollutants simultaneously, to consider their synergistic effects and not overlook the “footprint shifting” when evaluating policy options (Van Fan, Perry, Klemeš, & Lee, 2018). Achieving a low-carbon, resilient transportation sector will require a mixture of strategies and policy response. Arroyo, Zyla, and Pacyniak (2017) argue that a broad combination of strategies will need to include: • Federal and state strategies to promote adoption of lower-emission and zero-emission vehicles that complement federal vehicle and fuel standards. • Tools and practices that integrate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction planning into transportation decision-making. • Transportation planning and investments that incorporate climate impact resilience. • Sustainable transportation funding mechanisms. With respect to the first point, simply replacing the fleet powered by fossil fuels with electric vehicles is not a solution to GHG reduction without complementary policies that alter the power generation mix upstream (Frey, 2018). For example, Wang et al. (2018) show that moving to EVs can reduce total emissions by 5–10 percent if the incremental electricity consumed is produced by renewable sources. Beyond changing a vehicle’s onboard power source to electric, vehicle automation promises potentially significant changes in energy consumption, and therefore emissions. Whether automation leads to an increase or decrease in energy consumption remains an open research question that depends on the fleet share of AVs and their electrification (Frey, 2018; Wang, et al., 2018). This outcome is in question because many estimates suggest automation may lead to an increase in VMT given the reduction in the burden of driving (i.e. time spent in the vehicle could be used productively or leisurely) as well as the ability to increase the carrying capacity of existing roadways through shorter vehicle headways and network optimization techniques. A similar question remains about the effects of car-sharing services on GHG emission reductions, as private vehicle use substitution and fewer vehicles is potentially counterbalanced by mode shifts away from public transit to car sharing (Jung & Koo, 2018). When examining decarbonization strategies, it is also instructive to focus on specific transportation sectors. With respect to freight transport, for example, where emission reduction targets often conflict with commitments to economic development that lead to increased goods movement, areas to explore solutions lie among “supply chain structure, freight modal shift, vehicle utilization, energy efficiency technologies and operational changes, and energy mix including the use of low-carbon fuels” (McKinnon, 2016). Indeed, the challenge of the freight sector is emphasized in research by Hammond, Axsen, and Kjeang (2020) who found that in Canada, current policies on fuel efficiency and emissions standards and carbon pricing are insufficient to achieve future GHG reduction targets, especially when applied on an individual policy basis. Policy combinations that include a stringent ZEV mandate for trucks along with stringent low-carbon fuel standards are shown to have a greater probability of achieving the targets. While transportation’s contribution to negative environmental outcomes has clear societal impacts, other negative societal outcomes require consideration, such as income inequality and divided communities. Starting from a planning perspective, Manaugh, Badami, and El-Geneidy (2015) find shortcomings with social equity goals that are not translated into clear objectives that can be measured meaningfully. Urban

111 transportation planning, which tends to focus on specific outcomes such as congestion reduction, needs to better account for such objectives more rigorously. Marcantonio et al. (2017) suggest instituting stronger guidance that compels more rigorous equity analyses in regional planning to meet the intent of Civil Rights and Environmental Justice laws. Similarly, Boisjoly and El-Geneidy (2017) recommend the lens of accessibility in which to assess and improve metropolitan planning in a way that would have a significant effect on disenfranchised populations. Their findings show that accessibility goals and objectives, while present in plans, lack accessibility-based indicators that inform the decision-making process. Determining ways to combat institutional or structural inequities in transportation investment decisions that are “incidental, not deliberate” in affecting communities of color remains an important area of research (Pasha, 2018). Within urban regions, the availability and quality of public transit has important consequences on the lives of disenfranchised populations, including low-income groups, because of the high costs of car ownership. For example, the consequences of cuts in public transit and higher fares disproportionately affect communities of color and result in disproportionately large impacts, as these groups “are less likely to own cars and face higher than average unemployment, poverty, and economic hard times” (Bullard & Jordan-Mikey, 2012). Therefore, public administrators responsible for transit planning and service provision have outsize impacts on these groups, emphasizing a greater need to understand social justice considerations in their decision-making (Wellman, 2015). Transit agencies can turn to shared-use mobility technology (e.g., ridehailing, microtransit, dockless bike sharing) to help address social equity, but again, impacts have been poorly assessed (Palm, Farber, Shalaby, & Young, 2020). Equitable access to service is one side of the social equity coin. The impacts of transportation infrastructure itself, whether or not it is used by disenfranchised communities is the other side of that coin. For instance, the historical location and mitigative actions (such as rerouting) to address roadways that contribute significantly to air pollution in urban areas that affect disenfranchised communities is an example of environmental justice activism with unintended paradoxical consequences. Namely, these actions can result in “environmental gentrification” whereby an increase in property values after rerouting an urban highway may end up displacing vulnerable residents, if their needs are not properly prioritized in the first place (Patterson & Harley, 2019). How to influence consumer acceptance of technologies deemed beneficial for system management and operations (e.g., use of electric vehicles, automation, etc.)? Research has found that “interpersonal influence and attitudinal factors [are] drivers for eco-innovation adoption.” Marketing the social desirability of new technology and not just their environmental benefits is a key research finding. Further study on social influence (Jansson, Nordlund, & Westin, 2017) and consumer emotion (Rezvani, Jansson, & Bodin, 2015) might help shape public policies that better account for these factors when trying to encourage certain technology-adoptive behavior. In the EV domain, consumer EV adoption estimates have methodological limitations that suggest a need for future research. For example, improved methods to educate consumers on the financial benefits of EV adoption is one area that could have implications on EV marketing and policy making. Policy making would also benefit from better understanding of the degree to which “consumers see a connection between EVs and protecting the environment” (Rezvani, Jansson, & Bodin, 2015). Importantly, policies on the environment, fuels, and vehicles including EVs can affect behavior toward EV adoption, but it is not well understood when there is active support for a policy versus mere acceptance. EV adoption for light-duty fleets would also benefit from further research to comprehend potential governmental incentives.

112 Another hurdle to EV (and other alternative fuel vehicle) adoption is the chicken-and-egg problem of a lack of refueling infrastructure limiting consumer purchase alongside a lack of consumer market penetration liming refueling infrastructure investment. Modeling this interaction is an active area of study (Gnann & Plötz, 2015). Specific to automated vehicles, numerous hurdles to public acceptance have been identified including security (hacking), privacy, (data collection and sharing), and safety (Panagiotopoulos & Dimitrakopoulos, 2018). Collectively, there is a trust gap vis-à-vis AVs and vehicle users, which may vary by sociodemographic profile, that needs to be addressed (Adnan, Nordin, Ariff bin Bahruddin, & Ali, 2018). Nonetheless, a simple focus on “perceived usefulness” has been shown to have the strongest impact on predicting behavioral intentions toward AVs (Diakaki, Papageorgiou, Papamichail, & Nikolos, 2015) suggesting that issues of trust may, at least in part, be overcome by demonstrating benefits that outweigh those concerns. How to improve travel within megaregions and large metropolitan areas by focusing on technology integration, intermodal connectivity, and integrated transportation options? While the megaregion concept has been touted—and studied—as a construct for understanding and potentially addressing a variety of transportation issues with broadly shared socioeconomic development and sustainability objectives, as well as externalities or impacts, the method or convening body to coordinate a megaregion-scale response has not been readily apparent. Oden and Sciara (2020) found that MPOs in general do not see megaregional collaboration as a cost-beneficial activity under current resource availability. Similarly, Glass (2015) notes that intergovernmental collaboration at the megaregional scale is often challenged by political sovereignty and imperatives among individual governmental actors. Indeed, longstanding institutional structures and legal frameworks around investment decision-making is hindered by existing funding streams that disproportionality subsidize highway travel and do not provide adequate incentive to invest in multimodal transportation solutions at the megaregional scale. Hunn, Lin, and Loftus-Otway (2019) suggest that “de facto subsidies for automobile transportation must be competitively redistributed based on more forward-looking assessments of megaregional transportation needs.” When and how to integrate land use policies and transportation planning for small and non- metropolitan areas? Most land use-transportation interaction research focuses on urban regions. However, the question of when and how to integrate land use policies and transportation planning for small and non-metropolitan areas is a pertinent one, if little researched, due to an increased focus on issues of equity that seek to better consider the needs of rural regions, as well as the potential effects of technology reaching rural regions in new ways. For example, in the latter scenario, the significance of small and non-metropolitan land use and its relationship to transportation may increase with the adoption private AVs. Their availability may decrease individuals’ value of time and shift location choices made by people and businesses to exurban and rural regions. Conversely, ridesharing and automated shuttles that provide additional or augmented (e.g., last mile) public transit may increase urbanization (Soteropoulos, Berger, & Ciari, 2019). Nonetheless, the effects of AVs on rural region trip-making has been little studied. The study of land use and transportation interaction for small and non-metropolitan areas from a policy perspective depends in part of the efficacy of models to represent the desired scenario. Certain challenges generally observed with land use-transportation interaction modeling (Antwi Acheampong & Silva, 2015) may be amplified for rural areas, such as data availability or suitable measures of accessibility. What are the implications of a decline in rural population on transportation?

113 The Congressional Research Service finds that “with many rural areas experiencing population decline, states increasingly are struggling to maintain roads with diminishing traffic while at the same time meeting the needs of growing rural and metropolitan areas” (Congressional Research Service, 2018). While federal-aid eligible roads are in comparatively good condition due to receiving a slightly larger share of federal highway funds relative to annual VMT, those roads under the control of local governments are more likely to have poor pavement condition or deficient bridges. There has, however, been an increased focus on investment in rural regions. During the last administration, FHWA placed increased emphasis on funding rural highway investments through discretionary grant programs. However, investments should be well considered—that is, not under the guise of economic growth as a response to population loss, which has been shown unlikely to be reversed, but rather in the context of adaptation to “population loss as a form of resiliency” (“rural smart shrinkage”), which generally relies upon low-cost strategies to implement sustainably (Zarecor, Peters, & Hamideh, 2021). Aside from the ability for governments to maintain existing transportation infrastructure in the face of fewer people and therefore lower revenues, providing new forms of accessibility and mobility is also an important mitigation action for rural population preservation and opportunity. According to Camarero and Oliva (2019), these concepts are “strongly linked with rural well-being and social sustainability.” Rural population characteristics are also pertinent to rural transit issues. Mjelde et al. (2017) find that most economic research on rural transit and the needs of older adults and disenfranchised populations has been insufficient. Several areas in need of improved assessment include: • Application of innovative solutions—Rural transit is faced with increasing demand and limited funds—challenges that innovative solutions can help address. The influence adoption of these solutions will have on rural areas should be determined. • Rural socioeconomic considerations—How individual needs translate into broader community issues including livability and sustainability of rural communities needs to be determined. • Information technology solutions—Usage of technological advancements, including data collection, may improve the coordination and management of rural transit systems and needs to be addressed. Overall, rural population decline is positively associated with income inequality (although the change is not uniform across rural US counties) (Butler, Wildermuth, Thiede, & Brown, 2020) and is therefore linked to issues of equity raised by other topical questions in the Unified Framework. What are the consequences of competing mode choice preferences among various population cohorts (baby boomers vs millennials)? Mode choice preferences among population cohorts is important to understand from a policy and planning perspective. While the literature has reported that millennials may exhibit “different lifestyles and travel behavior from previous generations at the same stage in life,” (Circella, Tiedeman, Handy, Alemi, & Mokhtarian, 2016) the cohort is not monolithic and the preferences and behavior of many resemble that of older generations. Circella, Tiedeman, Handy, et al. (2016) recently examined the “personal attitudes and preferences individual lifestyles, and the adoption of new technologies and shared mobility services” among millennials and members of previous Generation X. They found that millennials: • Adopt technological solutions and use smartphones for various purposes (e.g., locating destinations, mapping, and making mode choices) more frequently.

114 • Use their devices more often while traveling (“travel multitasking”), a finding which suggests a future need to study the impact on value of time and evaluation of travel alternatives and mode choice. • Show a stronger commitment to the environment, including less opposition to policies that reduce the environmental externalities of transportation. • Report higher rates of adoption of emerging technologies and shared mobility services. With respect to the last point, the research found an important difference among the two cohorts: Gen-X members’ use of ridehailing services mostly replaced use of a private vehicle, while millennials’ use of those services resulted in a reduction of the use of public transit and walking or biking. In addition, follow-up research by Circella, Alemi, Tiedeman, et al. (2017) observed significant differences among Gen-X members and millennials who live in urban versus non-urban locations. Namely urban residents are heavier adopters of technology and shared-use mobility services and have more support for pro- environmental policies. Other key findings from this follow-up research include: • Millennials, and especially dependent millennials … are more likely to be multimodal commuters, even if they often live in neighborhoods that are less supportive of such behaviors. On the other end of the spectrum, Gen Xers by far rely the most on cars. • Independent millennials more often choose to live in accessible locations and tend to adopt non- motorized and multimodal travel options more often. • Individual attitudes and stage in life (current living arrangements and the presence of children in the household) have larger effects on VMT for millennials than for Gen Xers. • [Millennials’] zero- or low-vehicle ownership is probably the result of their transient stage of life rather than the long-term effect of preferences towards vehicle ownership. Other researchers posit that perceived differences in modal use and car ownership preferences exhibited by millennials, at least during some stage of their lives, has been due to the economic effects of the Great Recession. Knittel and Murphy (2019) found little difference between the preferences of millennials and prior generations for vehicle ownership, and in fact, millennials’ vehicle usage in terms of VMT is higher than Baby Boomers. Even so, Delbosc, McDonald, Stokes, et al. (2019) recommend paying attention to variations in local context, as their findings from cities in the US, UK, and Australia show significantly different travel behavior among millennials within cities that is unlikely to be explained by economic differences alone. The role of transportation systems themselves may be an important factor to consider as well. What are the criteria for developing system rightsizing? System rightsizing is an important transportation planning and development concept in the face of agencies contending with a host of system needs, technological and economic uncertainties, and funding constraints. System rightsizing encompasses a range of strategies “including relaxing or waiving standards, replacing assets to make them smaller or more economical, decommissioning assets to allow for reuse of land, and in some cases changing jurisdictions to better align infrastructure objectives and ownership” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). These strategies can help to reduce life cycle costs, maximize benefits from assets and revenues, and better align investment decision-making with those who benefit. NCHRP Research Report 917 (2020) comprehensively addresses system rightsizing considerations and techniques by providing policy guidance, a toolkit for

115 policy guidance application, and technical guidance on analytical tools and methods. Some example criteria identified in the research to assess and validate rightsizing initiatives include: • Repeated requests for exemptions to standards • Studies showing facility is underutilized or unutilized • Significant change in context since last improvement • Event raising legal or financial risk of status quo Opportunities for rightsizing can be sought throughout standard DOT business processes including functional classification processes, asset management, preparation of the STIP, and preparation of the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Novak et al. (2020) recommend accounting for social vulnerability when making rightsizing decisions. They propose a methodology for selecting rightsizing candidates that have a “minimal disruptive effect on network-wide travel, while simultaneously considering accessibility and mobility issues related to socially vulnerable populations.” References Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Ariff bin Bahruddin, M., & Ali, M. (2018). How trust can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 819-36. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.019 Antwi Acheampong, R., & Silva, E. (2015). Land use–transport interaction modeling: A review of the literature and future research directions. 8(3). doi:doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.806 Arioli, M. S., Dagosto, M. D., Amaral, F. G., & Cybis, H. B. (2020). The evolution of city-scale GHG emissions inventory methods: A systematic review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 80. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106316 Arroyo, V., Zyla, K., & Pacyniak, G. (2017). New Strategies for Reducing Transportation Emissions and Preparing for Climate Impacts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(4), 919-67. Retrieved from https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol44/iss4/1/ Badu-Marfo, G., Farooq, B., & Patterson, Z. (2019). A Perspective on the Challenges and Opportunities for Privacy-Aware Big Transportation Data. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation. doi:10.1007/s42421-019-00001-z Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2017). How to get there? A critical assessment of accessibility objectives and indicators in metropolitan transportation plans. Transport Policy, 55, 38-50. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.011 Borry, E. L., & Getha-Taylor, H. (2018). Automation in the Public Sector: Efficiency at the Expense of Equity? Publoic Integrity, 21(1), 6-21. doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1455488 Browne, B. A. (2017). Self-Driving Cars: On the Road to a New Regulatory Era. Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 8(1). Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jolti/vol8/iss1/4

116 Bullard, R., & Jordan-Mikey, B. (2012). Transportation Equity Matters: Connecting the Dots. Perspectives on Advancing Economic and Social Equity in Federal Transportation Policy: Briefing papers for the10/25/12 Forum of the Equity Caucus at Transportation for America. Butler, J. L., Wildermuth, G., Thiede, B. C., & Brown, D. L. (2020). Population Change and Income Inequality in Rural America. Population Research and Policy Review, 39, 889-911. doi:10.31235/osf.io/g3yhe Butler, J., & Harrington, M. (2018). Workforce Challenges in Implementing Transportation System Management and Operations within Caltrans. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4j3023xk Campbell, P., Zhang, Y., Yan, F., Lu, Z., & Streets, D. (2018). Impacts of transportation sector emissions on future U.S. air quality in a changing climate. Part I: Projected emissions, simulation design, and model evaluation,. Environmental Pollution, 238, 903-17. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.020 Campbell, P., Zhang, Y., Yan, F., Lu, Z., & Streets, D. (2018). Impacts of transportation sector emissions on future U.S. air quality in a changing climate. Part II: Air quality projections and the interplay between emissions and climate change. Environmental Pollution, 238, 918-30. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.016 Circella, G., Alemi, F., Tiedeman, K., Berliner, R. M., Lee, Y., Fulton, L., . . . Handy, S. (2017). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? PART II: The Impact of Residential Location, Individual Preferences and Lifestyles on Young Adults’ Travel Behavior in California. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5kc117kj Circella, G., Tiedeman, K., Handy, S., Alemi, F., & Mokhtarian, P. (2016). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? Part I: Investigating the Environmental Concerns, Lifestyles, Mobility-Related Attitudes and Adoption of Technology of Young Adults in California. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6wm51523 Congressional Research Service. (2018). Rural Highways. Cronin, B., & Alexander, A. (2019). Responding to the demographic and skill shifts in the mobility workforce. In T. Reeb, Empowering the New Mobility Workforce Educating, Training, and Inspiring Future Transportation Professionals (pp. 125-48). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Delbosc, A., McDonald, N., Stokes, G., Lucas, K., Circella, G., & Lee, Y. (2019). Millennials in cities: Comparing travel behaviour trends across six case study regions. Cities, 90, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.023 Diakaki, C., Papageorgiou, M., Papamichail, I., & Nikolos, I. (2015). Overview and analysis of Vehicle Automation and Communication Systems from a motorway traffic management perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 75, 147-65. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.015 Frey, C. H. (2018). Trends in onroad transportation energy and emissions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 68(6), 514-63. doi:10.1080/10962247.2018.1454357 Gallagher, S., & Albert, S. (2019). Chapter 13 - Cultivating a Rural Lens: Successful Approaches to Developing Regional Transportation Corridors Through Professional Capacity Building. In T.

117 Reeb (Ed.), Empowring the New Mobility Workforce: Educating, Training, and Inspiring Future Transportation Professionals (pp. 289-313). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816088-6.00011-0 Glass, M. R. (2015). Conflicting spaces of governance in the imagined Great Lakes megaregion. Megaregions, 119-45. doi:10.4337/9781782547907.00012 Gnann, T., & Plötz, P. (2015). A review of combined models for market diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles and their refueling infrastructure. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 783- 93. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.022 Hahn, D. A., Munir, A., & Behzadan, V. (2019). Security and Privacy Issues in Intelligent Transportation Systems: Classification and Challenges. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine. doi:10.1109/MITS.2019.2898973 Hammond, W., Axsen, J., & Kjeang, E. (2020). How to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the freight sector: Policy insights from a technology-adoption model of Canada. Energy Policy, 137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111093 Hunn, A., Lin, R. (.-H., & Loftus-Otway, L. (2019). The Right Structure for the Right Incentives for Multimodal Transportation in America’s Growing Megaregions. USDOT Tier 1 Center; Cooperative Mobility for Competitive Megaregions At The University of Texas at Austin. Jansson, J., Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2017). Examining drivers of sustainable consumption: The influence of norms and opinion leadership on electric vehicle adoption in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 176-87. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.186 Jung, J., & Koo, Y. (2018). Analyzing the Effects of Car Sharing Services on the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Sustainability, 10(2), 539. doi:10.3390/su10020539 Keen, D. J. (2020). Resource Guide for Improving Diversity and Inclusion Programs for the Public Transportation Industry (In Progress). Denver, Colorado: Transportation Review Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ- 11Task35InterimReport03-32-2020.pdf Kitchin, R. (2016). Getting smarter about smart cities: Improving data privacy and data security. Dublin, Ireland: Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach. Knittel, C. R., & Murphy, E. (2019). Generational trends in vehicle ownership and use: Are millennials any different? Labor: Demographics & Economics of the Family eJournal. Kontovas, C. A., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2016). Transportation Emissions: Some Basics. Green Transportation Logistics International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 226, 41-79. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17175-3_2 Lim, H., & Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous Vehicles for Smart and Sustainable Cities: An In-Depth Exploration of Privacy and Cybersecurity Implications. Energies, 11(5). doi:10.3390/en11051062 Livingston Shurna, M., & Schweiterman, J. P. (2020). 21 Key Takeaways from Partnerships between Public Transit Providers and Transportation Network Companies in the United States. DePaul University Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development. Retrieved from https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-

118 development/research-and-publications/Documents/21Takeaways%20Report%20- %20Final%20Version.pdf Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Integrating social equity into urban transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America. Transport Policy, 167-76. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013 Marcantonio, R. A., Golub, A., Karner, A., & Nelson, L. (2017). Confronting Inequality in Metropolitan Regions: Realizing the Promise of Civil Rights and Environmental Justice in Metropolitan Transportation Planning. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(4), 1016-77. McKinnon, A. (2016). Freight Transport in a Low-Carbon World: Assessing Opportunities for Cutting Emissions. TR News(306), pp. 8-15. Mjelde, J., Dudensing, R., Brooks, J., Battista, G., Carrillo, M., Counsil, B., . . . S, U. (2017). Economics of Transportation Research Needs for Rural Elderly and Transportation Disadvantaged Populations. White Paper Submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Mobarak, R., & Albright, D. (2015). Need for National Standards in Transportation System Information, Acquisition, Processing, and Sharing. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2527(1). doi:10.3141/2527-01 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25946 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Right-Sizing Transportation Investments: A Guidebook for Planning and Programming. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25680 Novak, D., Sullivan, J., Sentoff, K., & Dowds, J. (2020). A framework to guide strategic disinvestment in roadway infrastructure considering social vulnerability. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 436-51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.021 Oden, M., & Sciara, G. C. (2020). The salience of megaregional geographies for inter-metropolitan transportation planning and policy making. 80. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102262 Palm, M., Farber, S., Shalaby, A., & Young, M. (2020). Equity Analysis and New Mobility Technologies: Toward Meaningful Interventions. Journal of Planning Literature. doi:10.1177/0885412220955197 Pan, H., Page, J., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Ferreira, C., Jonsson, E., . . . Kalantari, Z. (2019). Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region. Ambio, 49(7), 1313-27. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01290-y Panagiotopoulos, I., & Dimitrakopoulos, G. (2018). An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95, 773- 84. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.013

119 Pasha, O. (2018). Social justice implications of municipal transportation apportionments in Massachusetts: A case of disparate impact. Transport Policy, 72, 109-15. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.10.001 Patterson, R. F., & Harley, R. A. (2019). Effects of Freeway Rerouting and Boulevard Replacement on Air Pollution Exposure and Neighborhood Attributes. Int J Environ Res Public Health., 16(21). doi:10.3390/ijerph16214072 Pike, S., & Kazemian, S. (2020). Influential Factors in the Formation of Partnerships Between Ridehail Companies and Public Transportation. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. doi:10.7922/G2BK19NW Puentes, R., Grossman, A., Eby, B., & Bond, A. (2019). Recruiting the Future Workforce: Examples of Preparing a Diverse Cohort of Future Workers for Transportation Careers. In Transportation Workforce Planning and Development Strategies: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Reyna, J. L., Chester, M. V., Ahn, S., & Fraser, A. M. (2014). Improving the Accuracy of Vehicle Emissions Profiles for Urban Transportation Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Inventories. 49(1), 369-76. doi:10.1021/es5023575 Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 122- 36. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010 Shark, A. R. (2016). The Information Technology Gap in Public Administration: What We Can Learn from the Certified Public Manager and Senior Executive Service Programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 213-30. doi:10.1080/15236803.2016.12002242 Soteropoulos, A., Berger, M., & Ciari, F. (2019). Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: an international review of modelling studies. Transport Reviews, 39(1: Long Term Implications of Automated Vehicles), 29-49. doi:10.1080/01441647.2018.1523253 Van Fan, Y., Perry, S., Klemeš, J. J., & Lee, C. T. (2018). A review on air emissions assessment: Transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 673-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.151 Wang, A., Stogios, C., Gai, Y., Vaughan, J., Ozonder, G., Lee, S., . . . Hatzopoulou, M. (2018). Automated, electric, or both? Investigating the effects of transportation and technology scenarios on metropolitan greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 40, 524-33. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.004 Washington, P. A., & Peterson, J. (2019). Chapter Eleven - LA Metro: changing the mobility game— inspiring and training a new workforce, filling leadersh. In LA Metro: changing the mobility game—inspiring and training a new workforce, filling leadership voids, and creating farm teams for the future (pp. 247-67). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816088-6.00011-0 Wellman, G. C. (2015). The Social Justice (of) Movement: How Public Transportation Administrators Define Social Justice. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 117-46.

120 Zarecor, K. E., Peters, D. J., & Hamideh, S. (2021). Rural Smart Shrinkage and Perceptions of Quality of Life in the American Midwest. In M. C. Martinez J, & P. R, Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability (pp. 395-415). Springer, Cham. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50540-0_20 Organizational Capacity and Governance The key questions raised within the Unified Framework suggest a need to understand and investigate a broad scope of issues around organizational capacity and governance. The questions address critical topics within a single agency (e.g., human resources, workforce, equity), the relationships among a set of collaborating agencies (e.g., multijurisdictional metropolitan and megaregion planning integration, public and private sector partnerships), and standards and regulation that affect an entire class of agencies or level of government (e.g., resilience, vehicle automation), as agencies confront emerging transportation challenges and mechanisms to address them. Issues within an Agency How to prepare agencies for procurement and managerial training on private sector supplied human resources and employment contract negotiations? - no info found to address this question What are some of the implications of IT and automation on workforce?  How to ensure equity among underrepresented racial and ethnic groups?  Beginning at the individual entity level, agencies will need to avail themselves of greater levels of competency in information technology (IT), as this essential skill is no longer solely the domain of technology managers. There is a need to implement educational opportunities and pathways to provide non-technical managers with IT proficiencies relevant to their work tasks and decision-making. As one example, institutions such as schools of public administration and public affairs should adopt IT competencies for nontechnical audiences (Shark, 2016). New areas of focus within agencies such as DOTs will also require IT-related technical competencies among practitioners. The software, devices, communication networks, and data associated with rapidly advancing programs such as TSMO and related and emerging technologies (e.g., connected vehicle infrastructure, advanced operational tactics) compel public agencies’ need for software engineers, communication specialists, and data analysts. The challenge for public agencies hiring and retaining these staff capabilities into their workforce is well documented [NOCoE]. Solutions to meet the demand for these skillsets will continue to drive a need for further research in how to educate agency managers and staff on the needs for these skills, recruitment strategies for IT-related positions, making adjustments to human-resource driven requirements for hiring, and establishing supportive management frameworks (Butler & Harrington, 2018). Beyond the workforce implications of IT on both non-technical and technical roles within the agency, automation poses further challenges and opportunities. While automation promises to introduce significant efficiency and productivity gains that net operational and financial benefits, there are tradeoffs with the workforce that may have equity and equal employment opportunity implications. Research has found that women and minority populations are overrepresented in state and local government jobs at highest risk of automation (Borry & Getha-Taylor, 2018). Attention will have to be paid to inadvertent discrimination. Continuing to forecast and address the impacts of automation on equity considerations

121 will remain a research need. These implications draw particular focus in the face of greater scrutiny on ensuring a diverse workforce and the understanding that diversity contributes positively to an organization’s success (Puentes, Grossman, Eby, & Bond, 2019). Indeed, diverse leadership teams tend to perform better financially (Cronin & Alexander, 2019). Further, to meet the demands of a future workforce, reach the best workers, and do so with greater attention to equity, transportation agencies will have to expand the diversity of its applicant pool and access populations that are currently underrepresented (Cronin & Alexander, 2019). Cronin and Alexander (Cronin & Alexander, 2019) offer the following strategies to accomplish this: • Recruit diverse individual from organizations that already serve them • Identify desired benefits and workplace factors • Promote on-the-job opportunities that will be seen as desirable • Create a workplace culture that values diversity • Show diversity in leadership positions Puentes et al. (2019) note that while the focus of automation has been on replacing workers, its ability to complement jobs deserves greater attention, especially in the context of mechanisms that would prepare or retrain workers for roles that incorporate automation. Agencies will need to find ways to maintain awareness and share knowledge on the state of the practice to remain agile and able to adapt to the introduction of automated technologies and processes. Pathways and programs for worker education will be necessary to navigate career opportunities that complement greater degrees of automation (Puentes, Grossman, Eby, & Bond, 2019). The transit industry offers some leading examples of ensuring equity and diversity within agency workforces. Research is underway to evaluate current diversity and inclusion practices and make recommendations on how public transit agencies can assess their organizations and develop programs and resources to implement diversity and inclusion practices. Ways to measure the effects of individual initiatives is identified as a key gap that should be filled (Keen, 2020). LA Metro is exemplary in this respect. It has recognized that “embracing equity” is a key pillar to developing a workforce positioned to meet the mobility initiatives of the future, including its significant plans for service expansion. The agency has placed strong focus on attracting and cultivating traditionally underrepresented population segments such as disenfranchised youths through its “Farm Teams for the Future” program, as well as veterans and women (Washington & Peterson, 2019). Multijurisdictional Issues What are some of the best practices to ensure effective and equitable treatment of these cross-border externalities?   What are the financial, institutional, and competitive barriers to reduce nationally significant bottlenecks at large-scale, complex transportation facilities?  What are some of the multimodal transportation needs and investment strategies of various MPOs at the metropolitan-wide or megaregion scale and how to integrate them? 

122 What partnerships between private and public sectors can help overcome institutional and modal funding barriers to integrate various new mobility services efficiently and equitably (e.g., bundling, regional transportation agencies as coordinators of mobility services and service contracts)?   Looking outward beyond the internal composition and capabilities of individual agencies, institutional complexity often creates governance challenges that hinder the establishment of an integrated and efficient transportation network. Effective interagency coordination must overcome institutional inertia and equitably address externalities that extend over multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Regional planning based on the shared goals of stakeholders outside those that are traditionally transportation-focused (e.g., health and human services, sustainability, public safety, economic vitality, and quality of life concerns) can help transcend these issues in a more equitable manner (Gallagher & Albert, 2019). Rural regions that are often lacking in collaborative entities can benefit from Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) to provide such a forum and enhance communication between regions and states, increasing equity in transportation funding and better integrating rural needs in statewide plans (Gallagher & Albert, 2019) . Regional transportation planning in metropolitan regions is the purview of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), however transportation network challenges often extend beyond the boundaries of MPOs to the megaregion scale. Oden and Sciara (2020) note that “the territorial scale of externalities, network effects, and economic/residential integration is seriously mismatched to territorial government or governance institutions and capacities.” Potential partnerships at the megaregional are motivated by issues such as multimodal freight, major transportation corridors, economic development, intercity rail service, and air quality. However, Oden and Sciara (2020) find that MPOs generally do not view “megaregional scale planning collaborations as a high priority or as highly effective” due to costs outweighing benefits. They suggest that “increasing staff funding, requiring state DOTs’ statewide plans to address megaregional issues, and facilitating and enabling inter-local agreements for megaregional planning as actions that would enhance the salience and effectiveness of megaregional planning.” However, federal and state policy makers likely would need to make planning at this scale a priority to foster these actions. Other new forms of partnership that involve both the public and private sectors have been contemplated and deployed in a several instances. Within the realm of connected vehicle (CV) technology, the conventional design-build-finance-operate-maintain public-private partnership model has been applied to the co-development of CV systems and applications. Recent research describes this arrangement as follows (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020): The DOT provides access to the right-of-way, signals, and other infrastructure, as well as access to DOT-owned data for commercial purposes. The private sector provides a suite of services related to technology, application development, data management, and network infrastructure. In addition, the private sector may also contribute equity, and in exchange, would typically prefer a revenue generation model through business-to-business and business-to-public transactions with mutually agreed terms of use. Other variants of this model include data and resource sharing agreements, such as a DOT sharing network information it generates from its infrastructure and operations with third party traveler information services that provide the DOT network usage data such as congestion and crashes. A DOT permitting a telecommunications company to install fiber optic network in its right-of-way in exchange for communications access is another resource-sharing example. These partnership opportunities are in their infancy as CV technology begins to be deployed at scale. Further study on their efficacy and outcomes is warranted as deployments mature. The degree of public sector involvement would also need

123 further examination if a combination of “vehicle-based detailed mapping, Internet of Things (IoT), and advanced V2V systems would eliminate the need for any public sector involvement in operational management or dependency on public infrastructure” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). In this scenario, the role of the public sector as regulator would take on increased significance. Mobility as a service is another emerging area of partnership, whereby a municipality or transit agency partners with shared-use mobility companies (transportation network company or microtransit) to augment or fill gaps in transit service availability. A recent analysis of partnerships between transit agencies and shared-use mobility companies compiled a series of key takeaways regarding meeting federal regulations, planning, financing and payments, funding, launching programs, improving operations, and data and evaluation (Livingston Shurna & Schweiterman, 2020). Challenges with these partnerships include agency concerns over liability and costs, the ability to meet federal standards, and use of public resources (Pike & Kazemian, 2020). Future work should continue to study these partnerships, the effectiveness of particular arrangements and scenarios, and the question of their sustainability through secure long-term funding (Pike & Kazemian, 2020; Livingston Shurna & Schweiterman, 2020). Cross-Cutting Issues How to ensure data security to protect personal privacy and proprietary information?  What national standards are required to facilitate interstate transportation network preparedness for core issues, e.g., resilience and vehicle automation?  Individual agencies, cross-jurisdictional collaborative arrangements, and partnerships with the private sector are all subject to important cross-cutting organizational and governance issues, along with national standards and regulation that may facilitate adoption of processes and technologies that address key transportation network issues. Ensuring data security and personal privacy is one critical cross-cutting issue with relevance to enhanced delivery of traditional transportation service as well as new transportation service models enabled by software applications, field devices, and communication networks. An examination of privacy concerns and security vulnerabilities associated with smart cities reveals the landscape of challenges that could affect transportation networks, services, and vehicles—as these are all an integral component of smart city concepts. Privacy concerns include, among others, intensified datafication, deepened inferencing through predictive modeling, weak anonymization, and unpredictable or unexpected data sharing or repurposing. Security vulnerabilities include weak security and encryption, use of insecure legacy systems and poor maintenance, large and complex attack surfaces, and cascading effects (Kitchin, 2016). A suite of responses includes market self-regulation as a competitive advantage; technology solutions; policy, regulatory, and legal solutions; and governance and management solutions. Automated vehicles pose special privacy and security risks because of their implications on safety. Lim and Taeihagh (2018) cite a number of these studies that examine these risks. The authors go on to investigate their implications further, finding that most US states have begun introducing or enacting legislation in response to privacy risks, but security risks are typically addressed through non-AV specific legislation. Further research may be needed to understand whether this is a sufficient response. Preliminary findings from NCHRP 20-24(128) State of the Art Review of Cooperative Automated Transportation Systems (unpublished) suggest the need for public agencies to be specific about what data they might like to have from private parties such as AV manufacturers or service providers. The research

124 also finds that the sharing of data among public and private entities could be facilitated through trusted third-party anonymizers. ITS devices are another transportation-specific domain with unique security and privacy challenges, especially at the system-wide level where issues such as heterogeneity, scalability and extendability, distributed network architectures, and latency sensitivity must be addressed. Hahn, Munir, and Behzadan (2019) identify several mitigation strategies as well as areas of future research, including the ability for artificial intelligence’s integration with ITS to “facilitate more efficient approaches to the design and management of secure ITS technologies.” Other research needs pertain to complex adaptive systems, i.e. the need to understand the risk of cascading effects from local failures when the interactions of constituent components can lead to higher order effects; the need to develop a comprehensive vulnerability assessment framework; and addressing the gap between the state of the practice in privacy protection and regulatory requirements, potentially through blockchain-based approaches and homomorphic encryption that permits use of the data without decrypting it first. Finally, big data’s application to transportation—Big Transportation Data—amplifies personal privacy concerns associated with large quantities of temporally and geographically precise location data. Badu- Marfo, Farooq, and Patterson (2019) suggest that, as a result, “personally identifiable location information (PILI)” requires a special focus on advanced anonymization techniques, especially as the growth of Open Data makes PILI data available to more people whose identities are not known. A number of emerging and cross-cutting issues in transportation could be facilitated through appropriate national standards and regulation. For example, Browne (2017) recommends the use of a model national policy for NHTSA to regulate AVs “because it combines the strengths of a consistent national policy with the flexibility of state rulemaking” and “ultimately, when the technology has more fully developed, NHTSA can begin its rulemaking process to consolidate the best rules of the states.” NHTSA has effectively done so when it published ADS 2.0 in 2016, but the guidelines are brief and lack an overarching vision (NCHRP 20-24(128) State of the Art Review of Cooperative Automated Transportation Systems, unpublished), a concept currently being explored by a number of national associations, organizations, and committees, especially AASHTO. Elsewhere, Mobarak and Albright (2015) identify the need for national standards among transportation system information, acquisition, processing, and sharing including “video monitoring of roadway traffic volume, … Bluetooth and crowdsource vehicle speed and travel times, [and] … standards for bicycle and pedestrian counts with the use of video monitoring, infrared detectors, inductive loops, and other technologies.” References Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Ariff bin Bahruddin, M., & Ali, M. (2018). How trust can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 819-36. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.019 Antwi Acheampong, R., & Silva, E. (2015). Land use–transport interaction modeling: A review of the literature and future research directions. 8(3). doi:doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.806 Arioli, M. S., Dagosto, M. D., Amaral, F. G., & Cybis, H. B. (2020). The evolution of city-scale GHG emissions inventory methods: A systematic review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 80. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106316

125 Arroyo, V., Zyla, K., & Pacyniak, G. (2017). New Strategies for Reducing Transportation Emissions and Preparing for Climate Impacts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(4), 919-67. Retrieved from https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol44/iss4/1/ Badu-Marfo, G., Farooq, B., & Patterson, Z. (2019). A Perspective on the Challenges and Opportunities for Privacy-Aware Big Transportation Data. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation. doi:10.1007/s42421-019-00001-z Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2017). How to get there? A critical assessment of accessibility objectives and indicators in metropolitan transportation plans. Transport Policy, 55, 38-50. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.011 Borry, E. L., & Getha-Taylor, H. (2018). Automation in the Public Sector: Efficiency at the Expense of Equity? Publoic Integrity, 21(1), 6-21. doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1455488 Browne, B. A. (2017). Self-Driving Cars: On the Road to a New Regulatory Era. Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 8(1). Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jolti/vol8/iss1/4 Bullard, R., & Jordan-Mikey, B. (2012). Transportation Equity Matters: Connecting the Dots. Perspectives on Advancing Economic and Social Equity in Federal Transportation Policy: Briefing papers for the10/25/12 Forum of the Equity Caucus at Transportation for America. Butler, J. L., Wildermuth, G., Thiede, B. C., & Brown, D. L. (2020). Population Change and Income Inequality in Rural America. Population Research and Policy Review, 39, 889-911. doi:10.31235/osf.io/g3yhe Butler, J., & Harrington, M. (2018). Workforce Challenges in Implementing Transportation System Management and Operations within Caltrans. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4j3023xk Campbell, P., Zhang, Y., Yan, F., Lu, Z., & Streets, D. (2018). Impacts of transportation sector emissions on future U.S. air quality in a changing climate. Part I: Projected emissions, simulation design, and model evaluation,. Environmental Pollution, 238, 903-17. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.020 Campbell, P., Zhang, Y., Yan, F., Lu, Z., & Streets, D. (2018). Impacts of transportation sector emissions on future U.S. air quality in a changing climate. Part II: Air quality projections and the interplay between emissions and climate change. Environmental Pollution, 238, 918-30. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.016 Circella, G., Alemi, F., Tiedeman, K., Berliner, R. M., Lee, Y., Fulton, L., . . . Handy, S. (2017). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? PART II: The Impact of Residential Location, Individual Preferences and Lifestyles on Young Adults’ Travel Behavior in California. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5kc117kj Circella, G., Tiedeman, K., Handy, S., Alemi, F., & Mokhtarian, P. (2016). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? Part I: Investigating the Environmental Concerns, Lifestyles, Mobility-Related Attitudes and Adoption of Technology of Young Adults in California. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6wm51523

126 Congressional Research Service. (2018). Rural Highways. Cronin, B., & Alexander, A. (2019). Responding to the demographic and skill shifts in the mobility workforce. In T. Reeb, Empowering the New Mobility Workforce Educating, Training, and Inspiring Future Transportation Professionals (pp. 125-48). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Delbosc, A., McDonald, N., Stokes, G., Lucas, K., Circella, G., & Lee, Y. (2019). Millennials in cities: Comparing travel behaviour trends across six case study regions. Cities, 90, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.023 Diakaki, C., Papageorgiou, M., Papamichail, I., & Nikolos, I. (2015). Overview and analysis of Vehicle Automation and Communication Systems from a motorway traffic management perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 75, 147-65. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.015 Frey, C. H. (2018). Trends in onroad transportation energy and emissions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 68(6), 514-63. doi:10.1080/10962247.2018.1454357 Gallagher, S., & Albert, S. (2019). Chapter 13 - Cultivating a Rural Lens: Successful Approaches to Developing Regional Transportation Corridors Through Professional Capacity Building. In T. Reeb (Ed.), Empowring the New Mobility Workforce: Educating, Training, and Inspiring Future Transportation Professionals (pp. 289-313). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816088-6.00011-0 Glass, M. R. (2015). Conflicting spaces of governance in the imagined Great Lakes megaregion. Megaregions, 119-45. doi:10.4337/9781782547907.00012 Gnann, T., & Plötz, P. (2015). A review of combined models for market diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles and their refueling infrastructure. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 783- 93. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.022 Hahn, D. A., Munir, A., & Behzadan, V. (2019). Security and Privacy Issues in Intelligent Transportation Systems: Classification and Challenges. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine. doi:10.1109/MITS.2019.2898973 Hammond, W., Axsen, J., & Kjeang, E. (2020). How to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the freight sector: Policy insights from a technology-adoption model of Canada. Energy Policy, 137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111093 Hunn, A., Lin, R. (.-H., & Loftus-Otway, L. (2019). The Right Structure for the Right Incentives for Multimodal Transportation in America’s Growing Megaregions. USDOT Tier 1 Center; Cooperative Mobility for Competitive Megaregions At The University of Texas at Austin. Jansson, J., Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2017). Examining drivers of sustainable consumption: The influence of norms and opinion leadership on electric vehicle adoption in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 176-87. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.186 Jung, J., & Koo, Y. (2018). Analyzing the Effects of Car Sharing Services on the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Sustainability, 10(2), 539. doi:10.3390/su10020539 Keen, D. J. (2020). Resource Guide for Improving Diversity and Inclusion Programs for the Public Transportation Industry (In Progress). Denver, Colorado: Transportation Review Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/docs/TCRPJ- 11Task35InterimReport03-32-2020.pdf

127 Kitchin, R. (2016). Getting smarter about smart cities: Improving data privacy and data security. Dublin, Ireland: Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach. Knittel, C. R., & Murphy, E. (2019). Generational trends in vehicle ownership and use: Are millennials any different? Labor: Demographics & Economics of the Family eJournal. Kontovas, C. A., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2016). Transportation Emissions: Some Basics. Green Transportation Logistics International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 226, 41-79. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17175-3_2 Lim, H., & Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous Vehicles for Smart and Sustainable Cities: An In-Depth Exploration of Privacy and Cybersecurity Implications. Energies, 11(5). doi:10.3390/en11051062 Livingston Shurna, M., & Schweiterman, J. P. (2020). 21 Key Takeaways from Partnerships between Public Transit Providers and Transportation Network Companies in the United States. DePaul University Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development. Retrieved from https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan- development/research-and-publications/Documents/21Takeaways%20Report%20- %20Final%20Version.pdf Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Integrating social equity into urban transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America. Transport Policy, 167-76. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013 Marcantonio, R. A., Golub, A., Karner, A., & Nelson, L. (2017). Confronting Inequality in Metropolitan Regions: Realizing the Promise of Civil Rights and Environmental Justice in Metropolitan Transportation Planning. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(4), 1016-77. McKinnon, A. (2016). Freight Transport in a Low-Carbon World: Assessing Opportunities for Cutting Emissions. TR News(306), pp. 8-15. Mjelde, J., Dudensing, R., Brooks, J., Battista, G., Carrillo, M., Counsil, B., . . . S, U. (2017). Economics of Transportation Research Needs for Rural Elderly and Transportation Disadvantaged Populations. White Paper Submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Mobarak, R., & Albright, D. (2015). Need for National Standards in Transportation System Information, Acquisition, Processing, and Sharing. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2527(1). doi:10.3141/2527-01 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25946 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Right-Sizing Transportation Investments: A Guidebook for Planning and Programming. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25680 Novak, D., Sullivan, J., Sentoff, K., & Dowds, J. (2020). A framework to guide strategic disinvestment in roadway infrastructure considering social vulnerability. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 436-51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.021

128 Oden, M., & Sciara, G. C. (2020). The salience of megaregional geographies for inter-metropolitan transportation planning and policy making. 80. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102262 Palm, M., Farber, S., Shalaby, A., & Young, M. (2020). Equity Analysis and New Mobility Technologies: Toward Meaningful Interventions. Journal of Planning Literature. doi:10.1177/0885412220955197 Pan, H., Page, J., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Ferreira, C., Jonsson, E., . . . Kalantari, Z. (2019). Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region. Ambio, 49(7), 1313-27. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01290-y Panagiotopoulos, I., & Dimitrakopoulos, G. (2018). An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95, 773- 84. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.013 Pasha, O. (2018). Social justice implications of municipal transportation apportionments in Massachusetts: A case of disparate impact. Transport Policy, 72, 109-15. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.10.001 Patterson, R. F., & Harley, R. A. (2019). Effects of Freeway Rerouting and Boulevard Replacement on Air Pollution Exposure and Neighborhood Attributes. Int J Environ Res Public Health., 16(21). doi:10.3390/ijerph16214072 Pike, S., & Kazemian, S. (2020). Influential Factors in the Formation of Partnerships Between Ridehail Companies and Public Transportation. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. doi:10.7922/G2BK19NW Puentes, R., Grossman, A., Eby, B., & Bond, A. (2019). Recruiting the Future Workforce: Examples of Preparing a Diverse Cohort of Future Workers for Transportation Careers. In Transportation Workforce Planning and Development Strategies: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Reyna, J. L., Chester, M. V., Ahn, S., & Fraser, A. M. (2014). Improving the Accuracy of Vehicle Emissions Profiles for Urban Transportation Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Inventories. 49(1), 369-76. doi:10.1021/es5023575 Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 122- 36. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010 Shark, A. R. (2016). The Information Technology Gap in Public Administration: What We Can Learn from the Certified Public Manager and Senior Executive Service Programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(2), 213-30. doi:10.1080/15236803.2016.12002242 Soteropoulos, A., Berger, M., & Ciari, F. (2019). Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: an international review of modelling studies. Transport Reviews, 39(1: Long Term Implications of Automated Vehicles), 29-49. doi:10.1080/01441647.2018.1523253 Van Fan, Y., Perry, S., Klemeš, J. J., & Lee, C. T. (2018). A review on air emissions assessment: Transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 673-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.151

129 Wang, A., Stogios, C., Gai, Y., Vaughan, J., Ozonder, G., Lee, S., . . . Hatzopoulou, M. (2018). Automated, electric, or both? Investigating the effects of transportation and technology scenarios on metropolitan greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 40, 524-33. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.004 Washington, P. A., & Peterson, J. (2019). Chapter Eleven - LA Metro: changing the mobility game— inspiring and training a new workforce, filling leadersh. In LA Metro: changing the mobility game—inspiring and training a new workforce, filling leadership voids, and creating farm teams for the future (pp. 247-67). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816088-6.00011-0 Wellman, G. C. (2015). The Social Justice (of) Movement: How Public Transportation Administrators Define Social Justice. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 117-46. Zarecor, K. E., Peters, D. J., & Hamideh, S. (2021). Rural Smart Shrinkage and Perceptions of Quality of Life in the American Midwest. In M. C. Martinez J, & P. R, Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability (pp. 395-415). Springer, Cham. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50540-0_20 Equity Equity—of resource allocation, distributional impacts, and accrued benefits—has been a concern of transportation officials for many years. Legislatively linked to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a required examination of environmental impacts on diverse communities as per the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and highlighted in President Clinton’s Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population, equity impacts are important considerations in most very major transportation decision. President Biden’s Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government requires federal agencies to “assess whether underserved communities and their members face systemic barriers in accessing benefits and opportunities available pursuant to those policies and programs” (White House 2021). This EO signals that equity concerns will continue to be part of public decision-making, especially in transportation where infrastructure and services play a critical role in promoting opportunity for advancement. The key questions on equity raised by the Unified Framework reflect some traditional concerns, for example, what are examples of transportation inequities in different settings?, as well as some that reflect a changing environment for transportation. An example of the latter includes addressing equity concerns in the deployment of new transportation technologies and with new forms of revenue generation. These questions, and what the literature says about them, are summarized below. What are the issues that characterize transportation inequity in urban, suburban and rural areas (race, gender, income)? Some of the early studies on transportation-related equity focused on the provision of transit services and the distributional impacts on those who benefited and those who paid. For example, Taylor (1991) examined the impact of a law in California that allocated transit operating funds on a per capita basis and concluded that such allocation strongly favor lightly patronized suburban transit service over more heavily patronized service in the central cities. Studies of the Los Angeles and Miami transit systems in the 1990s also highlighted equity impacts of financial decisions where transit boards decided to reduce bus services (to primarily systemically divested neighborhoods) to fund costly rail lines serving more

130 wealthy suburban communities (for a good overview of public transportation equity analysis, see Griffin and Sener 2016). Litman (2020) examined the equity literature and developed a classification relating to different equity “dimensions.” Table F.1 from this work shows the dimensions as being horizontal, that is, equal treatment for all; vertical with respect to income and class; and vertical with respect to need and ability. Table F.1: Equity Considerations in Transportation With respect to horizontal equity, public policies should avoid favoring one individual or group over others, and that consumers should “get what they pay for and pay for what they get” from fees and taxes unless subsidies are specifically justified. Vertical equity with respect to income and social class (also called social justice, environmental justice and social inclusion) is concerned with the distribution of impacts between individuals and groups that differ, in this case, by income or social class. By this definition, transportation policies are equitable if they favor economically and socially disenfranchised groups in order to compensate for overall inequities. Vertical equity with respect to mobility needs is concerned with the distribution of impacts between individuals and groups that differ in mobility ability and need, and therefore the degree to which the transportation system meets the needs of travelers with mobility impairments. This definition is used to support universal design (also called accessible and

131 inclusive design), meaning facilities and services that accommodate all users, including those with special needs. Twaddell and Zgoda (2020) identified several types of disenfranchised populations that are often the subject of transportation decisions (and that are defined in federal legislation). • Required populations or required population groups refer to the population groups for which analyses are required for an MPO to comply with federal laws and guidance relating to Title VI, EO 12898, and EO 13166 (the Environmental Justice (EJ) and Limited English proficient (LEP) executive orders). These include minority and non-minority racial/ethnic populations, low- income and non-low-income populations, and LEP and non-LEP populations. • Underserved persons will refer more broadly to any person of a population group that an MPO might want to consider for inclusion in an equity analysis. This term includes persons of the required population groups as well as members of other groups that may face disproportionate transportation-related burdens or inequities, such as older adults or persons with disabilities. • Underserved communities refer to geographic areas or neighborhoods in which underserved persons live, and includes areas that agencies have designated as high-priority areas for any given population of underserved persons. • Transportation disadvantaged refers to those persons who, because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age, are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and who are, therefore, dependent on others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or other life-sustaining activities (Twaddell and Zgoda 2020). The equity issues highlighted in the Unified Framework relate are characterized in ways these four affected population groups are considered in equity analyses, only advanced to reflect today’s policy and fiscal realities. Thus, equity questions relate to 1) who pays for transportation mobility and accessibility compared to those who benefit (especially considering advances in transportation and personal technology discussed below), 2) the distribution of investment among rural and urban regions in a state (and the resulting consequences), and 3) the challenges of those who are physically unable to move and yet must have access to medical, social, and basic living activities such as grocery shopping. The concept of transportation as a derived demand is one of the key factors in the consideration of equity issues in transportation decisions. That is, transportation services are used to accomplish some activity at the end of a trip. In other words, transportation enables the achievement of some other goal, such as visiting a doctor, family, grocery store, office, and the like. Thus, for example, one of the important equity issues in rural areas is equitable access to public health facilities, where the ultimate goal in improved health, but which has traditionally been accomplished by visiting a medical facility or doctor’s office. Transportation decisions in such a context need to be made with an understanding of the public health needs of rural areas and how transportation decision-making and public health outcomes interrelate. Rural areas present many transportation-related challenges in addition to access to medical services. For example, one study identified the following as key transportation challenges in rural areas (TRIP 2020). • Funding: An inability to address rural transportation challenges due to decreases in state transportation revenues and competition with urban investments. • Safety: Traffic fatalities on the nation’s rural, non-Interstate roads occur at a rate more than double than on all other roads.

132 • Deficient Road and Bridge Conditions: The nation’s rural roads, highways, and bridges have significant deficiencies and deterioration. • Connectivity: The potential for additional economic growth in many rural areas is being impeded by the failure to significantly modernize the nation’s rural transportation system and provide for adequate connectivity. Rural transportation challenges will continue to be a pressing issue for many transportation agencies (see Lewis et al. 2020; National Academies of Sciences 2018) for the breadth of issues that could characterize these issues). These challenges could very well be placed within the context of megaregion development. The Covid-19 pandemic has also created some uncertainty with respect to the consideration of equity that relates to access to services. It is too soon to determine what impact the “distance-based” replacements for physical travel will mean for the use of the transportation system in the long-term, but preliminary evidence has suggested that indeed there will be a long-term impact. For example, a survey conducted by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) in August 2020, in the middle of Covid-related cutbacks on social interactions and work-at-home efforts, 37 percent of Atlanta area corporate executives surveyed by the ARC indicated that they are now seriously considering reducing their staff size as well as stating that nearly all of their staff will work from home either part- or full time after the pandemic has ended (Orr 2021). Such a phenomenon raises questions of what employees will have an ability to do so or for that matter access other activities that have now gone “distance” such as medical and school interactions?, what happens to transportation services such as transit that might now not be patronized as much by the general population?, and whether distance-based activities in fact become an equalizer among different groups because of their access to a wide range of societal services (for those who have access to the internet)? What are the most effective ways of considering equity issues in agency decision-making? One of the challenges in considering equity concerns into transportation agency decision-making is having the data, information, and analysis tools that provide guidance on equity issues can be identified and addressed by agency decision-makers. Litman (2020) provides a good overview of the different analysis approaches that can be considered in conducting an equity analysis. The U.S. DOT (2020) provides important guidance on considering equity in transportation decision-making and the methods that can be used as part of the analysis, and several studies offer their own framework for equity consideration (see, for example, Trent 2018). Several state DOTs have undertaken efforts to understand the many different dimensions of equity and transportation, and of how they can be considered as part of day-to-day decisions. The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT), for example, conducted outreach efforts to groups that represented a range of disenfranchised populations in the state. MnDOT (2019) also conducted background research that: revealed that societal-level structural inequities cause specific population groups to face disproportionate transportation barriers. Some of these structural inequities, such as racialized spatial segregation in metropolitan areas and auto-dependent development patterns, are built into the very fabric of our communities. The user-pay principle that governs the current transportation finance system is viewed as another inequity, as it does not take into account users’ ability to pay. More recently, studies have been conducted on the equity impacts of transformational technologies (see below). Yujie et al. (2020), for example, examined such impacts and identified the following research needs with respect to emerging technologies:

133 • Comparing the equity performance between emerging systems and baseline conditions. • Integrating accessibility, environment, and public health into one assessment. • Adopting a multimodal transportation system context (see System Use white paper) • Identifying disaggregate equity measures with high-resolution inputs. • Considering the dynamic operational characteristics of emerging transportation services. The research gaps in this topical area reflect both the need for improved data and analysis tools, as well as a better understanding of the many different dimensions of equity and how transportation officials can consider them in the context of transportation decisions. Many studies and conference reports also emphasized the importance of exchanging best practices. How to address equity issues when deploying transformational transportation technologies? The introduction of new transportation technologies or technology-based services is often accompanied with concerns about who will actually benefit. For example, the introduction of managed lanes (or sometimes called express toll lanes) in southern California raised questions about the perceived preference given to wealthier commuters (“Lexus lanes”). The controversies of the lanes, which were enabled by new toll collection technologies, followed in concept similar concerns noted above about reallocating investment from central city bus services to provide new and heavily subsidized rail services to wealthier suburban communities. Similar concerns have been studied for redesign of transit services, such as the introduction of bus rapid transit (BRT) services. However, these types of technology applications are not transformational in a sense that they could likely change fundamentally the way people travel. The introduction of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology is such a transformation. In a paper that describes a travel demand model that is used to examine such equity implications, Cohn et al. (2019) state that “different autonomous futures could reduce, perpetuate, or exacerbate existing transportation inequities.”] The model was run for the Washington DC region assuming various AV futures and examined job accessibility, trip duration, trip distance, mode share, and vehicle miles traveled. The results showed that when high-occupancy AVs and enhanced transit services were provided an equity benefit occurred to disenfranchised populations. Another study by Milakis and Wee looked at the implications of vehicle automation on vulnerable social groups and on the potential for social exclusion (Milakis and Wee 2020). The authors concluded level of vehicle automation level and how mobility services were provided determines the degree of social inclusion for these groups. Positive benefits for accessibility were expected for increased levels of vehicle automation and vehicle sharing. However, the study also noted that “the requirements for digital access and online payment for those services, vehicle custom-design, operating complexities, and uncertainties, insecurity and distrust in adoption new vehicle technologies could compromise possible accessibility gains and thus negatively influence social inclusion levels.” For a review of the methods used to assess AV equity implications (see Bills 2020). As AV become more commonplace in the transportation system, there is a continuing need to assess and monitor the implications of such a transformation on those population groups that might not be able to participate in such opportunities. This includes understanding the implications of different AV strategy roll outs in terms of market penetration, the differential impacts on various population groups, the identification of mitigation strategies for these groups, and assessing different business models for providing such strategies. This would also include the development of analysis tools and approaches for

134 better understanding these impacts, and a better understanding of how transportation agencies are including future AV scenarios into their planning and decision-making processes (Guerra 2015). How best to address equity implications of tolling on economically disenfranchised groups? Many studies and policy statements have examined the differential impacts of road pricing on economically disenfranchised groups (see FHWA 2020a,b; Taylor 2010; Szeto and Lo 2006). In addition, some transportation agencies have adopted a proactive equity strategy with respect to tolling. The Oregon DOT (ODOT), for example, developed an Equity Framework for its toll program (Oregon DOT 2020). The specifics of this Framework are presented below because they highlight some of the key dimensions of the relationship between tolling and equity. The Framework, applied to toll projects in the I-205 and I-5 corridors, included: • Goals for the proposed toll projects, and an explanation of why the Oregon Toll Program is prioritizing equity • A definition of equity within the context of the toll projects, including key concepts and definitions related to equity • The overall approach and organizing principles for addressing equity • A set of actions for measuring benefits and burdens to historically excluded and underserved communities and populations Interestingly, ODOT defined equity as consisting of two concerns: Process equity means that the planning process, from design through to post-implementation monitoring and evaluation, actively and successfully encourages the meaningful participation of individuals and groups from historically excluded and underserved communities. Outcome equity means that the toll projects will acknowledge existing inequities and will strive to prevent historically excluded and underserved communities from bearing the burden of negative effects that directly or indirectly result from the toll projects, and will further seek to improve overall transportation affordability, accessible opportunity, and community health. ODOT further defined the key dimensions of the equity and tolling relationship as: • Full Participation. Impacted populations and communities will play a major role throughout a project. Agency accountability and transparency will be a key component of a toll projects’ activities. • Affordability. Projects will explore how to improve the affordability of the transportation system to affected populations and communities. • Access to Opportunity. Projects will focus on improving multi-modal access to the region’s many opportunities for historically excluded and underserved communities. • Community Health. Projects will address air quality, noise, traffic safety, economic impacts and other potential effects on historically excluded and underserved communities Issues relating to tolling and equity will likely continue to focus on the four dimensions highlighted by ODOT—participation (discussed in the next section), affordability, access to opportunity, and community health (as a pricing strategy attracts vehicles to the facility). As the technology for pricing roads continues to evolve in directions to more efficiently and effectively price road use, concerns over who will benefit and be disproportionately affected by such pricing will continue to be key issues. Transportation agencies

135 will want to know what these benefits and impacts will likely be, as well as how to incorporate equity considerations into the planning for and operations of tolled facilities, similar to the ODOT example above. What are some of the best practices related to public involvement of economically and socially disenfranchised groups in transportation planning? As noted in the ODOT example, including equity in its Framework included “process equity,” the provision of opportunities for meaningful involvement of economically and socially disenfranchised groups in the processes leading up to toll project. The underlying concept in process equity is that participation in such processes will provide participants with opportunities to influence the outcome (McAndrews and Marcus 2015). Several studies have identified strategies for providing more meaningful opportunities for participation for a variety of groups (see, for example, Mostafa and El-Gohary 2015). The planning field has, in particular, examined strategies for participation of economically and socially disenfranchised groups in planning. For example, the Interaction Institute for Social Change developed four major lessons for effective participation (Parker 2015): Lesson 1: Weave equity into the planning process and the content of the resulting plans. Lesson 2. Design the process for maximum and meaningful involvement, particularly of those who are most directly affected by the inequities, and build the community’s capacity and infrastructure to participate in the process. Lesson 3: Build institutional capacity and culture. Lesson 4: Lead boldly, collaboratively, authentically. Lesson 2 further explained that to be effective engagement needs people who experience inequities to be fully involved in the planning process, communities need additional capacity to support resident participation in urban planning efforts, planning agencies need to partner with existing community organizations and invest resources in resident engagement and education, and planning efforts need to allocate resources to outreach, education, communications, and facilitation. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 214 (Twaddell and Zgoda 2020) examined the state-of-practice in equity analysis and recommended several areas of needed research. Many of the recommendations relate to providing effective participation opportunities for disenfranchised groups, including: Lay a Foundation of Public Involvement • Methods for setting measurable public involvement objectives and evaluating progress; • Indicators and measurement techniques for equity-related engagement variables that can have a profound impact on the success of outreach activities, and which may be difficult to quantify or assess, such as levels of trust with government decision-making processes, or “buy-in” regarding proposed plans and programs; • Facilitation and engagement techniques to engage diverse stakeholders in equitable decision- making processes; and • Techniques for, and examples of, documenting the input provided by equity stakeholders and describing how it is being, or has been, addressed in the planning and decision-making process. Step 1: Identify Populations for Analysis

136 • Methods for mapping locations of required populations that do not depend on setting bright-line population concentration thresholds and assigning entire TAZs or other geographic units with a broad, all-or-nothing EJ status; and • Methods for tailoring definitions of terms such as low-income and minority to meet the letter and spirit of equity-related laws, regulations, and directives while also reflecting the unique socio- economic characteristics of a given region. Step 2: Identify Needs and Concerns, and Step 3: Measure Impacts of Proposed Agency Activity • Approaches for developing and selecting indicators of current needs and of potential impacts, relevant to both outputs and outcomes, and applying them together to support a meaningful impact analysis. Step 4: Determine Whether Impacts Are Disparate or Have Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects • Methods for identifying and documenting existing and potential disparate impacts relevant to a plan or program, which is broader and more complex than a determination of disparate impacts for a single project. This effort would include defining the difference between a difference and a disparity, and documenting ways in which existing or potential disparate impacts were resolved before the adoption of the final plan. Step 5: Develop Strategies to Avoid or Mitigate Inequities • Methods and examples for developing performance-oriented strategies that enable practitioners to estimate the potential positive impacts of a proposed strategy to address equity-related concerns, and to evaluate performance during and after implementation; and • Approaches and examples, including estimated levels of effort and technical resources, for developing and implementing ongoing programs for robust qualitative and quantitative equity assessments that feature meaningful engagement and well documented results. Many of these research needs reflect the issues transportation agencies are facing with including disenfranchised population groups in transportation planning. Perhaps most importantly identifying strategies for motivating such participation could be one of the critical issues. For example, including representatives of Tribal Nations in transportation planning has been challenging due to a variety of reasons reflecting long-standing distrust of government agencies. And yet, many state DOTs have been very successful in developing inclusive Tribal transportation planning efforts. Understanding these successes and relating them to a broader application would be an important contribution to the transportation planning profession. References 0. White House, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, January 20, 2021. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive- order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal- government/ 1. Taylor, Brian D., 1991. "Unjust Equity: An Examination of California's Transportation Development Act," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7h13774d,

137 University of California Transportation Center. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt7h13774d.html 2. Griffin, G. P., and I. N. Sener, 2016. Public Transit Equity Analysis at Metropolitan and Local Scales: A Focus on Nine Large Cities in the US, J Public Trans; 19(4): 126–143. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476368/ 3. Litman, T., 2020. Evaluating transportation equity guidance for incorporating distributional impacts in transportation planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Victoria, BC, Canada. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf 4. Twaddell, H. and B, Zgoda, 2020. Equity Analysis in Regional Transportation Planning Processes, Volume 1: Guide. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 214. Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington D.C. Accessed August 8, 2020 from http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/180936.aspx 5. TRIP. 2020. Rural Connections: Challenges and Opportunities in America’s Heartland. May. Washington DC. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://tripnet.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/TRIP_Rural_Roads_Report_2020.pdf 6. Lewis, C.A., G. Goodwin, B. Rogers, L. Ndagire, and A. Gill. 2020. Application of Equity Rubric Showing Purpose and Need for Rural and Low Density Communities Near Megaregions: IH 10 East Corridor, Houston the Texas State Line. Cooperative Mobility for Competitive Megaregions, The University of Texas, Austin, TX. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://sites.utexas.edu/cm2/files/2020/09/LEWIS_TSU_Application-of-ETA-CVI-TSU-Year- 3.pdf 7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Achieving Rural Health Equity and Well-being: Proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press, 2018. 8. Orr, J., 2021. “Planning for a New Normal,” Presentation at the 100th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 26. 9. U.S. DOT. 2020. Equity, website. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/equity 10. Trent, S. 2018. A Blueprint for More Equitable Transportation Planning, New City, April 2. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/a-blueprint-for-more-equitable- transportation-planning 11. Minnesota DOT, 2019. Advancing Transportation Equity, Strategies for Reducing Transportation Disparities. St. Paul, MN. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/advancing-transportation- equity/pdf/Advancing_Equity_ResearchBrief_Final.pdf 12. Yujie G., Z. Chena, A. Stuart, X. Lia, and Y.Zhang. 2020. A Systematic Overview of Transportation Equity in Terms of Accessibility, Traffic Emissions, and Safety Outcomes: From conventional to Emerging Technologies. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Volume 4, March. Elsevier Press. Accessed February 4, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198220300026

138 13. Cohn, J., R. Ezike, J. Martin, K. Donkor, M. Ridgway, and M. Balding. 2019. Examining the Equity Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles: A Travel Demand Model Approach. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume: 2673 issue: 5, page(s): 23-35. May 1. 14. Milakis, D. and B. Wee. 2020. “Implications of vehicle automation for accessibility and social inclusion of people on low income, people with physical and sensory disabilities, and older people” in Demand for Emerging Transportation Systems Modeling Adoption, Satisfaction, and Mobility Patterns. Elsevier Press. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128150184000048 15. Bills, T.S., 2020. On Transportation Equity Implications of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV): A Review of Methodologies. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/162824/On%20Measuring%20the%20T ransportation%20Equity%20Implications%20of%20Connected%20and%20Autonomous%20Veh icles%20%28CAV%29%20A%20Review%20of%20Methodologies.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed =y 16. Guerra, E., 2015. Planning for Cars That Drive Themselves: Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Plans, and Autonomous Vehicles. November 2. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Volume: 36 issue: 2, page(s): 210-224. Accessed January 30, 2021 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X15613591 17. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2020a. Urban Partnership Agreement Low-Income Equity Concerns of U.S. Road Pricing Initiatives. Office of Operations, Washington DC. March 2. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionpricing/resources/lwincequityrpi/ 18. FHWA. 2020b. Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing. Office of Operations, Washington DC. May 30. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13033/ch3.htm 19. Taylor, B. 2010. How Fair is Road Pricing? Evaluating Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance. Prepared for the National Transportation Policy Project, Bipartisan Commission, Washington DC. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/BPC-Pricing-EquityFIN.pdf 20. Szeto, W. Y. and H.K. Lo. 2006. Transportation Network Improvement and Tolling Strategies: The Issue of Intergeneration Equity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume: 40A, Issue Number: 3, Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09658564 21. Oregon DOT. 2020. Toll Projects’ Equity Framework. Salem, OR. Dec. 3. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Documents/Toll_Projects_Equity_Framework_with_Appen dixA.pdf 22. McAndrews, C. and J. Marcus. 2015. The Politics of Collective Public Participation in Transportation Decision-Making. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 78, August 2015, Pages 537-550. Elsevier. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965856415001809

139 23. Mostafa, M.A. and N..M. El-Gohary. 2015. Semantic System for Stakeholder-Conscious Infrastructure Project Planning and Design, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 141 Issue 2, February 2015, American Society of Civil Engineers. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943- 7862.0000868 24. Parker, C.S. 2015. Equity and Urban Planning – Engage Those Most Directly Affected by Inequities. Interaction Institute for Social Change, Boston, MA. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://interactioninstitute.org/equity-and-urban-planning-engage-those-most-directly-affected- by-inequities/ 25. Hannah Twaddell and ICF Beth Zgoda. 2020. Equity Analysis in Regional Transportation Planning Processes, Volume 2: Research Overview, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Research Report 214, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. Accessed January 31, 2021 from https://www.nap.edu/download/25886#