1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
SYNTHESIS PAPER ON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
Prepared for the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program - Theme 4
Authors:
Paper Coordinator: Nick Flanders
Contributors: Nick Flanders, Jeff Yang, Rebecca Dodder, Gregg Furie, Rich Baldauf, Laura Bachle, Andrew
Bostrom, Laura Berry, Claudia Walters, Jane Bare, Tim Barzyk, Randy Bruins, Ellen Cooter, Francesca
DiCosmo, Tarsha Eason, Tom Fontaine, Laura Jackson, Nathan Schumaker, Jim Weaver
Task Lead: Rich Baldauf
-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY 6
2 INTRODUCTION 12
2.1 Purpose of this Document 12
2.2 Community Priorities 13
2.3 Decision Agents that May Use this Document 13
2.4 Structure of the Document 14
2.5 Research Methods 15
2.6 Limitations 15
3 U.S. TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND: HISTORY AND TRENDS 16
3.1 The Building of the Motorized Transportation System in the United States 16
3.2 The Movement of U.S. Urban Populations in the Era of Motorized Transportation 17
3.3 Present Conditions and Predicted Directions of US. Transportation and Land Use 19
3.4 Current Ideas that Break with the Past 19
4 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT 21
4.1 Integrated Tools, Resources, and Indicators 21
4.1.1 Limitations 25
4.1.2 Specific Models, Tools, and Other Resources from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 26
4.1.3 Non-EPA Models, Tools, and Other Resources 33
4.2 Drivers of Transportation Behavior 36
4.2.1 Correlations and Elasticities Regardingthe Built Environment and Travel Behavior 39
4.2.2 Parking 40
4.2.3 Neighborhood-Scale Travel versus Regional Travel 40
4.2.4 Transportation System Capacity as a Driver of Travel Behavior 42
4.2.5 Induced Demand 43
4.2.6 Peak Spreading 43
4.2.7 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes 44
4.2.8 Trip Aggregation 44
4.2.9 Crowding on Transit Vehicles 45
4.2.10 Economic, Social, and Psychological MotivationsforTravel Behavior 45
-------
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
3
4.2.11 Self-Selection 47
4.2.12 Traveler Characteristics 47
4.2.13 Travel to School 48
4.2.14 Travel by the Elderly 49
4.2.15 Transport at ion-Behavior Modeling Techniques 50
4.2.16 Data Availability for ModelingTravel Behavior 53
4.2.17 Specific Resources and Tools for Determining Travel Behavior Outcomes 53
4.3 Air Quality Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators 54
4.3.1 Specific Resources and Tools for Determining Air Quality Outcomes 58
4.4 Energy Use and Climate Change Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators 60
4.4.1 Transportation Demand 62
4.4.2 Travel Mode Choice and Public Transit 63
4.4.3 Fuel Economy and GHG Standards 64
4.4.4 Operational Considerations Affecting Energy Use and Emissions 65
4.4.5 Alternative and Renewable Fuels 66
4.4.6 Vehicle Electrification and Related Infrastructure 67
4.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Footprint 68
4.5 Water Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators 68
4.5.1 Runofffrom Impervious Surfaces 68
4.5.1.1 Mitigation Strategies 69
4.5.1.2 Assessingthe Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies 70
4.5.2 Groundwater Contamination from Leaked Fuel 71
4.5.3 Relationship between Transportation Infrastructure and Water Infrastructure 71
4.5.3.1 Water Planning and Adaptation Methods: ImplicationsforTransportation Choices....71
4.5.3.1.1 Current Practice 72
4.5.3.1.2 Urban Form Transformation: Scenario Planning 75
4.5.3.1.2.1 Urban Population and Land Use Projection 76
4.5.3.1.2.2 Water Planning and Engineering 77
4.5.3.1.3 Urban Form Transformation: Smart Growth and WaterSystems Optimization 77
4.5.3.2 Known Effects of Transportation Decisions on Water Infrastructure Outcomes 78
4.5.3.2.1 City Development Examples 79
4.5.3.2.1.1 Rapid Urban Sprawl 79
-------
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
4
4.5.3.2.1.2 Leap-Frog Development and Small/Community Water Systems 80
4.5.3.2.1.3 High-density Urban Centers 81
4.5.3.2.2 Smart Growth 82
4.5.4 Transportation Fuel Choice and Impacts on Water Resources 83
4.6 Fluman Well-Being Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators 84
4.6.1 Physical Flealth Outcomes 84
4.6.1.1 Direct Impacts 84
4.6.1.1.1 Air Pollution 84
4.6.1.1.2 Noise 85
4.6.1.1.3 Injuries 86
4.6.1.2 Indirect Impacts 87
4.6.1.2.1 Flealth Behaviors 87
4.6.1.2.2 Social Determinants of Flealth 88
4.6.1.2.3 Air Pollution and Climate Change 89
4.6.1.3 Tools 90
4.6.2 Social Interaction Outcomes 93
4.6.3 Equity Outcomes 94
4.7 Economic Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators 96
4.7.1 Accessibility 100
4.7.2 Announcement Effect 100
4.7.3 Non-Accessibility Benefits from Transportation Projects 101
4.7.4 Agglomeration Effects 101
4.7.5 Regional Adjustment Model 102
4.7.6 Models of Transportation-Infrastructure Land Use and Other Land Uses 102
4.7.7 Market Imperfections 103
4.7.8 Import Substitution 103
4.7.9 Cost-Effective Use of Government Budgets 104
4.7.10 Equity in Transportation Funding Mechanisms 105
4.7.11 Economic Analysis Software for Transportation Planning 106
5 EXAMPLE APPLICATION OF SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS: COMPLETE
STREETS 106
6 IMPORTANT INFORMATION GAPS 109
-------
5
109
-------
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
6
1 SUMMARY
This document synthesizes current effects information, assessment tools and resources, best practices,
and research needs related to sustainable transportation development and implementation and
describes a wide variety of causal relationships and feedback effects of significance to transportation
issues. This document does not reflect an exhaustive literature review, but instead highlights relevant
work that will aid the EPA in its efforts to identify sustainable-transportation research. This especially
applies to research meant to produce information, tools, and resources that will be of useto decision-
makers in individual communities as they address a range of common issues, including those that were
identified in the public-outreach portion of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
(SHCRP). Almost anyone with a stake in their community's future (including government agencies,
developers, residents, businesses, and nonprofit organizations) may derive some use from the tools,
resources, and other knowledge presented in this document. A critical use of this kind of scientifically-
validated information is to overcomethe assumptions and inertia that can perpetuate old patterns and
problems. The relationships identified in this synthesis paper also support the development of the Total
Resources, Impacts, and Outcomes (TRIO) framework, a sustainability assessment toolkit being
developed by the EPA to help communities make more sustainable decisions through illuminating the
comprehensive implications of decision options. The aspects of sustainable transportation discussed
here reflect those research areas that are pertinent to the mission of EPA (widely held in common with
other federal, state, and local agencies) and/or reflect the latest research, based on the knowledge of
the authors, spanning the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability.
Briefly, this paper provides background on the history of surface transportation in the United States, as
well as current trends in transportation. This discussion of transportation trends is provided to convey
the issues created by those patterns. Over the course of the twentieth century, the desire for greater
speed and independence of travel led first to the popularization of motorized publictransit systems and
then to a transition to driving private automobiles on paved roadways. This lattertransition was aided
greatly by federal programs to fund the construction of an efficient highway system. Initially, the roads
funded under these programs were primarily designed with the goal of minimizingtraffic congestion.
Overtime, however, policies have been implemented to maketransportation projects be part of
comprehensive planning processes, allow more fundingto goto alternative modes of transportation,
require greater stakeholder involvement in transportation planning, and necessitate the consideration
of environmental and other sustainability issues in the project approval process. Regardless, automobile
travel and highway building have been major contributors to the growth and decentralization of urban
areas. The current state of automobile dependence and decentralized cities has produced a number of
sustainability issues, including the heavy use of fossil fuels, a shortage of alternative transportation
options, and a reduction in the efficiency with which municipal services can be provided. In response,
various ideas have been gaining ground in recent years of ways to use transportation and land use
policies to eitherslow or reversethesetrends.
Next, the paper goes over various strategies and categories of tools that may be used to assess
community sustainability, including in the realm of transportation. This includes a discussion of how to
-------
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
7
create hierarchies of broad goals, specific objectives, and quantifiable performance measures and
indicators against which to judge future plans and current conditions, as well as explanations of
different types of modeling and visioning methodologies and their pros and cons. Of particular interest
are those methods and tools that employ systems thinking, wherein phenomena are not viewed in
isolation from one another. It is worth noting that tools and methods for assessing the broad subject of
sustainability carry significant limitations, including the inherent subjectivity involved in deciding which
measures of sustainability to consider and how to weight them relative to one another, as well as the
frequent infeasibility of acquiring important pieces of data. After covering these limitations, the paper
provides a list of specific models, tools, and other sustainability-related resources, both particular and
not particular to transportation issues and created both by the U.S. EPA and by other organizations.
Throughout the remaining sections of the paper, additional tools and resources are listed that have
narrower focuses related to the particular aspects of transportation sustainability that those sections
are about.
The next section synthesizes what is currently known about thefactors that influencetravelers' choices
regarding transportation modes, trip frequencies, trip lengths, and trip purposes, which are among the
most important questions in ascertaining the sustainability-related implications of a transportation
policy or investment. First, a discussion is provided of the interdependent ways in which various aspects
of the built environment (including density, diversity of land uses, design, distance to public transit, and
destination accessibility) affect travel behavior, followed by a list of correlations between these things
that past studies have quantified. Other factors that influence travel behavior include the supply and
price of parking and the distinction between neighborhood-scaletravel and regional travel. In most
metropolitan areas, private automobiles (and sometimes public transit vehicles) arethe favored travel
mode for long trips, whereas the best opportunities to encourage nonmotorized travel, by a variety of
tactics and for a variety of trip purposes, will generally be in the realm of short trips. Another important
driver of transportation behavior is the capacity of the transportation system, changes to which may
carry various unintended consequences, including the phenomenon of "induced demand," wherein
reduced traffic congestion motivates people to increase the amount they drive until congestion levels
return to what they once were. Various strategies exist for reducing traffic congestion without
increasing roadway capacity, some of which include incentivizing people to travel during off-peak
periods of the day, establishing High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, and "trip aggregation," wherein
various ridesharing and demand-responsive transit services are used to increase the number of
passengers per vehicle. Meanwhile, just as traffic congestion is often an issue on roadways, crowding is
sometimes a problem on public transit vehicles and might affect travel behavior. When contemplating
policy levers that affect travel behavior, it is necessary to also considerthe numerous economic, social,
and psychological motivations that are involved. In this regard, the phenomenon of residential self-
selection is particularly noteworthy, wherein people choose to move to neighborhoods that are
conduciveto what was already theirfavored mode of transportation, as opposed to just using whichever
modes are viable in their original neighborhood. At the same time, people's travel behavior is greatly
affected by their socioeconomic status, what type of job they have, whether or not they possess an
automobile, and various other personal characteristics. As part of this discussion, the paper calls out the
issues of what determines how students travel to school and what travel behavior is engaged in by
-------
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
8
elderly people. Finally, the section on travel behavior describes the pros and cons of several different
strategies for modelingtravel, addressesthe issueof data limitations in modeling, and lists some specific
modelingtools and resources for predicting and assessing travel behavior outcomes.
The following section addresses the subject of how transportation affects air quality. Transportation
sources significantly contribute to global, regional, and local air quality impacts. This includes a
demonstrated link between adverse human health effects and exposures to air pollutants from traffic
emissions near large roadways and othertransportation sources. One of the implications of this link is
that even though compact urban forms may reduce motorized transportation and hence reduce overall
air pollutant emissions, they may also bring people into closer contact with those emissions. Although
pollutant concentrations are usually greatest nearthe source, many factors determine how they are
dispersed, making it difficult to recommend "safe" distances from a majortransportation facility at
which to establish particular land uses and creating an area of significant research needs. Overtime,
technology and regulation have had varying levels of success at reducing emissions of various
components of transportation-related air pollution. The section concludes with a list of models, tools,
resources, and guidance documents created by the EPA to help decision-makers measure and control air
pollution from transportation sources.
The section on air pollution from transportation is followed by a section on the related topics of
transportation energy use and climate change impacts, with transportation being a major contributor to
society-wide energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The primary ways in which
transportation energy use and climate change impacts may be reduced include reducing transportation
demand, shifting the balance between transportation modes, improving the efficiency of the overall
transportation system (such as by lower traffic congestion levels), and adopting new vehicle and fuel
technologies. One of the critical indicators of transportation demand and energy consumption is
vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per capita, which may be affected through a variety of mechanisms
discussed in the earlier section of the paper on drivers of transportation behavior. Although shifting
from the use of single-passenger vehicles to public transit generally reduces transportation energy use
and GHG emissions, the size of those reductions is largely dependent upon the number of riders per
transit vehicle in service and the fuel efficiency of the transit vehicles themselves. A critical tool in
reducing energy use and GHG emissions is the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards, wherein fuel efficiency rates are set that the light-duty vehicle fleet must achieve by
particular model years. However, there is a significant knowledge gap in the area of how state and local
governments may motivate the adoption of new vehicle and fuel technologies. Beyond technological
changes, vehicle fuel efficiency may also be improved by encouraging more consistent driving speeds
and less vehicle idling, both by influencing how drivers choose to operate their vehicles and by adjusting
thetraffic management measures employed on the roadway system. Depending on the fuel in
question, alternative vehicle fuels may prove to be less emitting and more renewable than conventional
vehicle fuels. However, the existence of these benefits is dependent upon many factors, including the
lifecycle energy use and emissions stemming from the various stages of fuel and vehicle production, use,
and disposal. If a local community decides that a particular fuel is preferable to those which currently
predominate, they may take measures to increase provision of the infrastructure to distribute that fuel
-------
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
9
(fueling stations, etc.) or simply decide that the government vehicle fleet will transition to that fuel.
However, perhaps a more critical emerging trend is the growth in vehicle electrification, which couples
the transportation sector to the local electric grid. Vehicle electrification suggests a number of emerging
questions related to interactions between the built environment, private vehicle fleets, and the energy
system, includingthe question of what the relative impacts are of direct vehicle emissions and power-
plant emissions that result from generating electricity for plug-in vehicles. Regardless of the particular
energy-use and GHG reduction strategies, if any, that a community employs, they may benefit from the
use of such tools as greenhouse gas footprint analysis and emissions calculators, which estimate the
GHG footprint of an entire system (or community), transportation service, orfacility.
The next topic discussed in this paper is that of water issues related to transportation. The first aspect
of this topic to be addressed is stormwater runoff from transportation facilities, which constitute the
majority of overall impervious surface area. Such runoff has a significant, negative effect on watershed
health and transports various waterborne pollutants, including those from transportation sources.
Design-based strategies for mitigating stormwater runoff may include establishing a basin at a low point
in a catchment area to hold rainwater until it infiltrates into the ground, evaporates, or is harnessed by
humans, as well as creating or preserving pervious areas along the path that water follows from upland
areas to lowland areas, whether in the form of vegetated areas or pervious pavement. Both commercial
and government modeling tools are available for assessing stormwater runoff impacts, using more
complex inputs than a mere calculation of the percent of an area that is impervious. Meanwhile,
another current topic of modeling is the behavior of fuel that leaks from storage facilities and vehicles
into the groundwater and soil gas.
Another major aspect of the topic of transportation-related water issues addressed in this paper is that
of the relationship between transportation infrastructure and drinking-water and wastewater
infrastructure. A brief overview is provided of the planning processes that are generally used for water
infrastructure systems, whose forms, once established, are difficult to change, and whose pipes
generally run in parallel to transportation corridors. Currently, many US. urban areas are transitioning
from monocentric forms to poly centric forms as their areas expand, aided in large part by changes to
the transportation system that were discussed in earlier sections, a phenomenon to which water
systems have been slow to adjust. As a result, the efficiency and effectiveness of those water systems
are reduced. The planning of water systems may be improved through the use of various scenario-
planning tools, methods of projecting future populations and land use patterns, and other planning and
engineeringtools and models. Benefits could also be derived from more closely integrating water-
system planning with other planning practices, including efforts to achieve multiple urban planning goals
by promoting compact and infill development through an adaptive process. In addition to the issues
that are faced by the primary water systems of metropolitan areas, rapid urban expansion and "leap-
frog" development along transportation corridors also often place a strain on the small-scale water
systems that serve exurban communities. Meanwhile, densely-developed urban centers are often
reliant upon very old water systems (sometimes including combined sanitary and stormwater sewers)
that have become less effective with age but would be very difficult to upgrade in such an environment.
-------
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
10
The last aspect of the water-issues topic to be addressed in this paper is that of water usage and
wastewater generation in the production of transportation fuels. In this regard, particular attention is
given to the matter of biomass-based fuels.
After the section on water issues comes a section on human well-being issues related to transportation,
most especially physical health outcomes. The health-effects discussion begins by covering direct health
impacts from the transportation sector, including those from air pollution, noise pollution, and traffic
injuries. Regarding transportation air pollution, discussions are provided both of the relative impacts on
different populations and of the significance of transportation-related sources of air pollution otherthan
vehicle tailpipe emissions. Meanwhile, vehicle-traffic-related noise has been found to be a distinct
source of adverse health outcomes, even when controlling for air pollution. As for injuries and deaths
from traffic accidents, which are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United
States, a discussion is provided of the relative amounts of risk associated with motorized and
nonmotorized personal transportation. After covering direct health impacts from thetransportation
sector, the paperturns its attention to indirect impacts. The first indirect impact to be discussed is the
potential to realize the health benefits of increased physical activity by encouraging nonmotorized
transportation. Next, the paper describes how people's physical health may be indirectly affected when
the nature of the transportation system reduces their access to housing, jobs, opportunities for social
interaction, and important services (including healthcare), both by making it physically difficult to reach
the locations of thosethings and by transportation expenses reducingthe amount of money available
for other uses in household budgets. The last indirect causal relationship between thetransportation
sector and health impacts to be discussed is that of transportation activities contributing to global
climate change, and hence to the health impacts that climate change produces. Finally, several analysis
and assessment tools are described that may be useful for determining physical health impacts from
transportation, includingtools produced by the EPA.
In addition to physical health outcomes, the section on human well-being also discusses impacts of the
transportation system on social interaction and equity issues. Transportation corridors (and the traffic,
noise, and air pollution associated with them) often represent a physical and/or psychological barrierto
perpendicular movement, potentially reducing people's use of public spaces. At the same time, reliance
on single-occupant motor vehicles removes opportunities that people would otherwise have to interact
with one another while traveling by other modes, affecting psychological outcomes. On the subject of
equity, meanwhile, in addition to there being various equity issues associated with the externalities of
transportation policies and decisions (as discussed in other sections), it is also necessary to consider
whether or not there is equity in the distribution of destination accessibility among the members of a
population and in how much money they must pay fortransportation. Several broad ways of thinking
about this type of equity are discussed here.
The last category of transportation-sector impacts to be discussed in this paper is economic outcomes.
This discussion starts by describing several basic questions and concepts that ought to be considered
when assessing the economic impacts of a transportation project or policy, as well as a series of best
practices for modeling direct and indirect costs and benefits. One of the most fundamental ways in
-------
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
11
which transportation projects and policies affect economic outcomes is through changes in accessibility,
which may be manifested in a variety of different ways, both within a single mode of transportation and
across modes and in terms of both travel times and monetary travel costs. Among other impacts,
changes in accessibility tend to affect local real estate prices, often starting in the period after a
transportation project has been announced but before it has actually opened. However, the economic
benefits associated with a transportation project are not always limited to improved accessibility.
Often, such projects will be implemented in tandem with other local improvements, investments, and
policy changes, as well as draw the attention of private-sector actors to the area. As businesses become
agglomerated around a transportation project or some other focal point, complementary businesses
may locate near one another to save on transportation costs and similar businesses may come to be in
greater competition with one another, potentially lowering prices but also potentially causing products
to be more differentiated. After describing these phenomena, the paper describes the idea of a regional
adjustment model, which attempts to perform thetask (highly relevant to economic analyses, including
those related to transportation) of simultaneously accounting both for the possibility of jobs attracting
peopleto an area and forthe possibility of people attracting jobs to an area. Then, the paper
summarizes a few different models that describe, in simplified terms, the relationship between traffic
volumes, real estate values, and the amount of land dedicated to transportation infrastructure in an
urban area. After that, an overview is provided of market imperfections, wherein the price of something
is unequal to eitherthe cost of supplying it orthe value of using it, typically as a result of either
government actions or private-sector monopolies and oligopolies. Transportation projects may, by
different mechanisms, either create or mitigate market imperfections. Another important concept is
that of import substitution, wherein a specific geographic area experiences economic benefits from
purchasing goods and services (including those related to transportation) from local sources. Regardless
of what benefits (economic or otherwise) a transportation project or policy is meant to achieve or how
those benefits are achieved, part of the assessment must always be how cost-effectively the project or
policy meets its objectives. This includes considering tradeoffs between different types of costs, taking
advantage of economies of scale, and comparing a variety of different traffic engineering options. In
addition, thefunding mechanisms for transportation systems prompt a variety of equity considerations.
Such mechanisms as fuel taxes, vehicle registration taxes, vehicle sales taxes, general sales taxes, and
tolls and fares may be compared both in terms of how proportional a person's monetary contribution is
to their use of the transportation system and in terms of how regressive the relationship is between that
monetary contribution and the income of the one who must pay it. The economics section of the paper
concludes by briefly listing sometools for analyzing economic impacts from transportation project
alternatives.
Following the main body of this document is a section that assesses the susta inability of transportation
policies and practices related to "Complete Streets" design principles (wherein transportation corridors
are designed to accommodate multiple modes of transportation) and compares them with more typical
urban designs, oriented around personal vehicle use. This comparison highlights many of the
sustainability principles presented in this paper, as well as the assessment tools described. This
comparison also demonstrates the consideration of transportation and other land-use decisions through
-------
361
[362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
12
a systems approach to account forthe multiple benefits, and potential costs, of transportation-related
decisions, includingthe indication of tradeoffs, co-benefits, and mitigating factors.
The final section of this document is a compilation of important information gaps described by cited
researchers and highlighted throughout the paper. It is organized to highlight issues raised in the
previous discussions ratherthan to consolidate and integrate the research needs.
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of this Document
This document synthesizes current (as of June 2013) effects information, assessment tools and
resources, best practices, and research needs related to sustainable transportation development and
implementation and describes a wide variety of causal relationships and feedback effects of significance
to transportation issues. This document does not reflect an exhaustive literature review, but instead
highlights relevant work that will aid the EPA in its efforts to identify sustainable-transportation
research. The vision statement developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Research and Development (ORD) forthe Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
(SHCRP) reads:
"The Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHC) will inform and empower decision-
makers in communities, as well as in federal, state, and tribal programs, to effectively and equitably
weigh and integrate human health, socioeconomic, environmental, and ecological factors into their
decisions in a way that fosters community sustainability."
When state and federal government agencies set policies meant to promote sustainable development
and sustainable transportation systems, local communities and their individual members often
implement and adhere to these policies, both in law and in spirit. However, if these communities and
community members are not cognizant of the externalities of their decisions in one sector (such as
transportation), they may incur unintended negative consequences in other sectors or fail to take
advantage of potential cobenefits. TheSHCRP prepared this document to provide a summary of existing
tools, resources, and indicators that may be used to create and implement sustainability plans, with
special attention given to those tools, resources, and indicators that relate to sustainable transportation
and are rooted in a systems perspective of interrelated variables. Ideally, communities will be able to
use these tools, resources, and indicators to assess their current local conditions, forecast the likely
future consequences of various different policy alternatives, and monitor whether existing
transportation and/or sustainability policies are meeting their objectives. Many of the tools and
resources presented here will allow communities to better identify practical, effective, and equitable
ways to meet both present and future needs of the natural environment, the economy, and human
society, both within their own local context and within the context of the country and world at large.
This document also identifies new tools being developed and research needed to further advance
sustainable transportation development. Eventually, local communities will also be able to take
-------
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
13
advantage of a new toolkit being developed under the SHCRP and to which this paper contributes, called
the Total Resources, Impacts, and Outcomes (TRIO) framework. This dynamic framework for analyzing
sustainability impacts will be based upon many different causal relationships and feedback loops that
are established as existing between various measures of a community's past, present, and future
situations. This document attempts to highlight many of these causal relationships and feedback loops
related to transportation. Also identified in this document are correlations that may be indicative of
causal relationships, as well as theoretical relationships that appear indicative, but have not yet been
researched enough to be either proven or disproven. The primary goal of this document is to help
researchers and practitioners identify existing resources to implement sustainable transportation
planning. The document also identifies knowledge gaps, and the research needed to fill those gaps, in
order to enhance and improve the planning process and advance the ultimate goal of holistically
informed transportation network designs.
2.2 Community Priorities
The EPA recognizes that communities want to become more sustainable and are moving in this
direction. Given the SHCRP goal of supporting decision-making at all levels of government that affects
community sustainability, it is important to know wherethose decision-making-support efforts should
be focused. As such, the SHCRP conducted a variety of outreach activities in 2011 to gain insight into
how information can better support effective decision-making for sustainable outcomes. Despite
differences in format and audience, common themes emerged. The most useful information for
decision-making is that which regards the holistic implications of decisions - positive and negative,
short- and long-term, and for allthree dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social, and
economic) - especially those common decisions made at a community sea let hat have significant
potential impacts, includingthosethat concern transportation, land use, buildings and infrastructure,
and waste and materials management. Also deemed to be of high priority were issues regarding
metrics, indicators, and indices, especially issues about howto characterize "sustainability" and
understand decision-making itself.
Identifying these issues and priorities helped inform the design of the SHCRP. As a result, this document
is one of four decision-sector knowledge-synthesis documents informing subsequent SHCRP efforts, on
thetopics of transportation, land use, buildings and infrastructure, and waste and materials
management.
2.3 Decision Agents that May Use this Document
Substantial stakeholder involvement is an important element of nearly any community planning. Almost
anyone with a stake in their community's future may derive some use from the tools, resources, and
other knowledge presented in this document. A critical use of this kind of scientifically-validated
information is to overcome the assumptions and inertia that can perpetuate old patterns and problems.
In addition to local, tribal, state, and federal government agencies, decision agents and stakeholders in
transportation planning include private land developers, the end-users of the transportation system,
and various external stakeholders, such as nonprofit organizations or other residents and businesses
located nearthetransportation system. Transportation sustainability issues that tend to be important
-------
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
14
for local government agencies include assuring a high quality of life for their constituents, achieving
social justice, and ensuring that their plans for the future are financially feasible. Meanwhile, private
developers are understandably concerned foremost with the economic implications of transportation
projects and susta inability policies. As for the end-users of the transportation system, personal interests
and conveniences tend to take priority, such as the affordability of housing and commercial real estate,
high-quality and timely access to destinations and services, and ensuring that the transportation system
helps produce natural and built environments that are comfortable and healthy to live in. Many
stakeholders, who may nonetheless be very directly affected in other ways by a given proposal under
consideration, tend to be the most motivated when they perceive the possibility of exposure to some
significant risk or danger. At times, various interests may come into conflict with one another, creating
the necessity to agree on what specific issues are at stake and howthey should be prioritized
(Wallbaum, Krank, and Teloh 2011). It is in this identification and refinement of issues and prioritization
of objectives that the tools, resources, and other information in this document may be especially useful.
2.4 Structure of the Document
This document presents key issues for consideration in sustainable transportation planning and
development, especially at the level of community-scale decision-making.
First, background is provided on the history of surfacetransportation in the United States, as well as
current trends in transportation. This discussion of transportation trends is provided to convey the
issues created by those patterns.
The main body of the document discusses various tools, resources, and known causal relationships and
correlations that may help communities evaluate the sustainability of their current transportation
systems and predict what they can do in order to optimize the system's sustainability in the future. The
relationships identified in this synthesis paper support the development of the Total Resources, Impacts,
and Outcomes (TRIO) framework, a sustainability assessment toolkit being developed by the EPA to help
communities make more sustainable decisions through illuminating the comprehensive implications of
decision options. In addition to identifying known tools, resources, indicators, and relationships, this
paper also identifies issues related to sustainabletransportation that represent important knowledge
gaps and ought to be studied more in the future. The following are the major topics addressed in the
main body of the paper:
• A compilation of existing tools, resources, and methods for integrating the various aspects of
sustainable transportation into a single analysis, as opposed to addressing each sustainability
goal separately. This includes a discussion of inherent obstacles to such integrated sustainability
analyses.
• A discussion of factors that determine how people will use the transportation system and of
ways in which thosefactors might be analyzed. Whatever decisions a community makes about
the future of its transportation system, a large proportion of the sustainability outcomes of
those decisions will depend upon the ways in which they do or do not motivate individual
travelers to change their travel behavior.
-------
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
15
• Transportation impacts on air quality.
• Transportation impacts on energy use and climate change.
• Transportation impacts on water quality and quantity, including waterthat serves human needs
and waterthat serves other ecological functions.
• Transportation impacts on human health and well-being. This includes both physical well-being
and psychological and social well-being.
• Transportation impacts on economic prosperity, equity, and sustainability, including impacts on
government budgets.
Near the end of this synthesis, various sustainability components discussed throughout the paper are
considered in the context of the specific issue of "Complete Streets" design practices, with frequent
reference to the specific assessment tools identified throughout the paper. "Complete Streets" was
chosen asthefocus of this illustrative discussion because it is a transportation topic with astrong
connection to a wide variety of community-sustainability issues and a growing number of cities are
adopting "CompleteStreets" policies.
2.5 Research Methods
After a general outline was created of the topics deemed most pertinent to this synthesis paper, the
paper was created by compiling sections written by various subject-matter experts within the EPA. Each
author was provided with the same set of general guidelines regarding what types of information to look
for on their particular research topic, so that all sections would address the same basic themes.
The authors of this synthesis paper gave particular attention to two tasks. The first task was identifying
known cause-and-effect relationships between communities' transportation-related decisions and
sustainability outcomes, as well as possible cause-and-effect relationships that warrant additional
research. The second task was to identify sustainability tools and resources that might be used by
communities or other relevant decision-makers to assess positive and negative outcomes from various
transportation-related decisions they are considering.
2.6 Limitations
Due to limitations of time and personnel, this is not an exhaustive review of the available literature
related to sustainable transportation. However, this document provides a good overview of current
knowledge on the topic, as well as resources and best practices for implementing TRIO and research
needed to furtherthe SHCRP.
Because this research synthesis does not represent an exhaustive review of the literature or resources
publicly available, not all aspects of the relationship between transportation and sustainability are
addressed. However, the synthesis focuses, where possible, on relevant variables that are within the
capacity of community decision-makers to affect. In addition, this synthesis includes only a handful of
the many tools and resources that could be useful for measuring and/or advancing sustainable
transportation. The aspects of sustainable transportation that are included in this synthesis paper
-------
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
16
reflect those research areas that are pertinent to the mission of EPA (widely held in common with other
federal, state, and local agencies) and/or reflect the latest research, based on the knowledge of the
authors.
3 U.S. TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND: HISTORY AND TRENDS
In orderto understand how United States communities' transportation systems can be made more
sustainable, it is important to have a clear idea of how those systems have developed and changed over
the years. The factors that caused them to change, and how those changes in the transportation sector
have affected other characteristics of this country's communities is also important. In addition,
understanding what present-day trends are molding the future of American transportation, American
society, and their measures of sustainability helps determine whether individual communities want to
encourage or discourage these trends.
3.1 The Building of the Motorized Transportation System in the United States
Motorized passengertransportation in the United States began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as a
series of transitions were made from horse-drawn railcars to steam-engine trans it to cable cars to
electric streetcars to heavy-rail subway lines to bus transit to travel by personal automobile on paved,
all-weather roads, with each of these transitions being motivated by the desire for greater speed and
independence (Sinha 2003). Of all the public transit modes that predated the popularization of private
automobiles, electric streetcars were one of the most influential. In the year 1920, there were 40,000
miles of electric rail lines in the United States and the mean number of trans it trips per person peryear
was 250, which is approximately eight times contemporary transit usage (Sinha 2003). Even before the
affordability of personal automobiles vastly accelerated the process, electric rail transit was helping to
bring about the rapid expansion and decentralization of urban areas in the United States (Levinson 2004,
Sinha 2003).
The rise of private automobiles as the dominant mode of U.S. transportation was facilitated not just by
the production of motor vehicles that the majority of working adults could afford, but also by the
creation of a highly sophisticated system of highways. Thefirst thirty years of the 20th century saw a
series of uncoordinated intercity roads give way to a national system of paved and numbered roadways
that were equipped with uniform signage. Some major milestones in this process werethe Federal-Aid
Road Act of 1916, which established 50-50 federal-state cost sharing for highway construction, and the
Federal-Aid Road Act of 1921, which defined primary roadways, secondary roadways, and urban road
systems that were eligibleforgovernment aid. Duringthe 1930s, limited-access highways started being
built within individual metropolitan areas, leading to the 1940 opening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the
first intercity limited-access highway in the country. In 1944, the federal government defined the
National System of Interstate and Defense Flighways, the financing of which was established as a 90-10
federal-state split by the Federal-Aid Act of 1956. These federal actions resulted in the modern
interstate highway system, which in turn served as inspiration forthe construction of many more
highways in the post-World War II era (Levinson 2004).
-------
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
17
During the postwar highway-building era, transportation engineers concerned themselves primarily with
reducing traffic congestion and maintaining design standards, as opposed to mitigating impacts for the
various dimensions of what is now called sustainability (Levinson 2004, Mercier 2009). However, in
1962, the federal government began requiring that urban areas have ongoing comprehensive and
cooperative transportation planning processes in orderto prevent conflicts between past, present, and
future transportation projects and between transportation projects and other features of the urban
environment. Then, in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) started requiring that
assessments be made of the impacts of proposed infrastructure projects on the environment and how
those impacts could be mitigated. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed, which set transportation
emissions targets and ambient air quality standards. As of 1973, federal highway money can be spent
on public transit improvements. More significant changes tothethinking behind transportation policy
would come in the 1990s, when additional federal funding would be provided for improving air quality,
mitigating traffic congestion, and improving transportation options for pedestrians and cyclists (Levinson
2004). Also, the importance that federal law places on involving the general public in transportation
planning decisions was enhanced by both NEPA (1969) and the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Lemp et al. 2008). One caveat to all of these laws and policy changes from the
last half century, though, is that as state and federal requirements regarding howtransportation
projects are planned, designed, and constructed have gotten more complex, the time and money
needed to complete any given project have noticeably increased (Levinson 2004).
3.2 The Movement of US. Urban Populations in the Era of Motorized Transportation
In the early 1900s, many urban theorists saw decentralization as an effective means of addressing a
variety of social and health problems that urban areas of that time were experiencing. The
decentralization that thesetheorists advocated has now come into being, thanks in no small part to the
modern transportation system, and is now faulted by many for helping to create numerous present-day
sustainability issues, such as urban sprawl and reliance on personal motor vehicles (Tomalty 2009). Both
the populations and the spatial extents of metropolitan areas have grown especially rapidly since the
end of World War II, correlating with the expansion of the freeway transportation system in the United
States, as well as increases in average wealth and government programs expandingthe population able
to afford a single-family home (Chi and Stone 2005, Sinha 2003, Kim 2007). At the same time, sprawl
development that takes place beyond the urban fringe is also partially the result of people seeking out
attractive natural scenery and cheaper land prices (Carruthers and Vias 2005). Still, highway
interchanges have emerged as significant attractors of economic development (Levinson 2004),
contributing to declines in the percentage of a metropolitan area's population that still has ties to the
central city (Sinha 2003). Manufacturing jobs have largely moved out of cities' central business districts,
which are now mostly dominated by service-sector industries (Chang 2007).
One way of measuring the simultaneous growth and decentralization of urban populations is the density
gradient, comparing population density with distance from the central business district (Figure 1). Over
the last 120 years, the slope of the density gradient of U.S. metropolitan areas has consistently become
less and less pronounced, indicating less and less difference between the population density of the city
center and each successive ring of suburbs (Kim 2007). Meanwhile, there exists evidence that average
-------
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
18
urban population densities actually increased slightly during the first half of the 1900s, before falling
rapidly duringthe second half of the century. In 1940, the average population density of U.S.
metropolitan areas was 347 people per square mile, which grewto 589 people per square mile by 1960
andthen dropped to 288 people per square mile by 1990. Priorto 1960, metropolitan populations were
both growing and moving out from the central cities, but increases in metropolitan land area did not
always keep up with these changes. After 1960, the addition of new land to metropolitan areas greatly
outpaced population increases (Kim 2007). In 1970, the US. census confirmed that forthe first time in
history, a majority of the population of US. metropolitan areas was actually living outside of those
metropolitan areas' central cities, a far cry from the pre-World War II model of dense concentric rings of
development around an urban core (Sinha 2003). Throughout all of these changes in population
patterns that have accompanied the era of motorized transportation in the United States, not only have
existing cities become less concentrated, but many new major cities have come into being that, because
of the time in history when their basic structures were established, adopted far less dense development
patterns than what most of the older cities have come to possess (Kim 2007). Finally, the trends that
have been described here forthe United States as a whole generally also hold true for each of the
various regions within the country (Kim 2007). More information on trends in U.S. land use may be
found in the concurrent SHCRP Theme 4 synthesis paper on land use.
Distance from Central Business District
Figure 1: Urban density gradient.
-------
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
19
3.3 Present Conditions and Predicted Directions of US. Transportation and Land Use
As of 2004, there were approximately one million miles of roadways in the United States (Levinson
2004), on which personal vehicles traveled a combined total of 2.245 trillion miles in 2009 (Santos et al.
2011). About a fourth of U.S. motor vehicle travel takes place on the interstate highway system, even
though that system only represents about 2% of U.S. roads overall, and highways in general (as opposed
to just interstate highways) account for 80% of passenger miles traveled between U.S. cities and 90% of
passenger miles traveled within cities. Meanwhile, trucks (as opposed to trains, planes, ships, etc.) carry
a third of all interstate freight and highway transportation represents 16% of the Gross National Product
(Levinson 2004).
As this highway-heavy transportation system was coming into being over a period of decades, the
problem of traffic congestion first showed up in central cities, but then began moving out intothe
suburbs along with the many people and businesses that moved in the same direction (Levinson 2004).
For a long time, the response of transportation engineers to this traffic congestion was to build more
lane-miles of roads to accommodatethe apparent increase in demand. However, this approach has
changed in recent years (Mercier 2009). Transportation planners in the United States have now largely
made the transition from building new highways to primarily managing the ones that exist (Levinson
2004). However, travel by personal automobile is still a convenient enough mode of transportation in
most U.S. cities that public transit is largely regarded as something that is only used by people for whom
driving a car is not a viable option (Sinha 2003). At the same time, the historically low average densities
of U.S. urban areas have both made it more expensive than it used to be to provide basic infrastructure
to a given number of users and increased the number of miles that transit vehicles must travel in order
to accommodate the same number of customers - to the point where no transit system in the country
can operate without large government subsidies (Sinha 2003). Further deepening the disparity between
private and public transportation, the consequences of peak-hour automobile travel on US. highways
are generally not reflected in the price of taking part in it (price of fuel, tolls, etc.) (Levinson 2004).
Based on these and othertrends, a number of projections can be made regarding surface transportation
and land use in the United States. First of all, social and economic problems are likely to arise from the
combination of great travel distances caused by a low-density development pattern and high fuel prices
caused by dwindling fossil fuel reserves (Mercier 2009). Second, if present trends continue, the demand
for roads will continue to grow faster than the population. However, as the percentage of Americans
who own automobiles reaches saturation level and stops increasing, the rate of growth in the demand
for roads is likely to be mitigated (Levinson 2004). Projections suggest that most U.S. population growth
will continue to be located in urban areas, which will continue to become more dispersed and develop
multiple centers of activity, even though their original central cities will continue to play an important
role (Levinson 2004). Most policies and plans intended to affect urban land use and transportation
systems in the United States will continue to face the challenge of metropolitan areas being divided into
a very large number of largely uncoordinated municipal governments (Levinson 2004, Sinha 2003).
3.4 Current Ideas that Break with the Past
-------
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
|690
691
|692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
20
One particular idea that has gained traction in recent years is that of promoting sustainability through
the creation of an urban environment where all modes of transportation can compete on even terms, as
opposed to automobile travel being underpriced while other means of travel are not feasible across
wide areas (Sinha 2003).
Another contemporary idea is that of changing the land use patterns in a given area for the express
purpose of changing how people choose to use the transportation system. Many of the strategies
spawned by this idea, including policies that promote denser development and less separation of land
uses, are included under the umbrella term of "smart growth," especially when implemented at a city-
wide or regional scale; more on the topic of smart growth may be found in the concurrent SHCRP
synthesis paper on sustainable land use practices. Meanwhile, some people advancethe ideas of
neotraditional development, wherein urban forms are created that resemblethose which existed prior
to when automobiles became the dominant transportation mode, while others advancethe idea of
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), wherein compact, easily-walkable, mixed-land-use neighborhoods
are built around transit stops, bringing customers to the transit lines ratherthan the other way around
(Sinha 2003).
Finally. wWhen road projects are brought under consideration, the concept of context-sensitive design,
agreeing to the increase in project costs that comes from considering factors otherthan the safety and
capacity of a given part of the road system, has also become increasingly popular. Ideally, the design
process would be collaborative, involve substantial stakeholder input, and produce solutions that
consider the ecological, social, economic, and aesthetic characteristics of the area around a
transportation facility at the same time as satisfying the more basic objectives of safety, system
efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Examples of context-sensitive design practices may include building
highways along routes where their negative impacts are likely to be the least, building below grade or
underground, incorporating other land uses into a facility's right-of-way, or even choosing in a particular
case to satisfy transportation demand through an expansion of the public transit system and walking
and cycling facilities instead of an expansion of the highway system or other road network (Levinson
2004, U.S. Department of Transportation).
Finally, those with responsibility over the U.S. transportation system will increasingly have to assess-its-
proiects. policies and priorities in the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation. In terms of
pdaptation. transportation systems - including highway systems, roads and bridges, and transit systems. Formatted: Font: Italic
as well as rail, port, and airports operations - are already being affected by extreme weather events.
These extreme events can include heat waves, drought, tropical storms and hurricanes, sea level rise
and higher storm surges, and heavy precipitation events. Their impacts and frequency will differ across
regions and communities. Nonetheless, as these events become more frequent or severe as the climate
changes, all communities will need to consider their resiliency to climate-related impacts. In terms of
fnitiaation. in orderto achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction levels that are needed to reach a
stabilization target, the challenges to the transportation sector are "daunting" (Mashavekh et al.
2012yMa3havehk et al. 201-14-. Stratet sto reduce CQ? w reau : an "all of the above" approach
incorporating all aspects of travel demand, vehicle technology, and low-carbon fuels. -In later
Formatted: Font: Italic
f Formatted: Highlight
"""( Formatted: Subscript
-------
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
21
sectionst-Ms-ewer, this paperwe #ve- . . _
' - - • - -maKersiflg. ta-particularly those related tOT ' L
4 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
4.1 Integrated Tools, Resources, and Indicators
For sometime now, there has been a consensus that the three major (interrelated) elements of
sustainability are environment, economy, and society (or human well-being). However, these elements
can be refined and expanded to include a variety of more particular factors of relevance, including
natural and human ecology, political concerns, technological limitations, regulatory frameworks,
resource conservation, human health, and demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and
intergenerational equity (Koo, Ariaratnam, and Kavazanjian 2009, Mercier 2009, Ramani et al. 2011). In
order to effectively assess how well a given community's transportation decisions are supporting the
various elements of sustainability and create plans in response to that assessment, establishing a
hierarchy of goals, objectives, subobjectives, and performance measures can be helpful. The
overarching goal of sustainability is divided into a series of goals that are specific to the various elements
of sustainability, which are then further divided into a series of increasingly more specific objectives,
based upon social theories of which human actions have a meaningful effect on the objectives and goals
abovethem. Ultimately, these objectives reach a level of specificity where attainment is believedto be
met when certain quantifiable performance measures reach specific target values. Then, armed with a
means of assessing sustainability in concrete terms, corresponding policy instruments can be created to
help achieve the various performance measures (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002, Ramani et al. 2011).
Before performance measures are used to make any actual policy decisions, they may also be used to
facilitate communication between the various actors and stakeholders in the transportation planning
process (Ramani et al. 2011). Even though the best time to utilize sustainability performance measures
is at the beginning of the transportation planning process (e.g., to set goals), they can also be used to
trackthe achievement of sustain ability-related objectives at most other project stages, includingthe
selection of building materials, design, construction, operations, maintenance, and afterthe
decommissioning of infrastructure (Koo, Ariaratnam, and Kavazanjian 2009). Major categories of
decisions that performance measures can be utilized to support include future system capacity,
predicting future levels of demand, selecting construction materials and methods, amounts of land to
use, and what future upgrades and rehabilitations require investment (Koo, Ariaratnam, and
Kavazanjian 2009). Sustainability assessment tools are strongly recommended to be incorporated into
existing planning processes, ratherthan operating as stand-alone, often disconnected, inputstothe
decision-making process (Wallbaum, Krank, and Teloh 2011). Sustainability goals that a community
adopts should also be mutually reinforcing since at least some trade-offs must eventually be made
(Tomalty 2009). Typically, only one or two performance measures/indicators are recommended for
each lower-level objective and these measures and indicators should be understandableto a very broad
audience (Ramani et al. 2011).
The various indicators and performance measures that a community adopts may be distinguished from
one another by a variety of different means, serving the purpose of helpingto ascertain how they can
-------
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
22
best be used. For example, a given indicator may measure either small-scale or large-scale effects and
eithertemporary conditions or permanent conditions (Koo, Ariaratnam, and Kavazanjian 2009).
Performance measures may also be categorized according to whether they are ordinary quantifiable
measures of the achievement of a subobjective, a composite measure of all of the different aspects of a
given objective, or a qualitative assessment of progress towards a given goal (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya
2002). Finally, certain performance measures may be subjectively deemed to be of greater significance
than others (Koo, Ariaratnam, and Kavazanjian 2009). For example, certain elements of an
unsustainable society (such as climate change, the loss of soil, and the loss of biodiversity) are arguably
of greater impact than others (such as noise and traffic accidents), based upon the duration and extent
of their impacts (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002).
Even though the ideal is to develop indicators and performance measures that relate directly to desired
sustainability outcomes, there are certain indicators that do not automatically represent sustainability
or unsustainability, but may be at the root of what causes other indicator values to be either "good" or
"bad". In systems approaches to transportation planning, the first impacts of the transportation system
to be modeled are generally those on population and land use patterns, which are then used as the
basis for calculating other impacts (Sastry 1973). Population density and job density have been shown in
studies to explain more of the variation in numerous sustainability indicators than any other factor
(Sinha 2003). Population and employment growth rates have cumulative effects, a quality which
enhances their influence over other indicators (Duthie et al. 2010). Other major determinants of model
outputs include trip-generation rates and how people carry out theirtransportation mode choices
(Duthie et al. 2010). Travel patterns have an effect on other sustainability performance measures and
can easily be used as a proxy fortransportation energy use and emissions (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya
2002). Drivers of individual travelers' transportation behavior will be discussed shortly.
When performance indicators are applied to the act of transportation and land use planning, they may
be employed not just in conventional modeling activities but also in visioning exercises. The primary
function of most traditional land use and transportation models is to extrapolate existing trends into the
future, with the process usually controlled by technical analysts. Visioning involves projecting several
different future scenarios, usually including both a so-called "ideal" scenario and a do-nothing scenario,
with the process requiring extensive stakeholder involvement. When planning professionals assemble
traditional mathematical models of transportation and land use, they input data on land use inventories,
zoning policies, existing highway networks, employment, and household distribution, typically
aggregated into zones. Some of these models are also able to account for future changes in government
policy and in the transportation system, but may still be invalidated by various unexpected events, such
as changes in migration patterns, and by faulty assumptions about the preferred behaviors of various
actors. Meanwhile, visioning processes entail a lengthy public-participation process that first produces a
set of very general guiding principles and then uses those principles to evaluate different development
scenarios, which are often projected as GIS maps for purposes of comparison. A series of specific
strategies can be drafted forthe purpose of implementing whichever scenario is deemed to be the most
preferable. Many of the computer programs used forthese scenario-building and visioning processes
also incorporate a conventional travel demand model, but usually not a rigorous land-use model.
-------
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
23
Ultimately, modeling and visioning servetwo different purposes, the former the purpose of projecting
the likely outcomes of historical trends and the latterthe purpose of creating an integrated vision of
what direction would be most beneficial for a community (Lemp et al. 2008).
A number of different models are capable of projecting land use and transportation effects in an
integrated fashion (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002). One common type is called a gravity model,
wherein the locations of job centers and households are determined by where the transportation
system will offerthe greatest accessibility to other destinations. Another common type of model is a
cellular automata model, in which a community is divided into a series of cells, each affected by their
nearest neighbors. Also of note are input-output models, which are geared towards economic impacts,
large-scale analysis, and travel costs, and discrete response simulations, which are based on predicting
the choices that individuals make. These models require very large quantities of data to work properly,
especially discrete response simulations (Lemp et al. 2008).
Table 1: Types of integrated land use/transportation models (Lemp et al. 2008)
Gravity models
Predicted locations of job centers and households are determined by
where the transportation system will offer the greatest accessibility
to other destinations.
Cellular automata models
A community is divided into a series of cells, each affected by their
nearest neighbors, in orderto predict how private-sector actors will
change each cell's land use.
Input-output models
Geared towards large-scale analysis and estimating economic
impacts and travel costs in a given scenario.
Discrete response simulations
Based on predictingthe choices that individuals makethat affect the
relationship between transportation and land use. Require
especially large quantities of data (though all of these model types
have substantial data requirements).
In addition to transportation and land use models, othertypes of decision-making tools exist that are
not specificto any particular context, providing flexibility to incorporatethe multitude of variables and
causal relationships that are part of sustainability. These can be used, for example, to discover indirect
effects and perform benefit-cost analyses. Two tools that fall into this category are system dynamics
models and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) models. System dynamics models, which are
characterized by causal loop diagrams, got their start in the early 1960s. Originally, this was a tool to
anticipate the outcomes of decisions in an industrial setting, although it has since been adapted to many
other applications. In the context of community planning, subsystems are created within the larger
model, typically including macroeconomic factors, regional economic factors, environmental conditions,
andthestate of the transportation system. One noteworthy limitation of system dynamics models is
not accounting for how particular indicators vary by geographic coordinates across the area being
studied (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002). Once causal links within a system are characterized, the
mechanisms by which a single policy action has the potential to advance several different goals at the
sametime can be more evident (Mercier 2009). An example of a system-dynamics diagram, created
using the freeware version of the computer program Vensim, may be seen in Figure 2, showing inputs to
-------
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
24
the amount of automobile travel by a neighborhood's residents. As evidenced in that figure, system
dynamics models have a tendency to become very complicated very quickly.
Figure 2: Segment of a system-dynamics d iagram showing hputsto neighborhood residents'Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Red arrows represent negative causal relationships and blue arrows represent positive causal relationships. A negative
causal relationship means that an increase in value or quantity of one component leads to a decrease in value or quantity of
the other component (and a decrease in value or quantity of the first component leads to an increase in value or quantity of
thesecond component). Apositive causal relationsh ip means that an increase in value or quantity of one component leads
to an increase h value or quantity of the other component (and a decrease in value or quantity of the first component leads
to a decrease h value or quantity of the second component).
Meanwhile, MCDM models operate by assigning weights to a number of different variables and then
adding them together to form a single composite measure (Koo, Aria rat nam, and Kavazanjian 2009).
Some common forms of MCDMs include the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), the analytical
hierarchy process, and the outranking method. Under MAUT, the process starts with identifying a list of
quantifiable measures, rankingthem by importance, assigning them values between zero and onethat
are in keeping with their respective ranks, and identifying the best and worst possible values for each
measure. The actual values of each measure under a given scenario aretransformed into a proportion
of the difference between the theoretical worst and best possible values. These proportions are
multiplied by the respective values between zero and one assigned to each measure as its weight earlier
in the process. When the results of these calculations are added together, they produce a weighted
composite measure of all of the variables under consideration, on a scale of zero to one, which may be
used to compare the desirability of various scenarios that decision-makers are able to bring about
through different sets of choices (Ramani et al. 2011).
There are correlations identified among transportation-related variables that are simultaneously
important for transportation, land use, and various other decision sectors (Sinha 2003):
<# of jobs w/in 30-minute
peak-period drive of
nejghborhood>
<# ofjobsw/in 30-minute
off-peak-period drive of
neighborhood>
# of personal veh.s parked
off-property at home end of
trips in neighborhood
.
dir-only-person-miles/
resident/day
<$ spent on car trips per
resident w/ car option per
day>
person-miles of
car
travel/re sident/day
Passengers
per car
VM T/re sident/day
<% of population
that is children>
-------
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
25
• Population density and job density, known together as activity density, are positively correlated
with transit boardings per person peryear.
• Meanwhile, transit demand per capita is negatively correlated with:
o the provision of roads,
o the rates of ownership and use of private vehicles,
o and the number of parking spaces per employee in central business districts.
• Transportation energy consumed per person is:
o negatively correlated with activity density and
o positively correlated with both the demand for personal motor vehicles and the
provision of roadways.
• The percentage of worktripsthat people make by publictransit is negatively correlated with:
o carbon-dioxide emissions from transportation,
o transportation-accident fatalities per capita,
o the amount of investment that is made in roadways,
o and the price of gasoline.
Of all the variables described above, population and job density are the ones with the greatest impact
on the others, and changes in these densities produce especially large effects in the other indicators
when the starting densities are particularly low (Sinha 2003). Subsequent sections of this paper will
discuss these and other correlations, as well as the causal relationships that are theorized to explain
them, grouped accordingto which dimension of sustainability they most closely relateto.
4.1.1 Limitations
No matter what system for creating and using sustainable transportation performance measures is
implemented, certain limitations will be inherent. For example, sustainability has many elements with
many ways of assessing each of those elements, so judgments must be made regarding which elements
to include and regarding the best assessment methods forthe elements. In addition, many of the
decisions involved in creating a system of sustainability performance measurements may be subjective
in nature, such as deciding howto quantify an indicator when extremely high values may be sustainable
in some contexts while extremely low values may be sustainable in other contexts (El-Diraby, Abdulhai,
and Pramod 2005). A further challenge can be when the costs of a transportation project, especially the
financial and economic costs, are much easierto calculate than the benefits (Sastry 1973). Beyond that,
many performance measures are either difficult to obtain data for or simply too politically sensitive to
be put to effective use (Ramani et al. 2011). When analyzing performance measures together, capturing
multiple dimensions of the situation in a single variable can be difficult. However, the analysis of
multiple variables can become confused by correlations among them (Cervero and Duncan 2003). Some
limitations to the creation of effective sustainable transportation performance measurements can be
remedied through expanded research efforts. Some examples include:
• insufficient research on the measurement of sustainability in the regular functions of a
transportation agency (Ramani et al. 2011),
• uncertainty in the inputs of transportation and land use models (Duthie et al. 2010), and
-------
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
26
• insufficient research on howthe built environment affects pedestrian and bicycle travel, as
opposed to motorized transportation (Cervero and Duncan 2003, Wong, Faulkner, and Buliung
2011).
Meanwhile, when performance measurements are used in visioning processes, the issue of feasibility is
often neglected in the creation of preferred scenarios, and the attendant stakeholder-involvement
process may last so long that new events in the community render the scenarios under development
obsolete. Conversely, transportation and land use models frequently havethe problem of requiring very
large and detailed datasets and considerable expertise to work properly (Lemp et al. 2008). In addition,
many of the software packages that are used to analyze sustainable transportation performance
measures lack the ability to exchange data with one another (El-Diraby, Abdulhai, and Pramod 2005).
4.1.2 Specific Models, Tools, and Other Resources from the US. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
The EPA tools and resources listed below include those that both are and are not products ofthe
Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. A sample list of tools and resources produced
specifically through the SHCRP may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-
12/documents/shc-fact-sheet.pdf. For a summary of all ofthe EPAtools mentioned in any section of
this document, includingthe dimensions of sustainability to which eachtool is most relevant, seeTable
2, below.
• Smart Location Database (SLD)\ A product ofthe EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities, the
Smart Location Database is a resource of particular relevance to issues of transportation
sustainability, as it aids in the measurement of how conducive a community's built environment
is to efficient, affordable, safe, healthy, flexible, equitable, and low-resource-consuming (and
hence low-emissions) transportation options. Drawing from numerous other sources and
making additional calculations where necessary, this database reports information at the
census-block-group level for the entire United States, with the exception that public-transit-
related data is not available for all metropolitan areas. In addition to reporting various
demographic and employment data, the Smart Location Database contains numerous measures
ofthe so-called "Five Ds" of how the built environment affects transportation behavior
(discussed later in this paper): Density (of population, employment, dwelling units, etc.),
Diversity (of land uses), Design (ofthe transportation network), Distance to Transit, and
Destination Accessibility. After a particular geographic extent of the United States is selected,
the database's contents may be viewed or downloaded as tabular data, viewed in an interactive
online map, or downloaded as GIS shapefilesthat can be viewed and manipulated using
computer mapping software. Version 2.0 ofthe Smart Location Database was released in July
2013 and both the database and its documentation may be accessed through
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smartlocationdatabase.htm (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2014).
• Green Communities Program'. The Green Communities Program helps communities to better
understand sustainable development by introducing them to a basic planning process and then
-------
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
27
assisting them to implement that process by providing access to a vast array of tools and
information. Encouraged to look holistically at their current situations, planners are asked to
envision their community as it is (Step 1: Community Assessment), as it will be in the future if
no action is taken (Step 2: Trends Analysis), and as the community wants to be (Step 3:
Visioning Process). Communities are then asked to develop an action plan (Step 4) that will help
them realize their sustainable development goals. Implementation of the action plan is the final
step (Step 5). A Green Community uses and encourages modes of travel otherthan the
automobile; street and circulation patterns encourage pedestrian movement, and efficient
transportation systems maximize accessibility and the movement of people and goods,
providing economic benefits. Increased opportunitiesforthe use of pedestrian and bicycling
facilities help to create a sense of community, reduce car-miles driven, and contribute to
general well-being and a good quality of life. The Green Communities planning process and
web-based toolkit encourage communities to consider various transportation issues, including
the provision of public transit, as a part of their sustainable development planning processes.
The Green Communities website, http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/index.htm, includes sample
transportation action plans and information on action plan indicators (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency).
• EnviroAtlas'. EnviroAtlas is an interactive, web-based decision-support mapping tool designed to
provide information about ecosystems and their benefits to society. EnviroAtlas also addresses
point- and nonpoint-source pollution, landcover conversion and fragmentation, resource
restoration, and shifts in demographics and natural hazards, all of which can drive changes in
the production of and demand for these benefits. Decisions about resource use and
environmental policy are often made with an incomplete understanding of the interactions
between human activities and beneficial ecosystem processes and functions. EnviroAtlas
provides users with maps, analytical tools, and other information for interpreting the
distribution of ecosystem services across the conterminous United States, and for
understanding how they can be conserved and enhanced in the future. In the context of
transportation projects, EnviroAtlas can help guide where best to preserve, restore, or construct
ecosystems for maximum public benefit. Data in EnviroAtlas may be used to inform methods to
value and pay for ecosystem services, which may also influence restoration decisions and
project locations. EnviroAtlas presents data at national and community scales. The national
component summarizes data by 12-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs, of which there are
approximately 90,000 in the conterminous U.S.). The community component summarizes data
by census block group for selected cities and towns, with some data (like vegetative cover) at a
finer scale. Both components also include pixel-based and other spatially detailed maps; all of
these data are available via web services and direct download. EnviroAtlas is designed for staff
from all levels of government, environmental and public health professionals, researchers,
educators, nongovernmental organizations, and anyone else with an interest in ecosystem
services and their role in supporting sustainable and healthy communities. It does not require
special software, technical expertise, or a scientific background. In beta release through
December, 2013, EnviroAtlas is accessible via
http://www.epa.gov/research/enviroatlas/index.htm. Part of EnviroAtlas is the Eco-Health
-------
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
28
Relationship Browser, which makes information on health and well-being implications of built
and natural environments easily accessible. The Browser is available online at
http://www.eDa.gov/research/healthscience/browser/introduction.html and from the
EnviroAtlas homepage.
• Database ofSustainability Indicators and Indices (DOSII): EPA researchers developed a Database
of Sustain ability Indicators and Indices, as well as a corresponding framework document on the
selection and use of sustainability indicators (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012c).
DOSII is a searchable inventory of peer-reviewed sustainability indicators classified into a single
taxonomy system, supporting decision making by providing candidate indicators (and indices)
relevant to specific sustainability-related interests (e.g., air, water, energy, communities,
transportation, etc.). In addition, an interactive web-based tool (e-DOSII) is being developed to
extend DOSII's search capabilities to communities and to provide information through a user-
friendly web interface. While the target audience of this work is EPA personnel, external
organizations interested in measuring some aspect of sustainability havefound it useful, too.
The current version of DOSII and the related framework document are presently available
online, and DOSII is scheduled for delivery in October 2014.
• Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES)'. Not yet
publicly available, the Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society is
a web-based decision-support framework intended to help community stakeholders arrive at
sustainable courses of action. DAS EES is organized around the five steps of 1) establishing the
context for a decision, 2) determining what objectives are meant to be achieved, 3) listing
various options for accomplishing those objectives in the given context, 4) evaluating the
relative desirability of the listed options, and 5) implementing the best available option. For
each of these steps, DASEES provides various analytical tools, allowing stakeholders in a given
community to customize their modeling efforts to fit the unique circumstances surrounding a
particular decision. The tools in DASEES are able to combine disparate outcome metrics into
one composite measure, whose inputs are weighted both accordingto a given community's
priorities and according to the inverse of how much uncertainty is attached to each
measurement or calculation. Outputs may take the form of tables, charts, or GIS maps. Along
with the actual tools, DASEES provides case studies and other guidance on the use ofthe
framework (Stockton et al. 2011).
• Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST)'. The Community-Focused
Exposure and Risk Screening Tool is designed for assessing exposure in a given community to a
variety of stressors of public health, based on location-specific data, so that problems and
solutions can be prioritized. C-FERST was created because it can be very difficult for a
community to draw the necessary linkages between the presence of a given stressor and the
degree of human exposuretothat stressor. Because C-FERST's outputs include GIS maps of
these stressors, the model is useful for addressing issues of environmental justice. In the
current version of C-FERST, which is still being pilot-tested, only chemical stressors are
considered. Flowever, future versions are expected to incorporate a wide variety of both
chemical and nonchemical stressors, consequently making C-FERST relevant to far more than
-------
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
29
just human health outcomes. Future versions of C-FERST are also expected to predict what the
outcomes would be of various hypothetical actions that a community might take, integrate with
other decision-support tools, and possess various other enhancements. In general, C-FERST is
intended for use by community leaders and is not well-suited for assessments by ordinary
residents (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013a).
• Tribal-Focused Environmental Risk and Sustainability Tool (Tribal-FERST)\ The Tribal-Focused
Environmental Risk and Sustainability Tool, still being pilot-tested and enhanced, is an Internet-
based decision-support tool specifically designed for use by tribal communities to address the
unique sustainability issues that they face, especially those in the areas of human health and
ecology. Tribal-FERST will be set up to provide step-by-step guidance for determining a priority
order in which to address various problems and risks and for assessing the results of different
actions. At each of the steps in this guidance, users will be provided with scientific information
relevant to their specific situation, links to other tools that might be of help to them, and the
ability to create overlay maps of many different datasets (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2013e).
• Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACi):
The Tool forthe Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts
allows the characterization of the following impact categories: ozone depletion, global climate
change, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, human health, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel
depletion (Bare 2012, Bare2011, Bare et al.2002). Midpoint-level characterizations (e.g., ozone
depletion potentials (ODPs) and global warming potentials (GWPs)) allow minimal incorporation
of value choices and assumptions while also allowingthe most comprehensive inclusion of
endpoint impacts (Bare et al. 2000). When combined with local data or life-cycle inventory data
(e.g., air, water, and soil emissions), TRACI can be used to compare the relative impacts of two
or more options, as a way of supporting sustainability decisions. For example, scenarios could
be developed for two alternativetransportation-related decisions to determine which of the
options would be expected to have a less negative environmental impact in one or all of the
above impact categories.
• Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS): The Final Ecosystem Goods
and Services Classification System is a database currently under development by the EPA, meant
to be used by both public- and private-sector actors, that consists of quantifiable metrics that
describethe ultimate, tangible ways in which the natural environment might affect the lives of
humans. While one might deem a given ecological feature to be generally beneficial, the exact
character and magnitude of its impacts are context-dependent. By including these contextual
considerations, the metrics in FEGS-CS may serve as inputs to an overall accounting of the
positive and negative outcomes of a given action. As a result, it may also be possibleto
determine what ecologically beneficial actions would be sufficient to compensate forthe effects
of a given action that is ecologically detrimental. Classifying ecosystem services in terms of their
final effects on humans also has the advantage of linking the natural and social sciences and the
advantage of avoiding the double-counting of benefits (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2012b, Landers and Nahlik 2013).
-------
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
30
• National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS)'. The National Ecosystem Services
Classification System is being developed concurrently with the FEGS-CS. NESCS will linkthe
theoretical constructs of ecology and economics in orderto create an exhaustive accounting of
all of the known pathways by which humans derive value from ecosystems. To date, most
economic analyses have been blind to those things to which a concrete price cannot be attached
and most ecological analyses have been blind to the ways in which humans value ecosystem
goods and services. NESCS will use FEGS-CS to define and code all of the conceivable inputs to
the accounting, ensuring that direct and indirect effects are not confused with one another and
that drivers whose influences are distinct from one another are not counted together. By
mapping mutually exclusive pathways, NESCS will ensure that all effects are counted and that
none of them are double-counted. The resulting algorithms may be used to calculate the value
to humans of any given natural area, contributing to decisions on preservation, mitigation, and
restoration priorities.
• EcoService Models Library (ESML)\ Also currently under development at the EPA is the
EcoService Models Library, which will be a searchable database describing mathematical
functions that various research efforts have shown to link the inputs and outputs of a given
ecological process. TheESMLis meant as a resource forthe developers of decision-support
tools, guiding them to equations that they may decide to use to represent individual causal
relationships within their models (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012a). This resource
is expected to be finished in 2014 and is expected to be available over the Internet in 2015.
Table 2: EPA tools of relevance to transportation sustainability
Tool
Dimension(s) of Sustainability
Description
Community Cumulative
Assessment Tool (CCAT)
Social (Human Health)
A computerized, step-by-step
assessment method that leads
users through a guided, yet flexible,
process to relate stressors to
impacts, compare a wide range of
issues simultaneously, and develop
a "to-do" list of actions to address
health and environmental impacts
in their community, constituting a
component of the larger
Community-Focused Exposure and
Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST)
Community-Focused Exposure
and Risk Screening Tool (C-
FERST)
Social (Human Health)
A spatially-explicit tool for
assessing degrees of human
exposure to various public health
stressors in a community
Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model
Environmental (Air)
A multiscale, multipollutant, "one
atmosphere" model that includes a
meteorological component to
describe atmospheric conditions,
emission models for anthropogenic
-------
31
and natural emissions that are
released into the troposphere, and
a chemical-transport model (CTM)
to simulate chemical
transformations, atmospheric
transport, and fate
Database ofSustainability
Indicators and Indices (DOSII)
Environmental, Economic, and
Social
A searchable taxonomy of peer-
reviewed indicators and indices of
relevanceto a wide variety of
sustainability-related issues
Decision Analysis for a
Sustainable Environment,
Economy, and Socie ty
(DASEES)
Environmental, Economic, and
Social
A community-scale decision-
support framework that allows
users to choose among a variety of
analysistools in orderto create
models tailored to their specific
situation and the particular
question under consideration
Eco-Health Relationship
Browser
Environmental and Social
(Public Health)
An interactive, web-based tool that
reflects a detailed review of the
recent scientific literature and
displays published linkages
between ecosystem services and
many aspects of public health and
well-being, accessible through
EnviroAtlas
EcoService Models Library
(ESML)
Environmental
A searchable database describing
mathematical functions that
various research efforts have
shown to linkthe inputs and
outputs of a given ecological
process, meant as a resource for
the developers of decision-support
tools
EnviroAtlas
Environmental
An online, interactive mapping tool
that reports and helps analyzethe
distribution of ecosystem services
across the conterminous United
States
EPANet
Environmental (Water)
A planning and engineeringtool
that models drinking water supply
systems
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services Classification System
(FEGS-CS)
Environmental
A database of quantifiable metrics
of the ultimate, tangible ways in
which the natural environment
might affect the lives of humans,
with consideration of the context-
dependent nature of such effects
-------
32
Green Communities Program
Environmental, Economic, and
Social
Provides an onlinetoolkit with links
to many different sustainability-
related tools, models, indicator
systems, and case studies,
organized around a five-step
planning process
Integrated Climate and Land-
Use Scenario (ICLUS)
Environmental, Economic, and
Social
A large development scenario
covering the entire U.S. that
projects housing density and land
use categories to the year 2100
MOtor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES) model
Environmental (Air)
A model for estimating air pollution
emissions from all on-road motor
vehicles, including cars, trucks,
motorcycles and buses, that allows
emissions to be analyzed at various
geographic scales
National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS)
Environmental and Economic
Links the theoretical constructs of
ecology and economics to create
an exhaustive accounting of the
known pathways by which humans
derive value from ecosystems,
using FEGS-CS to define and code
the inputs
PVIScreen
Environmental (Water and Air)
A model that accounts forthe
transport and fate of fuel
components in soil gas and
groundwater, including the case of
them causing indoor air
contamination (called vapor
intrusion)
Smart Growth Index (SGI)
Environmental, Economic, and
Social
A GIS-based planning tool used for
modeling base and alternative
land-use and transportation
scenarios for a single point in time
and comparingthem on the basis
of pre-programmed indicators
Smart Location Database
(SLD)
Environmental, Economic, and
Social (Transportation
Behavior)
Database of measures of built -
environment, demographic,
employment, and other
characteristics that affect travel
behavior, reported at the Census-
Block-Group level forthe entire
United States
Storm-Water Management
Model (SWMM)
Environmental (Water)
A tool for assessing stormwater
runoff impacts, able to model
runoff volumes from impervious
and pervious surfaces in a network
-------
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
33
of catchments and subcatchments
under many different
circumstances, primarily geared
towards use in urban areas, but
also having nonurban applications
Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and
other environmental Impacts
(TRACI)
Environmental
Characterizes several different
categories of environmental
impacts (ozone depletion, global
climate change, acidification,
eutrophication, smog formation,
human health, ecotoxicity, and
fossil fuel depletion) for scenarios
that the user wishes to compare
Tribal-Focused Environmental
Risk and Sustainability Tool
(Tribal-FERST)
Environmental and Social
(Fluman Flealth)
Provides step-by-step guidance for
tribal communities to determine a
priority order in which to address
various problems and risks and to
assess the results of different
actions, with relevant scientific
information and links to other tools
supplied at each step
4.1.3 Non-EPA Models, Tools, and Other Resources
• An important tool supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the
Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainabilitv Tool (INVEST). Version 1.0 of this tool was
released in October 2012. INVEST is free and available for use by the general public. The
program is designed as a scorecard that includes criteria for evaluating environmental,
economic, and social impacts of transportation projects at a variety of scales and at various
stages throughout the planning and implementation processes, including system planning,
project development, and operations and maintenance. INVEST primarily focuses on highway
projects (U.S. Department of Transportation).
• The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, a product of the
United States Green Building Council (USGBC), is a comprehensive, flexible, and very widely
used tool for rating the environmental sustain ability of the design, construction, and operation
of individual buildings and neighborhoods, although not geared specifically to transportation
planning (U.S. Green Building Council). Foreign counterparts to LEED include Canada's
SBTool07. which includes economic and societal indicators, and the United Kingdom's Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). which, much like LEED in
the United States, primarily focuses on the natural environment and energy consumption
(Wallbaum, Krank, and Teloh 2011). The portion of LEED most relevant to sustainable
transportation isthe LEEDfor Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating system, which is
applied to geographic areas within cities, rather than individual structures. Among otherthings,
this rating system gives points for neighborhood design features that are likely to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and increase nonmotorized transportation. The following are some
-------
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
34
transportation-related features that LEED-ND awards points for (U.S. Green Building Council,
Congress forthe New Urbanism, and Natural Resources Defense Council 2012):
o Development activities that take place near publictransit stops at which transit vehicles
stop sufficiently frequently,
o Developments that are near existing developed areas, such that traveling to those areas
will entail shortertrips than would otherwise be the case,
o Highly-connected, grid-like transportation corridors that form small city blocks,
o Adequate transportation facilities for both motorized and nonmotorized modes of
travel.
o Close proximities between housing units and employment locations,
o Neighborhood centers with many different kinds of destinations in close proximity,
o Short distances between building entrances and transportation corridors,
o Dense and/or compact development patterns that place more destinations within a
shorter trip distance.
o Pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are safe, appealing, and comfortable to use.
o Small quantities of land dedicated to motor vehicle parking.
o Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that offer financial incentives for
people to drive less.
o Public schools that are small, numerous, and located in close proximity to the homes of
a large percentage of the students who attend them.
• The Green LITES programs (from the New York State Department of Transportation) and the
Green roads rating system have their primary focus on issues of civil engineering, construction,
and maintenance. These rating systems are based on the LEED rating system (Ramani et al.
2011).
• A key issue in transportation planning is the impact that transportation and land use have on
one another and how they collectively impact the environment. The Transportation Research
Board has developed a decision support tool called Transportation for Communities: Advancing
Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP), available at www.transportationforcommunities.com.
TCAPP has a broad focus, but it in part zooms in on the linkage between transportation and land
use. It provides examples of integrating transportation and land-use decisions from Maryland,
Oregon, New York State, the Thurston region in Washington State, and the Sacramento area.
Maryland and New York are given as examples of states that promote smart growth in their
transportation decisions. Oregon uses GreenSTEP. a modeling tool that calculates measures of
such things as household travel and vehicle emissions and can be used to evaluate
environmental effects of land use patterns and transportation services at a fine level of detail
(http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/OSTI/docs/media/model.pdf). The Thurston Regional
Planning Council, in addition to its various policies promoting smart growth, uses Community Viz
to develop and compare scenarios. Community Viz and othergeospatial visioningtools are
powerful and flexible planning models that can calculate environmental impacts and a variety of
other outcomes resulting from given land use and transportation scenarios. Tools such as
Community Viz can be linked to external models, including travel demand models. An array of
othertools and methods that are more broadly applicable to transportation and ecological
-------
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
35
decision-making are listed and briefly described in TCAPP, in its section on the Integrated
Ecological Framework, a process for accounting for ecological values early in the transportation
planning process.
• The System for Planning and Research in Towns and Cities for Urban Sustainabilitv (SPARTACUS)
indicator system is a four-step forecasting model that involves identifying land use,
transportation, and pricing policy elements and then testing scenarios for different
combinations of packaged policies to determine their long-term sustainability. Included within
this modeling system is MEPLAN. a land use/transportation interaction model. Also included are
the ability to analyze data at a very fine geographic scale using GIS and a decision-support tool
that allows the user to create weighted composite indicators of sustainability (Black, Paez, and
Suthanaya 2002).
• The Integrated Transportation Gravity-based Land Use Model (ITGLUM) is a very simple land
use/transportation gravity-based model (Duthie et al.2010).
• Slope. Land-use. Exclusion. Urban extent. Transportation, and Hill shade (SLEUTH) is an example
of an integrated transportation and land use model that uses the cellular automata approach of
defining cells within a community and then determining how each of those cells is affected by its
immediate neighbors (Lemp et al. 2008).
• TRANUS and the Random-Utilitv-Based Multiregional Input-Output (RUBMRIO) model are land
use/transportation models that use an input-output model to produce results primarily focused
on forecasting economic and trade effects. (Lemp et al. 2008).
• UrbanSim is an open source modeling program that users can expand to meet their needs. This
model is dynamic, highly disaggregated in its scale of analysis, and accounts for the behavior of
households, private companies, real estate developers, and public officials (Lemp et al. 2008).
• The Transportation. Economic, and Land Use Model (TELUM) is a free program from the FHWA
that makes use of a gravity-based model, wherein data is geographically aggregated into zones
(Lemp et al. 2008).
• The California Urban Futures models (CUFI and CUFII) are discrete response simulations that are
meant to carry out GIS analyses of large metropolitan areas, with CUFI placing particular
importance on real estate profitability as a determinant of development patterns (Lemp et al.
2008).
• The Comprehensive Econometric Micro-Simulator for Daily Activity-Travel Patterns and the Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission's activity-based travel-demand model are two more
programs relevant to transportation and land use applications (Lemp et al. 2008).
• Some examples of available GIS scenario-building/visioning tools include Community Viz
(already mentioned), California's PLACE3S. and the Charlottesville, Virginia region's CorPJan
(Lemp et al. 2008).
• Some land-use models have the potential to serve as scenario-planning tools. The program
What if? provides functions for its users to assign areas of land weights accordingtotheir
relative importance, along with ratings of their suitability for development and how easy to
convert their land use is. The program UPlan allows its users to specify attractiveness criteria for
land areas that represent the land's value and accessibility. In both of these programs, the
-------
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
36
object of the user-inputted ratings and criteria is to allocate demand across a geographic area
(Lemp et al. 2008).
4.2 Drivers of Transportation Behavior
Although there are some sustainability outcomes that a piece of transportation infrastructure will affect
regardless of whether and how people use it, one of the most important questions in ascertaining the
sustainability-related implications of a transportation policy or investment is what impact it will have on
people's transportation-related behavior. This includes choices regarding transportation modes, trip
frequencies, trip lengths, and trip purposes. The purpose of this section is to synthesize what is
currently known about the factors that influence travelers' choices in these matters. Factors to be
considered here include characteristics of the transportation system, governmental policies related to
transportation, and drivers of behaviorthat a community's transportation decision-makers can only
influence indirectly, such as travelers' attitudes.
The most heavily researched topic in all of urban planning is the effect of the built environment (i.e.,
land use patterns and physical infrastructure) on transportation demand and transportation behavior
(Ewing and Cervero 2010). However, in spite of all of this research, causal linkages between the built
environment and transportation behavior have been difficult to establish and quantify, leaving
knowledge gaps (Frank et al. 2008, Scheiner and Flolz-Rau 2013). One reason for this difficulty is the
highly interdependent nature of the relationship between transportation systems and land use patterns.
First, changes to the size and nature of the transportation system alter the amount of accessibility that
people have to various destinations. Then, this change in accessibility prompts the development
community to alter land use patterns in such a way as to make the most profitable use of the
transportation system, which also alters the amount of accessibility that people have to various types of
destinations. All of these changes in accessibility affect the frequency, length, duration, mode, timing,
destination, and purpose of the trips that people choose to make. Finally, these changes in travel
behavior affect the balance between transportation demand and transportation supply and the
distribution of travel demand across the transportation network, which prompts transportation planners
to make additional changes to the system (Kitamura 2009, Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010). More on
the relationship between land use and travel behavior may be found in the concurrent SFICRP Theme 4
synthesis paper on land use.
Ewing and Cervero (2010) sort thevarious aspects of the built environment that are relevant to
transportation behavior into a series of broad, overlapping categories that they referto as the "Five Ds"
(and which are also the thematic basis of the measures in the Smart Location Database, discussed
above): Density (of population, employment, dwelling units, commercial floor space, etc.), Diversity (of
land uses), Design (of the transportation network), Destination Accessibility, and Distanceto Transit.
Ewing and Cervero regard these built-environment variables as affecting travel behavior alongside the
other relevant factors of Demand Management (which includes, but is not limited to, the supply and
cost of parking) and Demographics. In the same paper, they synthesize 62 separate studies of the
relationship between the built environment and travel behavior. This synthesis includes tables of
average elasticity values from the pooled samples of the various studies analyzed (each elasticity value
-------
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
37
describing the strength of the relationships between various aspects of the built environment and
people's travel behavior, where a 1% change in variable A is predicted to produce an X% change in
variable B), as well as an appendix containing elasticity estimates from the original studies. If a
transportation planner finds a study in the appendix that had good methodology and which is from a
geographic location sufficiently close to the one they serve, the planner could potentially borrow an
elasticity value directly from that study for use in their own calculations. The average elasticities from
the pooled samples, meanwhile, could potentially be used in various sketch-planning situations to
estimate amounts of driving, walking, and transit usethat may result from a given act of government or
development project, relativetoa base scenario. An important caveattothe useofthis resource,
however, is that the average elasticities contained in it have not been tested for statistical significance
(Ewing and Cervero 2010, Gim 2012).
The most-studied of all of the characteristics of the built environment that affect travel behavior is
density. The reasons for this particular research focus are that density is a relatively easy variable to
measure, a relatively easy driverto influence through policy decisions, and highly correlated with many
other built-environment characteristics that tend to change travel behavior in similar ways (Gim 2012).
However, when other built-environment characteristics are controlled for, the influences of population
density and employment density on travel behavior are actually quite modest. Among the significant
built-environment characteristics that are correlated with high population and employment density in a
neighborhood are highly-mixed land uses, small city blocks, and a location near the center of a
metropolitan area, all of which are associated with fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greater
mode shares for walking, biking, and publictransit (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Even though the
association between density and travel behavior is based to a large degree on correlations, it may still
serve as a useful tool for perceiving important relationships. For instance, one analysis found that the
smaller an area's population density, the greaterthe change in travel behavior would be from a given
change in density (Sinha 2003). However, another analysis found that in European cities, which are
generally denser than U.S. cities, the effect of density and urban form on travel behavior is significantly
strongerthan in U.S. cities, based upon a review ofthe conclusions of travel-behavior studies from each
of those two regions (Gim 2012).
Another much-studied aspect ofthe built environment in transportation-behavior research is land-use
diversity, which consists of both the number of different land uses within a given area and the relative
amounts of each of those uses that are present. When this aspect ofthe built environment is studied,
the most commonly used measures are entropy metrics, wherein a scale is established where a low
number represents a single land use within an area and a high number represents a great variety of uses
within that area. However, the less-used measure ofthe ratio between jobs and housing in an area (or
jobs and population) has a stronger relationship with nonmotorized transportation than entropy
measures do (when the number of jobs in an area and the number of working-age residents of that area
are similar to one another, it increases the opportunities for easy commuting without a motor vehicle)
(Ewing and Cervero 2010). Research to date has given little attention to the travel-behavior effects of
the land uses that surround a person's place of work, as opposed to thosethat surround their place of
residence (Frank et al. 2008).
-------
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
38
The effect of the design of the transportation network on travel behavior is especially difficult to
measure, because it represents the collective impact of many different types of design features. For
example, aspects of transportation network design include the size of city blocks, the number of
intersections per square mile, the proportion of intersections that arefour-way intersections, the
proportion of the street networkthat has sidewalks, the width of the streets, the distancesthat
buildings are set backfrom the curb, the number and quality of marked pedestrian-crossing locations,
the distinction between a grid-based network and a curvilinear network, and many other features.
Consequently, various composite measures are sometimes created that combine design features that
are known to affect travel behavior in similar ways (Ewing and Cervero 2010).
One common way of measuring access to public transit within a given area is to calculate the shortest
distance that someone would have to travel along the transportation network to reach a transit stop
from each residence or job location within the area and take the average of those figures. Other
measures include transit-route density, transit-stop density, and the average distance between transit
stops. Not surprisingly, there exists a strong relationship between how close someone lives to a public
transit stop and how likely they are to use public transit, a fact which reinforces the common practice of
transit agencies of trying to run buses within a quarter mile of most of the households in their service
areas (Ewing and Cervero 2010).
It is to get the best possible use out of an area's transit accessibility that there exists the practice of
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). In this practice, a tight cluster of mixed-use development is
created around a public transit station, such that people who either live there or work there may be
within easy walking distance of both thetransit station and most of the businesses and amenities within
the development. Usually, these developments that are built to be conducive to transit use are
centered around a rail station, but they may sometimes be centered around a bus stop. Most of the
existing literature on Transit-Oriented Development is focused on the policy tools used by government
agencies in their creation, as opposed to addressing design concerns such as ascertainingthe
appropriate amount of travel by each non-transit mode of transportation to accommodate (Jacobson
and Forsyth 2008).
Of all of the categories of built-environment characteristics identified by Ewing and Cervero (2010),
Destination Accessibility has the strongest influence on travel behavior. One may consider accessibility
at either a local scale (for example, the distance from a person's home to the nearest store) or a regional
scale (for example, the distance to the nearest central business district or the number of jobs or
attractions located within a given travel time of a given location). Most of all, having greater access to a
greater number of destinations is highly associated with lower VMT per capita. At the core of an urban
area, there are more destinations that can be easily reached without the use of a personal motor
vehicle, and even when a personal motorvehicle is used, the necessary trip lengths are shorter. Most
developed areas nearthe center of a city produce less VMT per capitathan a pedestrian-oriented,
compact, mixed-use development in a remote location. VMT is also reduced (to a lesser degree) by high
intersection density and street connectivity, while a very small dampening influence is exerted on VMT
-------
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
39
by population density and job density, with the influence of population density being strongerthan the
influence of job density. Meanwhile, the built-environment characteristics that havethe strongest
(positive) relationship with travel by foot are high intersection densities, a balanced ratio between jobs
and dwelling units, and short distances between homes and stores. There is evidence of a stronger
relationship between intersection density and walking than between street connectivity and walking;
one possible explanation is that a given study area might have highly connected streets, but also very
long city blocks that inhibit walkability for people who must travel around them. The transportation
network design elements of intersection density and street connectivity also constitute the second tier
of major built-environment drivers of transit use (after Distance toTransit), enabling less circuitous
travel to and from transit stops and allowing transit providers to consider a greater number of potential
transit vehicle routes. The third tier of built-environment drivers of transit use consists of measures of
land-use mixture, possibly due to sufficiently mixed land uses enabling the running of errands on the
way to or from a transit stop.
4.2.1 Correlations and Elasticities Regarding the Built Environment and Travel Behavior
The following are some numerically-expressed relationships between the built environment and travel
behaviorthat various studies have quantified:
• In a study of National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Nonattainment Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (NMSAs), researchers estimated that if all households in NAAQS NMSAs were
located within 0.1 miles of a transit stop, it would reduce the number of private motor vehicles
by 9% and reduce VMT by 11%. The authors estimated that this is similar to the effect that
would be produced by a 50% increase in gasoline prices (Kim and Kim 2004).
• In a synthesis of the results of many different studies of built-environment effects on travel
behavior, Ewing and Cervero (2010) arrived at an elasticity between VMT and employment
accessibility by automobile of -0.20. A 10% increase in employment accessibility by automobile
would be associated with a 2% reduction in VMT. This was almost as strong as the combined
elasticities with VMT found to exist for density, land use diversity, and transportation network
design. In a different synthesis of built-environment-and-travel-behavior studies from 2001, the
same authors stated that doubling a neighborhood's density would cause both VMT per capita
and vehicle trips per capita to go down by 5%.
• A 10% increase in roadway capacity, measured in lane-miles, is associated with an increase in
VMT of between 5% and 10% (Sinha 2003).
• The amount of road length per capita in different areas explains 70% of the variability in private
motor vehicle ownership rates and 76% of the variability in private motor vehicle use rates
(Sinha 2003).
• High population densities are associated with a relatively high ratio between a transit agency's
revenuefrom fare collection and that same agency's operating expenses. Population density
explains 62% of the variation in these fare recovery ratios (Sinha 2003).
• A change in the ratio of the cost of private-mode transportation per mile traveled to the cost of
publictransit use per miletraveled is associated with an opposite-direction change in the
-------
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
40
percentage of work trips that are made by transit, a relationship which explains 32% of the
variation in the latter variable (Sinha 2003).
• Activity density (calculated as the sum of population density and employment density) explains
88% of the variation between different areas in how much they require new road capacity
(Sinha 2003).
• Transit demand per person is negatively correlated with the amount of parking per employee in
a metropolitan area's Central Business District (CBD), automobile ownership, automobile use,
and road provision. The percentage of worktrips made by publictransit is negatively correlated
with the amount of road investment in an area and with fuel prices (Sinha 2003).
• Job density and population density are both significantly correlated with publictransit boardings
per person per year (Sinha 2003).
• The Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, and Health (LUTAQH) Study in King County, WAfound
the following relationships (Frank et al. 2008):
o The biggest determining factor in people's travel choices is the amount of time that they
spend traveling, indicating the significance of both traffic congestion and time spent
waitingtotransfer between transit vehicles,
o A 5% increase in residential density, the connectivity of the street network, land use
mixture, and the ratio of retail floor area to land area used for retail, all at the same
time, would be associated with a 32% increase in walking,
o Each additional motor vehicle that a household owns decreases the odds of people in
that household using publictransit by 42%.
o A quarter-mile increase in the average distance from a person's home to the nearest
transit stop would be associated with a 16% decrease in transit use.
o A quarter-mile increase in the average distance from a person's workplace to the
nearest transit stop would be associated with a 32% decrease in transit use.
o Each additional institution or recreational facility within a one-kilometer walk of a
person's home increases their odds of walking by 20%.
4.2.2 Parking
There exists a shortage of available data on the effect of the parking supply on people's transportation
mode choices. However, there is enough evidence to determine that the dampening effect of scarce or
expensive parking on automobile use is significant. Travelers perceive one additional minute spent
walking to or from a parking space as a greater burden than one additional minute spent driving (Frank
et al. 2008).
4.2.3 Neighborhood-Scale Travel versus Regional Travel
Individual neighborhoods and other geographic subdivisions of a large study area are bound to have
unique characteristics that influence travel behavior within them. Therefore, consideration should be
given to both local drivers of short-trip behavior and regional drivers of long-trip behavior, bearing in
mind that the regional transportation environment is influenced by the various neighborhood-scale
transportation environments that are contained within it (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002). When a
-------
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
41
person habitually uses a particular mode of transportation for long trips, the odds of them also using
that same mode of transportation for short trips increases (orvice versa). For example, people who
possess bus passes (indicating that they are probably frequent transit users) are more likely than other
people both to use public transit for long trips and to use public transit for short trips (Kim and Ulfarsson
2008). However, substantial differences between people's favored transportation modesfortrips
within their home neighborhoods and trips within a larger region (urban or otherwise) also commonly
exist. In a study from the borough of the Bronx in New York City, an increase in trips that last less than
30 minutes was associated with more automobile travel and an increase in trips that last between 30
minutes and 90 minutes was associated with moretravel by publictransit. The authors of the study
explained these associations by observing that, in New York City, long distance car trips are discouraged
by a combination of traffic congestion, scarce parking, and expensive tolls, while the financial cost of
using transit is unaffected by distance and the average speed of a short transit itinerary will tend to be
lower than the average speed of a long transit itinerary on account of a large percentage of a short
itinerary's duration being spent on travel to and from transit stops (by other modes) and waiting for
transit vehicles to arrive. Consequently, the authors concluded that an increase in the number of jobs in
the Bronx would increase automobile usage by the borough's residents and increase the number of
people commuting intothe Bronx by way of that particular region's most-favored transportation mode
for long-distance commutes (i.e., publictransit) (Berechman and Paaswell 1997).
The case of such transit-heavy locations as New York City notwithstanding, most people's favored mode
of transportation for longtrips across a region isthe private automobile. Because of low-density
development patterns and the speed and flexibility of private motor vehicles, altering the built
environment in such a way as to substantially reduce private automobile use on long trips would be a
very difficult undertaking (but one generally regarded as being helpful in the advancement of various
sustainability goals). However, the conversion of short trips from motorized modes to nonmotorized
modes could likely be achieved with greater ease. Among other things, the promotion of short,
nonmotorized trips could reduce traffic congestion, since a large proportion of the automobile trips that
short, nonmotorized trips would be capable of replacing are non-work trips carried out during rush hour,
such as to run errands, drop off children, or engage in recreational activities. Nonetheless, drivers of
travel behavior on short, non-work trips are currently little-studied, especially in the United States (Kim
and Ulfarsson 2008).
The largest driver of people's mode choices for short trips isthe purpose for which the trip is being
undertaken. When people chooseto use an automobile for a short trip in spite of the presence ofthe
necessary infrastructure to make that trip efficiently by a different mode, one ofthe most common
reasons for that choice is the need to transport heavy cargo that would be difficult to carry under their
own power. Other common reasons include the transport at ion of passengers, the need to save time,
the knowledge that one will require an automobile for some later trip that will start from the end point
ofthe current trip, physical infirmity, and simply usinga carforthe reason that it is available. According
to studies from the United States and Europe, among non-automobile modes of transportation used for
short trips (defined variously as thosetrips with a maximum distance of between one and two miles),
walking is more common than either publictransit or cycling, which are rarely used for such trips.
-------
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
42
People are reluctant to use transit for short trips because it would require coordinating their actions
with a transit schedule that might not provide much service during off-peak times of day and because
time spent traveling to and from transit stops (by other modes) and waitingfortransit vehicles to arrive
at stops reduce the average speed of a short transit trip morethan they would the average speed of a
long transit trip. Meanwhile, even though cycling is faster than walking, it produces less time savings on
short trips than on long trips, leaving people with less reason to ignore any perceived safety concerns
with cycling, or the risk of their bicycle being stolen, or the difficulty of riding a bicycle in inclement
weather. People are more likely to ride a bicycle on a short trip if that trip is across level terrain (Kim
and Ulfarsson 2008).
As with long trips, congestion charging and a limited parking supply discourage the use of automobiles
for short trips. The use of publictransit for short trips is greater in more urban areas, where there is less
distance between transit stops, wheretransit fares are lower, and wherethe overall level of service of
thetransit system is greater. Nonmotorized modes of transportation are more likely to be used when
safe, comfortable paths are provided for them which are separated from the flow of automobile traffic,
there is an adequate supply of bike racks, and short door-to-doortravel distances exist between a given
origin point and various destinations. The short trips on which people are most likely to walk are ones
that are for social or recreational activities (including eating out at restaurants). People are less likely to
walk on shopping trips, possibly out of a reluctance to have to carry their purchases home unassisted.
Families with children (that need an efficient mode of transportation for running errands and that take
part in more group activities) tend to drive more on short trips. The elderly are less likely than other
people to walk on short trips while people who have lived at their current address for less than one year
are more likely than other people to walk on short trips. Finally, one of the most important factors in
determining a person's mode choices for short trips (and which is reflective of other factors) is their
individual threshold distance below which they see walking as preferable and above which they see
driving as preferable (assuming that both of those modes are available to them). Not surprisingly,
frequent walkers have higherthreshold distances and frequent drivers have shorterthreshold distances.
Short threshold distances are also associated with perceived exertion from walking and with age (Kim
and Ulfarsson 2008). In addition to the previously discussed factors of destination accessibility,
intersection density, and traffic safety, walking is also encouraged by aesthetics (both natural and
architectural), safety from crime, low noise levels, low pollution levels, the absence of "physical
disorder," and amenities such as benches and sidewalk retail/restaurants (Neckerman et al. 2009).
4.2.4 Transportation System Capacity as a Driver of Travel Behavior
When new capacity is added to a congested transportation system (e.g., in the form of new roads or
lanes), one can assume that people's travel behavior will change in response. When a transportation
agency decides to address the issue of traffic congestion by adding capacity to the roadway system,
most of the new capacity is addedto arterial roads and highways, ratherthan smaller collector streets.
The ability to travel at high speeds on recently decongested arterial roadways motivates peopleto
engage in more driving, especially for long trips. Flowever, most trips that make use of an arterial
roadway both begin and end on lower-order roadways. As a result, when a capacity expansion reduces
congestion and increases traffic volume on arterial roads, traffic volumes also increase on roads that
-------
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
43
have not been (and frequently do not havethe room to be) expanded. Therefore, expanding an arterial
roadway may simply shift the traffic congestion burden from the arterial road to city streets in an urban
core, within which automobile travel may consequently be discouraged for short trips, even while it is
being encouraged for longtrips (Frank et al. 2008). Meanwhile, capacity is sometimes added to the
transportation system in the form of a new exclusive right-of-way for transit vehicles (either trains or
buses). When this is done, it is likely that most of the transit riders on the new right-of-way will be
people who were already using public transit priorto its opening, as no other mode has been rendered
any less convenient than before. However, if an automobile traffic lane is replaced with an exclusive
publictransit right-of-way that is similartothe remaining parallel automobile lanes in terms of both
speed and level of service, some people may be motivated to switch from driving a car along that
particular corridor to riding transit along it (Kennedy 2002).
4.2.5 Induced Demand
A major point of contention in the study of travel behavior is the existence of "induced demand." In
theory, once capacity is added to a congested road system, people will go on more trips and longer trips,
make more of those trips by private automobile, and perform more of their trip making during the peak
travel periods of the day. By allowing peopleto act upon a latent demand fortravel that had previously
been suppressed by traffic congestion, at least a portion of the initial congestion relief from a capacity
expansion is expected to be undone by increases in traffic volume (Kitamura 2009, Kristoffersson and
Engelson 2009). However, the phenomenon of induced demand is not well understood, would require
very complex theories to model, and is not incorporated into standard travel demand forecasts
(Kitamura 2009). Assuming that induced demand exists, it is not limited to the mode of personal
automobiletravel. There is evidence of significant latent demand in communities for more walkable
environments; however, people consider walkability to be one of many neighborhood characteristics to
be traded off with others when choosing whereto live (Frank et al. 2008).
4.2.6 Peak Spreading
Another important concept related to roadway capacity is that of "peak spreading." When traffic
congestion gets bad enough during the peak travel periods of the day, some drivers will choose to avoid
the worst of the congestion by commencing theirtrips either a little before or a little aftertheir
preferred time, with the result being a daily pattern of less congested traffic over a longer period of time
instead of more congested traffic over a shorter period of time. Because, in most locations, non-peak-
period traffic volumes are well below congestion levels, peak spreading is something that transportation
planners and engineers often encourage. One of the ways in which greater peak spreading is achieved is
through congestion charging, wherein travelers are charged tolls for using majorthoroughfares,
sometimes with the tolls dependent upon the time of day during which one travels. Potential changes
to travel behavior in response to a tolling scheme include traveling by a different mode, traveling along a
different route, traveling to different destinations, reducing the frequency of one's trips, and altering
one's usual departure times. Atollthat remains the same at alltimes of day may induce peopleto avoid
the toll road by traveling by a more circuitous route that requires them to commence their trips at an
earlier time than they would be able to if they took the toll road. However, a greater degree of peak
spreading would likely occur if off-peak periods of the day were subject to either no tolls or reduced
-------
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
44
tolls. In that event, people would have a direct and unambiguous financial incentive to depart on trips
at times other than their most preferred times. It is also worth noting that if a congestion charging
scheme succeeds in promoting peak spreading, it likely also succeeds in reducing overall traffic
(Kristoffersson and Engelson 2009, Ng and Small 2012). Peak spreading may also be facilitated by
employers who grant their workers flexibility in determining their hours, so that not everyone is
necessarily commuting atthesametime (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1998).
4.2.7 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
If people are not willing to institute congestion charging on an entirethoroughfare, the option exists of
creating High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, which are lanes of a freeway that vehicles with multiple
occupants may use for free and that vehicles with only one occupant may use for a fee. The idea is that
such restrictions will make the HOT lanes less congested than other lanes, give people a motive to
carpool, and provide people with an opportunity to make a tradeoff between time spent traveling and
money spent on tolls. Even though only ten HOT lanes existed in the United States as of 2009 (not
counting High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes, which only vehicles with multiple occupants are allowed to use),
some insights can be gained from existing HOT-lane case studies. First of all, if vehicles with multiple
occupants are only able to use the HOT lane for free if they first submit some sort of registration, they
are less likely to do so. Multiple-occupant vehicles are also less likely to use a HOT lane if they are
merely charged a discounted toll instead of no toll at all. When public transit express buses are allowed
to use these special lanes, it increases their speed relative to parallel automobile traffic, which increases
transit ridership. When unemployment goes up, the number of people paying to use HOT lanes goes
down. Finally, gasoline prices are positively correlated with both carpooling and transit use and
negatively correlated with the number of people choosing to pay tolls to use HOT lanes (Goel and Burris
2012).
4.2.8 Trip Aggregation
Another concept used to address limited roadway capacity is that of "trip aggregation." Trip
aggregation attempts to achieve a combination of the efficiency that comes from reducing the ratio of
motor vehicles to people and the flexibility that makes personal automobiles a more attractive mode of
travel than public transit in most cases. One form of trip aggregation is carpooling; however, carpooling
is not a feasible option for the majority of trips. Another form of trip aggregation is car-sharing clubs. In
these clubs, people who already drive less often than the average person (and perhaps wish to
supplement their use of othertransportation modes) pay to rent vehicles for as little as one hour and
then return the vehicles to designated locations, as opposed to paying the fixed costs of owning an
automobile; the same business model is used in bike-sharing programs. Trip aggregation can also take
the form of government-subsidized demand-responsive transit services, which at the present time
typically serve either residents of rural areas or people with physical handicaps. Due to low passenger
volumes and long travel distances, though, these services tend to result in very little trip aggregation.
However, through the use of GPS, cell phones, and a centralized system for collecting, organizing, and
distributing information, more advanced forms of demand-responsive transit could conceivably be
created to transport fourto eight passengers in one vehicle from locations within one small area to
locations within another small area on relatively little notice and with greater speed and flexibility than
-------
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
45
ordinary publictransit (Tuomisto and Tainio 2005). In the U.S., trip aggregation programs (such as
vanpools) may be run privately or by publictransit agencies.
4.2.9 Crowding on Transit Vehicles
The impact of capacity constraints on transportation behavior is mostly considered in the context of
roadway capacity. However, publictransit systems also have limited capacities that, if insufficient to
meet demand, may also affect people's travel behavior. The effects of crowding on publictransit
vehicles is not often modeled, in large part because this is only a significant issue on a small number of
transit systems and only on certain parts of those systems or at certain times of day, and it is a
particularly difficult phenomenon to predict. A person may choose to take a different transit route
either because their preferred route is so crowded that when a transit vehicle reaches their stop there
will not necessarily be room for them to get onboard or because vehicles on their preferred route tend
to be crowded to the point of discomfort. If a passenger experiences crowding-induced discomfort on a
transit vehicle, that discomfort is greater if they are required to stand during the journey rather than
sitting. Also, the disutility that people derive from transit-vehicle crowding is taken to increase with the
length ofthetrip. However, longer transit trips are alsothe ones most likely to either start or end in a
low-density area, making them the transit trips on which crowding is least likely to be a serious problem.
Although the issue of crowding may motivate transit users to choose different routes or different
departure times, some early modeling efforts have indicated that the effect of transit-vehicle crowding
on mode choice is not significant (Zorn, Sail, and Wu 2012).
4.2.10 Economic, Social, and Psychological Motivations for Travel Behavior
While correlations may be established between particular environmental characteristics or government
policies and particular aspects of people's travel behavior, there does not yet exist an embracing theory
of how travel-related decisions are made, as such a theory would need to span many different social
sciences (Kitamura 2009). From an economic perspective, travel is treated as a derived demand, only
valued to the extent that it is necessary to perform other activities, meaning that the amount of use a
transportation system receives is dependent upon the destinations that it connects. In the most
simplistic of terms, those transportation systems, routes, and modes where there occurs a drop in the
price of travel (measured in terms of both time and money and assumingthe presence of worthwhile
destinations) will see an increase in travel demand (and actual travel) and a decrease in travel supply
(unused capacity). An increase in average travel speeds produces likewise changes in transportation
demand and traffic volume, which (assuming volumes increase enough to produce some measure of
congestion) causes average travel speeds to decrease. The result of this process, in theory, is a
balancing loop that produces an equilibrium combination of trafficvolume and averagetravel speed
(Kitamura 2009). Policy-makers, planners, and engineers then manipulate the transportation system in
such a way as to produce the most sustainable possible equilibrium points for volume and speed.
However, such efforts may result in conflicting objectives. For example, government actors may desire
both to decrease traffic congestion and to increase the proportion of travel that is carried out by modes
other than the personal automobile. Since reducing traffic congestion has the effect of increasing
automobile travel speeds relative to other modes of transportation, this action gives people a strong
-------
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
46
reason to not travel by those other modes unless required. Therefore, reduced automobile traffic
congestion and reduced automobile use are goals that likely require tradeoffs (Frank et al. 2008).
Another important social-science consideration in describing the drivers of travel behavior is that of
individual travelers' attitudes towards particular modes of transportation. According to Ewing and
Cervero (2010), transportation-related attitudes are still a less influential factorthan the built
environment in determining people's transportation behavior, but a significant one nonetheless.
Various studies have found contradictory evidence regarding whether people alter their behavior to
match their attitudes or altertheir attitudes to match their behavior (Haustein 2012, Popuri et al. 2011).
UndertheTheory of Cognitive Dissonance, people make choices and then adjust their attitudes to
support the choice they have already made. This contrasts with the much-more-used-in-transportation-
research Theory of Planned Behavior, which states that people perform actions because they have the
intention to perform them. Under this theory, a person's intention to take part in a particular behavior
is determined by their positive or negative valuation of that behavior (attitude), by any social pressure
they perceive to do or not do it (subjective norm), and by the degree to which they perceive they are
able to do it (perceived behavioral control). Also sometimes considered to be a factor in these decisions
is a perceived moral obligation to choose behaviors that conform with one's personal values (personal
norm) (Haustein 2012). Aside from savings of time and money, other characteristics of a transportation
mode that may contribute to someone valuing it as either "good" or "bad" may include: excitement,
prestige, privacy, autonomy, comfort, convenience, perceived safety, reliability, and the ability to have a
stress-free trip (Haustein 2012, Popuri et al. 2011). Popuri et al. (2011) found that accounting for such
attitudinal factors as these in the modeling of public transit demand results in greater predicted
reductions in ridership following service reductions and fare increases. At the same time, if a particular
mode of transportation provides people with the opportunity to conduct other activities (such as
working on a portable computer or conversing with another person) during their travel, people who
take advantage of that opportunity may be better disposed towards that mode and more willing to use
it for longer trips; to one degree or another, this motivating factor may apply to any travel mode,
including both private automobile travel and public transit, depending upon the availability of an
undisruptive environment and any necessary supportingtechnologies (Gripsrud and Hjorthol 2012).
Of the specific factors influencing people's transportation mode decisions, travel-time reliability is
becoming a more popular performance measure among transportation planners. However, the
behavioral effects of travel-time reliability are not adequately researched and it is still unclear what
relative amount of explanatory power reliability has compared to average time savings. Part of the
argument for giving more consideration to reliability (and unreliability) is that average travel times mask
any extremetravel-delay events that are severe enough to make a lasting impression in people's minds.
Nonetheless, most existing metrics of unreliability are primarily functions of general traffic congestion,
ratherthan more random bottleneck events. A study conducted in the Chicago metropolitan area found
that if transit trains have a speed advantage over parallel automobile traffic, also having an advantage in
terms of travel-time reliability would increase the odds of people choosing travel by train overtravel by
automobile. The authors of that study found the effect of travel-time reliability to be significant, but
also found it to not be the driving factor in people's mode choices. The same study also found evidence
-------
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
47
that travelers respond more to travel-time unreliability in the zones around their origin and destination
points than to unreliability along their entire travel route and that travelers are more responsive to the
average amount of unreliability that exists over the course of a day than to the amount of unreliability
that exists during any particulartime of day (e.g., morning rush hour, midday, evening rush hour, or
nighttime) (Sweet and Chen 2011).
4.2.11 Self-Selection
The greatest source of doubt that exists regardingthe magnitude ofthe effect ofthe built environment
on travel behavior is residential self-selection, the idea that a neighborhood built around a particular
kind of transportation behavior will simply attract residents who already had a predisposition towards
that kind of transportation behavior ratherthan motivating other peopleto changetheirtransportation
behavior (Ewing and Cervero 2010). One aspect of this self-selection isthetradeoffthat households
make between housing costs and transportation costs, as cheaper housing (by floor area) tends to be
located in areas with greater transportation costs (such as remote suburbs) and expensive housing tends
to be located in areas with lower transportation costs (such as highly walkable urban neighborhoods
with good public transit service) (Kitamura 2009). Even though some studies report that residential self-
selection reduces the impact ofthe built environment on travel behavior, nearly all studies on the
subject report that the relationship between the built environment and travel behavior remains
significant after controlling for self-selection (Ewing and Cervero 2010). One possible explanation for
this finding is the existence of latent demand for built-environment characteristics that are currently in
short supply, most especially those characteristics that are associated with more walking, more cycling,
more transit riding, and less driving. A new development (or redevelopment) with a more compact,
more mixed-use, and more walkable layout may attract people who have a predisposition towards
modes of transportation otherthan the personal automobile and who previously lived in a
neighborhood where the use of those modes was not feasible (Ewing and Cervero 2010, Frank et al.
2008). If this is the case, it may result in a greater lag time in between when a change is made to the
built environment and when any resultingtravel-behavior changes are observed, since it takes longerfor
new residents and workers to move into a neighborhood than for current residents and workers to alter
their habits (assuming that they a Iter their habits at all) (Frank et al. 2008).
4.2.12 Traveler Characteristics
A person's socioeconomic status and other personal characteristics have a significant influence on their
transportation behavior (through attitudes, travel requirements, and budgetary concerns). One's
socioeconomic characteristics have been estimated to have a greater influence than the built
environment on the frequency with which people make trips. Trip lengths have been estimated to be
determined more by the built environment than by socioeconomics. VMT and Vehicle Flours Traveled
(VFIT) have been estimated to be functions of both the built environment and socioeconomics.
Transportation mode decisions have been estimated to be influenced by both factors, but probably
influenced to a greater extent by socioeconomic characteristics (Ewing and Cervero 2010).
If different modes of transportation cost different amounts to use, and this disparity results in different
income groups having different favored modes of transportation, an increase in the number of people in
-------
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
48
a given income range will likely increase usage of that particular income range's favored transportation
mode; however, the mode of walking may not be as sensitive to income as automobiles and public
transit (Berechman and Paaswell 1997). At the same time, a person's mode choices may be affected by
what kind of job they have, regardless of how much money they make at that job. If somebody's job
requires them to travel to multiple geographic locations within a single workday, the odds are greater
that they will choose to commute by automobile, since that particular mode provides the necessary
flexibility to make those extra midday trips (Berechman and Paaswell 1997). Conversely, if someone
consistently works at a single location (regardless of whether or not they drive there), they may benefit
from working in a "park once" district, wherein any trips unrelated to their job that they might wish to
make during the day can be made on foot, on account of a large variety of destinations having been
established within walking distance of eithertheir workplace or the place where they parked (likely with
more parking being provided in centralized locations and less being provided at individual businesses)
(Metropolitan Area Planning Council 2010).
One of the most significant characteristics of an individual traveler influencing their travel behavior is
whether or not they own an automobile. Both because they have more opportunities to do so and
because they have evidenced an apparent intent to do so, people who own automobiles are more likely
than other peopletotravel by automobile (and less likely to travel by other modes), a relationship that
eclipses most other mode-choice factors (Berechman and Paaswell 1997, Kim and Kim 2004, Kitamura
2009). Furthermore, households with multiple motor vehicles tend to drive more than households with
only one motor vehicle, and the difference between the amount of driving done by multi-vehicle
households and the amount of driving done by single-vehicle households increases with the number of
licensed drivers per household. Related to this, the number of licensed drivers in a household is also the
greatest predictor of how many vehicles that household has, more so than household income (Kim and
Kim 2004).
4.2.13 Travel to School
Little research has been conducted onthe manner in which parents decide howtheir children willtravel
to school. In addition to deciding by what modetheir children will travelto and from school, parents
must also decide whether or not their children need to be escorted to school. Assuming that a child that
is too young to drive lives within walking distance of their school and does not ride the school bus, their
parents' decision of whether or not they require an escort is largely based on perceptions of safety along
the routeto school, both from traffic accidents and from criminals. Meanwhile, the simultaneous
decision of what mode of transportation should be used for traveling to school is mostly based upon the
distance to the school and what ever time constraints the family is subject to at the beginning and end of
the school day. If a child's parents have decided that it is safe for them to travelto school unescorted,
the parents' schedules do not represent a constraint on the child's ability to walk to school rather than
being driven. The desire fortheir children to get more exercise is not usually a major consideration of
parents deciding whether or not to have their offspring walk to school (Faulkner et al. 2010).
Pedestrian-friendly neighborhood design features, such as those that are implemented as part of Safe
Routes to School programs, have a noticeable effect onthe percentage of students who walk to school.
-------
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
49
However, the distance from a student's home to their school and the amount of time required to
traverse that distance are the greatest barriers to traveling to school without a motor vehicle. One
implication of this fact is that if a school is located in a particularly densely populated area, a
correspondingly high percentage of its students will walk to school. If all students are taken to live a half
mile from school and all else is assumed constant, 34% of them are estimated to walk to school. If all
students are taken to live one mile from school and all else is assumed constant, 19% of them are
estimated to walk to school. Because distance and neighborhood density are such important factors,
the schools likeliest to achieve high rates of students walking to school are elementary schools, as they
have smaller student bodies and therefore smaller attendance zones. However, with each additional
year of age, a student's likelihood of traveling to school on foot increases by 0.4% and their likelihood of
traveling to school by automobile decreases by 1.4%. Also, children with siblings are more likely to walk
to school than single children, possibly due to a combination of parents' safety concerns being alleviated
by their offspring walking together and the inconvenience of driving to and from multiple schools each
day (McDonald 2008).
4.2.14 Travel by the Elderly
As people age, they eventually reach a point where it is no longer safe for them to drive an automobile.
When this happens, if they wish to retain their mobility, they must find other ways of getting around.
The most favored mode of transportation among people who are too old to drive is riding in an
automobile driven by a relative or friend, especially if the traditions of their family or community dictate
that an elderly person's family have a responsibility to assume a strong caregiving role towards them.
However, since the current trend is towards a greater percentage of elderly people's adult children
moving far away from their parents, a large proportion of the elderly must either adopt other
alternatives to the private automobile or assume a state of extremely limited mobility (Waldorf 2003).
To understand the travel behavior of the elderly, though, distinctions must be made among them. First
of all, there are captive automobile users and captive public transit users, who are constrained to a
single mode of transportation either by their physical condition or by a built environment that does not
accommodate other transportation modes. Second, there are elderly people who still have access to all
modes of transportation and are able to decide between them on the basis of personal preferences.
Finally, there are elderly people who are affluent and healthy enough that mobility is not a problem for
them, but they still live in an automobile-dominated environment (Haustein 2012). Elderly people tend
to place more value on perceived safety from crime than do younger people; although this would seem
to suggest a greater reluctance amongthe elderly to use non-automobile modes of transportation,
perceived danger is actually weakly correlated with mode choice, possibly explained by perceived-to-be-
dangerous trips being shifted to perceived-to-be-safer times of day or being made with company. Other
factors influencing the use of cars by the elderly include weather considerations, the availability of cars,
and the perceived quality of public transit in their area. The mode share of public transit among the
elderly is affected by their attitudes towards transit, how close they live to the center of a metropolitan
area, and whether automobile transportation is available to them. Meanwhile, bicycle use amongthe
elderly is affected by their attitudes towards it and weather considerations (Haustein 2012). Even
assuming that high-quality alternative modes of transportation are available to the elderly when they
are no longer able to travel by personal automobile, their making use of those modes depends upon
-------
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
50
acquiring a good working knowledge of the available options, preferably well before they stop being
able to drive (Haustein 2012, Waldorf 2003).
4.2.15 Transportation-Behavior Modeling Techniques
Most conventional travel behavior models consist of four sequential steps, based on the assumption
that 1) people decide to make a trip, 2) they decide what the destination of that trip will be, 3) they
decide what mode they will use for the trip, and 4) they decide what route the trip will follow. However,
a better reflection of reality might be modeling these decisions as being simultaneous, since they may
not always be made in the same order. Unfortunately, just like most other modeling techniques that
produce a closer representation of reality, modeling people as making multiple decisions at the same
time would be very complex, difficult, and time-consuming, resulting in a necessary tradeoff between
accuracy and expediency (Hasan and Dashti 2007, Newman and Bernardin Jr. 2010).
One particular limitation of conventional transportation modeling is the assumption that destination
decisions necessarily come before mode decisions, which implies that people are more likely to change
their minds regarding their mode of travel than regarding their destinations. In this way, modeling
destination decisions as being made before mode decisions is a technique best suited for use in large
metropolitan areas wherein the transit system is good enough to be competitive with automobile travel
and there is a large number of people who both have the option of traveling by either transit or
automobile and consider each of those modes to be a viable option. In areas that do not fit this
description, modeling destination decisions before mode decisions could potentially represent transit
ridership rates as experiencing larger changes in response to level-of-service changes in the transit
system than actually occur. On the other hand, if mode choices are not made until after destination
choices, different modes can be taken to be compared on the basis of actual travel times. Few studies
have so far examined the possibility of modeling mode choices before destination choices (Newman and
Bernardin Jr. 2010).
Another possible shortcoming of current travel behavior models is that the number of trips people make
("trip generation") is not taken to be affected by changes in the capacity of the transportation system,
even though increased capacity in thetransportation system implies increased accessibility to various
desirable destinations, which could potentially motivate people to make moretrips. Including this
consideration in a model would be very complicated and very difficult to generalize to the point where it
could be applied to more than onetransportation system. Also, this theoretical link between
transportation system capacity and trip generation has not yet been proven. Therefore, most models
regard the number of trips into and out of a given zone as a function of sociodemographic
characteristics and land use patterns, and not as a function of system capacity (Kitamura 2009).
Assuming that all people make their transportation-related decisions in the same fashion, such as
everyone havingthe same perception of the opportunity cost of time spent traveling, is not realistic.
Therefore, transportation behavior modeling would benefit from dividing travelers into various
categories, based on combinations of socioeconomic characteristics and travel purposes. Ideally, the
travel costs perceived by members of each category would be affected by the travel behavior of each of
-------
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
51
the other categories. This, too, is a technique that would increase the complexity of the modeling
process (Hasan and Dashti 2007).
A key concept in the forecasting oftravel behavior is travel-time budgets. Underthis concept, demand
for travel is assumed to be incidental to demand for the things that one travels for; thus, there is only so
much of a given person's time that they are willing to spend traveling and the given person will adjust
theirtravel behavior in such a way as to avoid exceedingthat budget. In models, this budgeting oftime
spent on travel is sometimes combined with the budgeting of money spent on travel. One problem with
travel budgets, though, is that they are typically assumed to be constant, rather than being affected by
any of the outcomes of the models they feed into (Kitamura 2009). An illustration of the effect of modal
decisions on travel-time budgets may be seen in Figure 3 and travel-time budget surpluses may be seen
as an input to car-only person-miles traveled per person per day in Figure 2.
travel budget
<% of population that is
children>
Ave. time spent
on cycling trips
Ave. car trip speed/Ave.
transit itinerary speed
Ave. cycling
speed/Ave. walk speed
+Ave. transit itinerary
speed/Ave. walk speed
Ave. transit itinerary
speecj/Ave. cycling speed
Ave. car trip
speed/Ave. walk speed
Ave. car trip
speed/Ave. cycling
speed
budget
speed of
spent on car
trips
spent on
walking trips
Ave. walking
speed of
budget surplus
Ave. time spent
Figure 3: System-dynamics diagram of the effect of modal d ecis ions on travel-time budgets. Red arrows are negative
relationships and blue arrows are positive relationships.
-------
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
52
Modeling entire tours, wherein someone travels from a given origin point to any number of destination
points and then back to the origin point, can be more informative than modeling individual trips.
Typically, people decidewhat mode of transportation they will usefor an entiretour priorto
commencing. For example, a person is less likely totake public transit somewhere ifthey know that
they will not be coming home until after the transit service day has ended and will be unlikely to travel
home by some means other than automobile ifthey left home in a car that they are now responsible for
also getting back home. However, the mode of walking may be used for a few small legs within atour
that is otherwise dominated by some othertransportation mode. If a tour has one primary destination
and some number of "extra" destinations that will be stopped at sometime priorto returning to the
origin point, the mode choice for the tour is unlikely to be greatly influenced by land-use patterns
around any stops but the origin point and the primary destination. As stated earlier, though, there has
so far been little research on the effect of land uses around somebody's place of work on theirtravel
behavior. If people are presented with high-enough-quality non-automobile mode options, and use
those options, a greater proportion of their tours will probably only stop at one destination before
returningtotheorigin point (Frank et al. 2008).
Most travel behavior models do not give much consideration to the time of day at which a person
departs on atrip, and most of the models that do give this consideration only narrow down departure
times to one of a series of broad time periods, usually a couple hours in duration. Greater precision
would be required in orderto study variations in traffic congestion within a given peak travel period,
which is currently considered a high-priority research area. Issues of complexity and prohibitively long
computer runtimes have limited the number of large-scale models including departure-time choices
(Kristoffersson and Engelson 2009).
When modeling the effects of crowding on publictransit vehicles, some models treat it in the same
manner as road congestion, as a function of demand volume and system capacity. Flowever, on a
crowded transit vehicle, perceived travel time may more greatly exceed actual travel time than it would
on a congested roadway, due to the disutility of boarding a crowded vehicle. As a result of this
complication, many models that describe the behavioral effects of transit crowding do not feed those
effects back into the model as drivers. Another limitation of such models is the difficulty in calculating
transit crowding effects in between a specific origin point and a specific destination point. In spite of
these shortcomings, in those locations wheretransit vehicles reach capacity with significant frequency,
modeling the behavioral impacts of transit crowding could be an important aspect of testing the
potential outcomes of changes in the capacity of thetransit system (Zorn, Sail, and Wu 2012).
In the study and modeling of nonmotorized transportation, different methods and considerations are
needed than in the modeling of automobile traffic and publictransit use. Since non motorized modes
(especially walking) are consistently farslowerthan motorized modes, comparing motorized and
nonmotorized travel times would be a meaningless exercise. Also, since people of the same age and
height generally walk at similar speeds regardless of the respective environments in which they walk,
using travel distance, as opposed to travel time, in disutility functions makes more sense fortravel by
foot, along with other barriers to nonmotorized transportation such as steep slopes, precipitation, the
-------
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
53
dark of night, and environments that are generally perceived as less safe than others. Furthermore,
because the average nonmotorized trip is significantly shorterthan the average motorized trip, the
analysis of nonmotorized travel requires a finer scale of analysis than what most transportation models
provide. Achieving an analysis with the necessary resolution to consider nonmotorized modes could
potentially be done with the help of G IS software and data on the latitudes and longitudes of specific
origins and destinations, assuming the provision of sufficiently detailed demographic and employment
data. Finally, accounting must be made of such correlations as the fact that curvilinear streets and cul-
de-sacs (which discourage nonmotorized transportation) are more common in hilly terrain (which also
discourages nonmotorized transportation) (Cervero and Duncan 2003).
4.2.16 Data Availability for Modeling Travel Behavior
Many small and medium-sized towns, including those located near larger cities, do not have enough
money at their disposal to carry out the surveys necessary to gather data from which to calculate trip
generation rates for travel-behavior models. In such towns, identifying alternative data sources that
could be used with confidence can be helpful. Trip-generation rates applicable to various communities
were published by the National Cooperative Flighway Research Program (NCFIRP) in 1998, but only for
communities with at least 50,000 residents. Forthose communities that aresmaller, the option exists of
adapting national-scale data to their purposes, such as from the Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey (NPTS). Also, in some parts of the country, including South Carolina and Oregon, generalized
reusable transportation models have been created that are to be applied to many different small and
medium-sized communities. Finally, communities may chooseto simulate travel data fortheir
jurisdiction on the basis of local socioeconomic data and patterns observed in travel surveys from other,
nearby, larger communities. If a small or medium-sized community that cannot afford a travel survey
and a large community that can afford such a survey are sufficiently closetogether and sufficiently
interconnected, data may be transferred from the larger community to the smaller one for the purpose
of creating trip generation rates. To determine if such a practice actually could be justifiable would
require additional research specificto these communities. If it does turn out to be a valid practice,
though, the implication would be that, at least sometimes, conducting a more extensive travel survey of
a smaller area (that can be applied to additional locations) may be betterthan collecting a less certain
dataset for a larger area (Florner, Stone, and Fluntsinger 2008).
4.2.17 Specific Resources and Tools for Determining Travel Behavior Outcomes
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Smart Growth Index (SGI) is a GIS-based planning
tool used for modeling base and alternative land-use and transportation scenarios for a single
point in time and comparing them on the basis of pre-programmed indicators that span the
three dimensions of sustainability, including indicators of travel behavior (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2013d). To model the effects of the built environment on travel behavior,
the SGI uses Ewing and Cervero's 5 D's. It incorporates the built-environment characteristic of
density in the form of activity density, which is the sum of the residents and jobs located in an
area divided by the number of square miles in the area. The built environment characteristic of
land-use diversity is incorporated in the form of the ratio between a given area's jobs-to-housing
balance and the jobs-to-housing balance of a larger region that the given area is within. The SGI
-------
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
54
also incorporates the transportation-system design elements of street-network density,
sidewalk coverage, and route directness, which is defined as the ratio between the distance
someonetravels between two points and the straight-line distance between those points (Ewing
and Cervero 2010).
• The Simultaneous Transportation Equilibrium Model (STEM) is a travel behavior model wherein
the trip generation rates are taken to be affected by the model's own outcomes. The MjjJtidass
Simultaneous Transportation Equilibrium Model (MSTEM) is based on the STEM model, but with
the added element of dividing travelers into classes according to their socioeconomic
characteristics, their purposes for traveling, and the use of either single transportation modes or
combined transportation modes, with each class makingtransportation-related decisions on the
basis of different criteria. Because the cost attributed to using any particular link of the
transportation system is taken to be dependent upon the traffic flows on that and all other links,
different classes of travelers may be calculated to take different routes between the same origin
and destination. This model also combines the trip-generation step with estimating people's
decisions regarding departuretime. The downside of the MSTEM model is that its use requires
a lot of time, money, and effort (Hasan and Dashti 2007).
• CONTRAM is a route-choice model forgiven origin-destination pairs. It is used in many different
cities, in various countries (Kristoffersson and Engelson 2009).
• The Unified Mechanism of Travel (UMOT) model is a transportation behavior model based
around the idea of unchanging household travel budgets that can be applied in situations across
both space and time. In this model, the constraints on travel activity are taken to be daily travel
time pertraveler and money spent on transportation per household. The model assumes that
whenever someone experiences travel-time savings, they will use that extra time for more
travel. The UMOT model has the advantages of being simple and having low data requirements,
but also some limitations, including a car-ownership component that has been called
"simplistic" and the use of some questionable elasticities between the cost of using a given
mode of transportation and the rate at which that mode is actually used (Kitamura 2009).
• Origin-Destination travel survey data exists for almost every metropolitan area in the United
States, often coming from up to three surveys per metropolitan region, taken at intervals of
approximately ten years. Typically, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of a given
area (the local organization through which federal transportation funding is distributed to urban
areas with populations of 50,000 or moreforthe purpose of keeping transportation projects
and policies coordinated) will match up this survey data with information on their area's
transportation network and patterns of land use. Taken together, all of this information could
form a very useful database. However, the data is often not well-archived, not well-
documented, and not easily available to researchers (Kitamura 2009).
4.3 Air Quality Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators
Transportation sources significantly contribute to global, regional, and local air quality impacts. Air
emissions occur from fuel combustion, fuel and fluid evaporation through engine operations and leaks,
abrasion from brake use, tire wear, and re-entrainment of dust from road and other transportation
-------
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
55
surfaces. Transportation sources emit criteria pollutants, airtoxics, greenhouse gases, and multiple
chemical and physical forms of particulate matter.
Many methods have been employed to reduce air quality impacts from transportation sources. These
methods typically include reducing emissions through regulations and standards and/or reducing motor
vehicle activity. Investing in and deploying public transit, increasing costs for personal vehicle use (e.g.
congestion pricing), and improving facilities for walking and biking have all been employed in efforts to
reduce motorvehicle activity. Recent development practices have been initiated in many parts of the
worldto promotethe reduction of vehicle activity, and subsequent impacts on airquality and the
environment, through compact growth and infill development. The goal of these "smart growth"
practices is to make transportation more accessible, convenient, and with a reduced impact on the
environment. However, these practices often also bring people in closer and longer contact with
transportation source emissions. Exact differences in exposure to near-road air pollution depend on
many variables, includingthe manner in which air pollutants aretransported, which is an area of
significant research needs.
Recent research has demonstrated a link between adverse human health effects and exposures to air
pollutants from traffic emissions near large roadways and othertransportation sources. The Health
Effects Institute (HEI) recently completed a review of a large number of health studies, concluding that
near-road exposures "are a public health concern." This is because of the toxicity of the small particles
and chemicals emitted and the emission of these particles and chemicals close to the ground, where
they are not well dispersed (http://pubs.heaItheffects.org/view.php?id=334). Although the link
between adverse health effects and near-road exposures has been made, the science has not yet
progressed to an understanding of how some key elements affect these associations, such as the type
and size of roads of concern, the vehicle fleet mix, activities leading to highest exposures, and the
distance from the road at which near-road health impacts subside. Most studies on traffic and health
focus on roads with high levels of traffic (for example, counts of 100,000 annual average daily traffic
(AADT) or higher). A few studies have reported health effects associated with smaller traffic volumes,
with one study showing effects at volumes as low as 10,000 AADT in an area (HEI Panel on the Health
Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution 2010). Whilethe health studies reviewed by HEI focused on
exposures to traffic emissions, other transportation sources such as rail yards, rail lines, airports, and
marine ports have comparable concerns due to similarities in the type and characteristics of air pollution
emissions.
For most transportation sources, air pollutant concentrations are generally highest closest to the source,
with concentrations lowering with distance from the facility. However, the magnitude and extent of
these increased air pollutant concentrations can vary based on a number of factors related to emissions,
includingthe source, meteorological and topographic conditions affecting pollutant transport and
dispersion, and the influence of roadway design and roadside features on pollutant transport and
dispersion. Traffic emissions may vary depending on the total number of vehicles using a road, the level
of congestion on the road, and the number of heavy-duty trucks present. For rail operations, the
number of trains, cargo weight, maintenance activities, and line/yard configuration will influence
-------
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
56
emissions and exposures. Ports and airports will generate emissions from the ships/planes using the
facility, as well as support equipment permanently present. For marine ports, large numbers of heavy-
duty trucks may also be present on local roadways to move goods from the port; rail activity into and
out of a marine port may also be substantial. Air pollutant concentrations neartransportation facilities
will also be affected by wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability. Changes in local
topography from natural or roadway-design features will also affect air pollutant transport and
dispersion, which can lead to varying exposures for nearby populations. Thus, air quality may vary
based on surroundingterrain and features, such as cut sections, noise walls, vegetation, or combinations
of these features (Baldauf et al. 2009).
International consensus has emerged that people living, working, and going to school near high-traffic-
volume roads face increased risks for a number of adverse health effects (HEI Panel on the Health
Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution 2010). These health effects have been attributed to acute and
chronic exposures to elevated levels of air pollution near these roads, including particulate matter (PM),
gaseous criteria pollutants, and air toxics (Karner, Eisinger, and Niemeier 2010). Field measurements
conducted throughout the world, including the US., have shown highly elevated air pollution levels near
high volume roadways. Pollutant concentrations are often highest within the first 100-150 meters, with
increased concentrations of some pollutants of as much as an order of magnitude. Pollutant
concentrations from traffic emissions can remain elevated 300-500 meters or more from the road
(Karner, Eisinger, and Niemeier 2010, H El PanelontheFlealth Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution
2010).
With increased urbanization occurring world-wide, the number of people exposed to traffic emissions
near high-volume roadways will continue to increase. One factor contributing to this trend is that a
growing portion of publictransportation and land use policies and practices supporting sustainable
development patterns promote compact growth in infill locations along majortransportation corridors.
Transit-oriented development, offering a mix of housing and supportive land uses located neartransit
and with accessibility to jobs and services, nonetheless offers a variety of benefits. This development
pattern is intended to capture the benefits of location efficiency, which is strongly correlated with
household transportation spending. As land use development patterns affect travel behavior, air quality
and global climate conditions are indirectly affected by urban form. While sustainable development
practices increase the population's access to services and transportation options and promote regional
reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and air pollution, they also often bring people closer to
sources of air pollutant emissions, including from traffic activity. Accordingly, there is a growing need to
reduce air-pollutant exposures for people residing and working near high-volume roadways.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing a number of policies to address these
impacts of major roads on nearby air quality. Recent revisionsto monitoring rules forthe National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) require monitors for PM, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) near high-traffic roads in large metropolitan areas. The Environmental Protection
Agency's transportation conformity rule requires modeling of PM2.5 and/or PM10 "hot spot"
concentrations in the immediate vicinity of large federal highway or transit projects involving high levels
-------
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
57
of heavy-duty diesel vehicle traffic. Projects are required to model concentrations at or below the
NAAQS, or show that concentrations with the project built are modeled lower than concentrations
without the project built.
The complexity and multitude of factors affecting air pollutant concentrations near transportation
sources makes it difficult to recommend a strict set of guidance for "safe" distances from these source
types, particularly given the potential for unintended consequences. Decision-makers considering one
or more sites in close proximity to majortransportation facilities should consider a range of approaches
to mitigate or avoid potential exposures. When evaluating potential sites that may be located near a
highway or other majortransportation facility, several factors should be considered:
• Are there other sites in the community at further distances from the source that are also being
considered? Urban areas may be limited in their ability to find appropriate sites away from
major roads, majorgoods movement facilities, and othertransportation sources; thus, careful
consideration should be given to near-road and othertransportation-source sites before
eliminating them if the only alternatives involve siting schools, for example, much further from
the communities being served. Unintended negative consequences of moving schools away
from these communities may include increased pollutant exposures during longer bus or
personal car commutes, increased traffic on local roads to access schools further from their
communities, lack of walking, biking, or other alternative commute options to school, and the
inability to meet many of the other smart growth objectives described in this document.
• What options might befeasible for mitigating pollutant concentrations at the site from off-site
sources (Baldauf et al. 2009)?
o Studies suggest that roads in cut sections (i.e. road surface below surrounding terrain)
or that have combinations of noise barriers, vegetation, and/or buildings nearthe
roadside may reduce downwind air pollution concentrations,
o Building design techniques may be employed to reduce exposures at near-source
locations, such as encouraging activity as far from the source as possible (e.g.,
entrances, playgrounds, gathering places) and locating air intakes at locations not
affected by off- or on-site transportation-related air pollutant sources,
o Installing or preserving barriers such as trees, buildings, and noise barriers may reduce
air pollutant exposures,
o Filtration devices as part of HVAC design can be used to improve indoor air quality as
described in other sections of this guidance,
o Adding controls or redesigning transportation facilities to reduce pollutant emissions
and air concentrations. Examples of this practice include: replacing or retrofitting port
and rail engines/equipment with cleaner technologies, reducing idling at terminal
facilities, re-routing existing or projected traffic away from populated areas (e.g., truck-
only lanes), and adoption of high-density development and transit alternatives.
Transportation sources impact air quality through three major pathways: vehicle operating emissions of
gaseous and particulate contaminants, secondary formations during plume transport of gases and
particles, and mechanical processes that abrade particles from brakes, tires, and the road surface.
-------
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
58
Carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxides (NO*), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as PM
constituents such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and black carbon (BC) are amongthe
numerous compounds that have been identified at elevated concentrations near large roads
(Venkatram et al. 2007).
Emission reduction programs implemented by government agencies throughout the world have
significantly reduced emission rates of air pollutants from motor vehicles. Since 1970 in the U.S.,
average per vehicle emissions have been reduced by over 90% for VOCs, and over 80% for PMio and
NO*. In spite of these reductions, motor vehicles still significantly contribute to pollution in urban areas,
often due to large increases in vehicle use offsetting per-vehicle emission reductions (Dallmann and
Harley 2010). Furthermore, emissions from some vehicle-associated sources (e.g. brake and tire wear)
are not regulated, and pollutants generated from these sources may also increase in the future with
increased vehicle use.
Populations near roads are exposed to this mixture of primary emissions and secondarily formed
pollutants. Approximately 30 to 45% of urban populations in the US. are likely exposed to elevated
pollution levels near roads (Zhou and Levy 2007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013c). In many
countries with densely populated urban areas this figure is likely to be even higher.
4.3.1 Specific Resources and Tools for Determining Air Quality Outcomes
• The Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.0 employs a 3-dimensional
Eulerian modeling approach to address air quality issues such as tropospheric ozone, fine
particles, acid deposition, and visibility degradation (Byun and Schere 2006). CMAQ is process-
based and employs first-principal relationships to the greatest extent possible. The model is a
multiscale, multipollutant, "one atmosphere" system that includes a meteorological component
to describe atmospheric conditions, emission models for anthropogenic and natural emissions
that are released into the troposphere, and a chemical-transport model (CTM)to simulate
chemical transformations, atmospheric transport, and fate. Most anthropogenic and biogenic
emissions are parameterized as emission factors and activity rates, or are represented by hourly
estimates of temporally and spatially allocated emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile-
source inventories. CMAQoperates on a five-minute timestep, but results are usually produced
hourly. The model simulates regional-scale air quality issues via a set of rectangular grids
ranging in size from 1 km2 for small domains to 100 km2 for hemispheric-scale simulations. The
one-atmosphere approach supports a comprehensive, system-wide technique for analysis of
complex sustainability issues spanning air, land, and water media. CMAQ regional air quality
simulations at the community scale rely heavily on detailed inventories of transportation-related
emissions. A description of the mobile on- and off-road source emissions input to CMAQ is
provided at
http://epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/2007v5/20Q7v5 2020base EmisMod TSD 13dec2012.pdf.
Transportation emissions include on-road vehicle, on-road refueling, nonroad (construction and
agriculture), rail, and marine emissions. Marine emissions are particularly important
contributors to overall particulate loads in cities that house large commercial seaports. Except
-------
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
59
for California, all on-road vehicle and on-road refueling emissions numbers are generated using
an emissions modeling framework (SMOKE-MOVES,
http://www.epa.gov/otaa/models/moves/index.htm) and hourly meteorology. This system
differentiates emissions by process (running of the engine, startingthe engine, vaporventing,
etc.), vehicle type, road type, temperature, speed, hour of the day, etc. to produce a set of
emission factors. Emissions for a county are the result of mult iplying these factors by vehicle
miles travelled orvehicle population (activity). California emissions are provided by the
California Air Resources Board (CARES) using their EMFAC model, designed specifically for
California fleets.
• EPA maintains the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES! model for estimating air pollution
emissions from all on-road motor vehicles including cars, trucks, motorcycles and buses. MOVES
allows motor vehicle emissions to be analyzed at various scales: national, county, and project,
using different levels of input data. The project scale allows the prediction of air emissions from
traffic activity on a specific road or intersection to be estimated. In addition to MOVES, EPA has
several other calculator-style tools that can be used to estimate emissions of specific types of
vehicles. EPA maintains guidance for using MOVES for regulatory purposes of state air quality
plans and transportation conformity determinations; however, MOVES is also EPA's best tool for
developing on-road greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventories at the state and local level, with
guidance for using MOVES to estimate GHG inventories. For access to MOVES and these other
tools, as well as guidance for use and interpretation, please refer to
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/tools.htm.
• The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has guidance for estimating the air
quality benefits of various control measures and accounting for them in a state air quality plan
or an area's transportation conformity determination. Subjects covered by this guidance
include transportation pricing, land use, and commuter programs. Please referto
www.epa.gov/otaa/stateresources/policv/pag transp.htm for a list of the full range of
measures on which guidance is available.
• EPA OTAQ has developed an approach for estimating emission reductions, of both criteria
pollutants and GHGs, from "travel efficiency strategies," those emission reduction strategies
that affect travel activity, such as travel demand management (e.g., telecommuting, transit
subsidies), public transit fare changes and service improvements, road and parking pricing, and
land use/smart growth. This approach is described in a series of documents, found at
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ghgtravel.htm.
• EPA OTAQ has guidance for completing quantitative hot-spot analyses for individual highway or
transit projects, required for certain projects in PM and CO nonattainment areas. The PM hot-
spot guidance covers estimating emissions using MOVES, estimating air quality concentrations
using EPA-approved dispersion models (e.g., AERMOD), determiningthe background air
pollutant concentration, and calculatingthe resulting design value forthe project. Policy and
technical guidance for hot-spot analyses, as well as training and other resources, can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/otaa/stateresources/transconf/proiectlevel-hotspot.htm.
-------
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2|l95
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2|201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
60
• Fuel composition is regulated to achieve air-quality goals underthe authority of the Clean Air
Act. Releases to the environment occur through the use of fuels for transport at ion, the
production of both fossil fuels and biomass-derived fuels, leaks from pipelines, spills during the
transport of fuels, and leaks from storage tanks. The EPA is developing a model, called
PVIScreen. to account forthe transport and fate of fuel components in soil gas and
groundwater. Volatile components of leaked fuels, including vehicle fuels, diffuse through the
soil gas and in some cases cause indoor air contamination (called vapor intrusion). The
composition of the fuel, subsurface properties, building properties, oxygen availability in the soil
gas, and the location of the leaked fuel determine the magnitude of the impact. Care must be
taken to mitigate high concentrations of petroleum vapors that enter buildings from acute fuel
releases. Field data have shown, however, that many impacts from less severe releases are
mitigated before the vapors reach the bottom of a foundation (McFlugh et a I. 2010, Lahvis et a I.
2013).
4.4 Energy Use and Climate Change Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators
Energy use in the transportation system, including both passenger and freight transportation, is of key
interest at the global, national, state, and local levels. At the national level, approximately 28% of total
energy consumption in the U.S. is fortransportation, including light and heavy duty vehicles, airplanes,
buses, trains, barges, and ships (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013a). Personal
transportation in light-duty vehicles (including cars, minivans, light-duty trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, etc.)
accounted forthe majority (59%) of total transportation energy use (highway and non-highway) and
72% of highway transportation energy use in 2010 (from Table 2.5 in Davis, Diegel, and Boundy (2012)).
Energy use is also closely coupled to a number of other environmental outcomes, particularly air quality
and climate change. Economic factors also play an important role in assessingtransportation energy
production and use, whetherthe consideration involves household and individual expenditures on
transportation fuels or broader national issues of energy security and reliability of the transportation
system in terms of fuel supply.
Transportation energy use can be broken down into a set of key indicators, which can then inform
policies and decision-making regarding ways to reduce overall energy use and, by extension,
greenhouse gas (GFIG) emissions. These indicators include: end-use travel demand (often expressed as
vehicle-miles traveled or VMT), vehicle efficiency orfuel economy (gallons per mile), mode of travel
(expressed as a percentage modal split or VMT per mode, which can then be used to assess VMT and
fuel economy on the basis of the vehicle fleet of interest), and overall system efficiency of the surface
transportation system (such as congestion levels). Each of these will be discussed here, while
highlighting selected tools, resources^ and indicators related to travel demand, travel mode, and fuel
economy. Taken together, these elements can inform assessments of the key driving factors of
transportation energy use.
Climate change is closely interrelated with transportation energy use due to the combustion of
petroleum-based fuels. Given this close relationship, energy use, climate change, and the measures
taken to address these issues will be discussed together in this section. As a major consumer of fossil
-------
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
61
208 fuels, the U.S. transportation sector is also a major source of GHG emissions (33% of 2011 CO2 emissions
209 from fossil fuel combustion), the second largest contributor following the electricity sector (U.S.
210 Environmental Protection Agency 2013b). Most of these emissions are tailpipe emissions of CO2,
211 although there are also non-CCh emissions such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as
212 hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from vehicle air conditioning units.
213
214 t > intotaiOS,
215 ¦> . . . . ' ' ' . and would 1 inee < _ - , • .•
216 In the context of climate "stabilization wedges", sS. ' , ; of climate
217 "stabilization wedges." • Paea-ta-a-fid Socolow-(S994)-Pacala and Socolow (2004)^ . 1 „g
218 ' . i • ' ' ' - ' ¦ - . would • , • . ¦ ¦
219 • - •- in a given periodev-ep-timer • . . > ~ • . : :
220 emissions thai: grow linearly overtime. An analysis by the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality
221 {399^(Mui et al.2007) >. . • •- . . , - ,
222 applied and scaled for different levels of analysis. Out of the nine wedges, half of them would flatten
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
• positive
' \
os - "
Ma&havek-h-et-a-k-(59-lS-)M ash ay ekh et al. (2012) t
(Balbus, Grccnblatt, et al., 2014)(Balbus et al. 2014)
" 1 of climate-mitigation activities . ¦ ¦ 1
feert feci -
wedge analvses#te¥ c
s
, from climate mitigation activitie;
242 ' • > • . s
243 that transportation strategies can be "mutually reinforcing" and that "GHG emissions reductions goal
244 could be attained bv aggressively pursuing both existing policies and the four strategies discussed [in
245
245
246 fMgsfegi^ok|]jCt_ajaj0121.
247
248 " , t|3.!
249 a range of options for both achieving reductions in energy use and meeting
-------
2|250
2251
2|252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
62
Methods and tools that reduce/ofa/demandfortransportation energy, whether in theform of liquid 1 Formatted: Font: Italic
transportation fuels (fossil or renewable) or electricity, will generally translate into reductions in carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, different sources of transportation energy, includingnamelv gasoline. : Formatted: Font: Italic
diesel^ and, increasingly, electricity, are used to meet the total transportation end-use demand, and
these fuels have different carbon contents, affecting total CO2 emissions. Switching to lower-carbon or
biomass-based fuels can represent an additional measure to reduce the carbon footprint of
transportation fuels. However, when assessingthe use of renewable fuels derived from biomass or of
electric vehicles powered from the grid, additional factors need to be considered in order to capture the
full greenhouse gas impacts ofthese alternatives. In particular, in orderto assess the greenhouse gas
implications of alternative fuels, quantifying the upstream impacts associated with the production of
those fuels is important (US. Environmental Protection Agency 2010e). Moreover, transportation fuel
choices, whether gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, propane, ethanol or biodiesel, will have
important implications forthe vehicle fleets and fuel distribution infrastructure that are part of a
community's landscape. While there is a range of studies regarding specific issues (e.g., underground
storage tanks for ethanol blends), there do not appear to be tools or resources that look systematically
at how transportation fuel infrastructure fits within the broader sustainable communities context.
While research on life-cycle impacts (cradle to grave implications) has often focused on upstream
impacts of fuel and electricity production, there are also GHG and other environmental impacts related
to material flows in production. Although their total contribution to GHG impacts and energy use may
be small, the production of vehicles and vehicle components, as well as of larger transportation
infrastructure (e.g., concrete production), may need to be considered in terms of other environmental
endpoints, which would consequently be counted among the impacts of automobile dependence. To
illustrate, some studies have found that the GHG emissions for lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery materials and
their production may account for only 2-5% of total life-cycle GHGs (Samaras and Meisterling 2008).
However, different battery systems (e.g., NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride) or Li-ion) will havevarying
impacts for other endpoints, such as metals depletion and ecotoxicity (Majeau-Bettez, Hawkins, and
Stromman 2011). Some ofthese related issues may become relevant to communities' materials
management and suggest the need for better end-of-life recyclingfor electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle
batteries. Another example of materials issues related to fuel production is the production of biodiesel
and the fate of the glycerol by-product produced (Steinmetz et al. 2013). This could be a significant
waste stream that communities would need to manage, but it may also have reuse potential in other
applications that could result in some additional air emissions, as well as offsetting benefits. These
examples represent the type of potential problem-shifting that would need to be avoided as more
sustainable transportation energy solutions are pursued by communities, and argue for a greater need
for systems approaches when assessing solutions. The EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research Program is in the process of producing another synthesis paper on sustainable waste and
materials management, which may be looked to for further insights on these issues.
4.4.1 Transportation Demand
One of the critical indicators of transportation energy consumption is vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per
capita (or potentially average trip length, transportation mode shares, or some other descriptor of
-------
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
63
people's transportation behavior) (Black, Paez, and Suthanaya 2002). At a very basic level, trends in
overall transportation demand for a particular region or community are driven by the combination of
population growth and person-miles traveled per capita. Population growth can be a major
fundamental driver increasing pressure on transportation energy use. For example, the Annual Energy
Outlook projects substantial increases in VMT in regions such as the Pacific Coast and the South Atlantic
Region, which includes most of the east coast states from Florida to the Carolinas and upto Maryland
(US. Energy Information Administration 2013b). On the other hand, VMT in the New England States
and Midwest is anticipated to grow at a more moderate pace. These projections result from trends in
population growth and changing demographics, including trends such as the migration of population to
regions such as the southeastern U.S. These are larger national and regional trends, which are often
beyond the scope of a community's decision making. Flowever, the way in which these broader changes
in population growth and VMT play out at the community scale is closely linked to land use change and
urban form. Some communities have been able to document important energy and GFIG reductions
achieved through urban design (Portland, OR is one example, see Rose and Burkholder (2009)). This
topic is addressed in greater depth in other sections of this document. Flowever, some examples of
potential relationships between energy use and measures that are aimed at reducing transportation
demand in a given urban area are provided in the following paragraph and bullet points.
Past research suggests a number of correlations which provide potential performance measures for
reductions in energy use in the transportation sector in a given urban area based on linkages between
population density, mode share, and other factors affecting VMT, and thus demand for transportation
energy. These includethefollowing elasticities taken from data on major cities around the world over a
period of multiple decades (Sinha 2003):
• A 1% increase in population density is associated with a 0.64% decline in private-transportation
energy use per person per year.
• On average, a 1% increase in transit boardings per person per year is associated with a decrease
in transportation energy use per person per year of 0.54%. Flowever, this elasticity varies with
the magnitude of the input variable.
• On average, a 1% increase in the number of parking spaces per worker in a region's Central
Business District is associated with a 1.27% decline in transit boardings per person peryear.
Flowever, this elasticity varies with the magnitude of the input variable.
The overall indication of the data is that increases in population density and employment density are
associated with fewer roads and parking spaces, decreases in the use of single-occupant motor vehicles,
and increases in public transit use and non-motorized transportation, all of which are trends that in turn
lead to less per-capita energy consumption in the transportation sector (Sinha 2003). Flowever, these
associations do not distinguish between causation and correlation.
4.4.2 Travel Mode Choice and Public Transit
Closely related to travel demand reduction, there are a number of options available to communities to
influence their modal split, many of which are addressed in other sections of this paper. In general,
-------
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
64
moving away from single-passenger vehicle travel to transit buses, rail, or non-motorized transportation
(walking, biking, etc.) can represent a gain in terms of reducing the energy intensity of travel (e.g.,
energy use per passenger-mile, Btu/mile). However, these options need to be assessed on a case-by-
case basis at the community level, given that there are wide variations in the energy and carbon
intensity of different passenger transportation options, which depend largely on the efficiency and
ridership of publictransportation options. The energy intensity of light rail transit systems, for example,
can range from approximately 2,500 Btu/passenger-mile to over 30,000 Btu/passenger-mile (Davis,
Diegel, and Boundy 2012). In some cases, the energy intensity of a passenger-mile traveled on public
transit can actually be higher than for travel in a private vehicle (e.g., when a bus with a low miles-per-
gallon rating is kept in operation all day long on a public-transit route that very few people use).
Therefore, the energy-use and GHG reductions resulting from transit mode-share options must be
carefully assessed to understand the true magnitude of potential benefits, which requires understanding
and modeling changes in both travel demand and operational aspects of public transit. A number of
methods are outlined in Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2013) that highlight
tools for energy and GHG emissions analysis, many of which incorporate transit options. Choices
regarding public transit can also have impacts on the deployment of alternative vehicle fleets and
alternative fuels in a community, as will be discussed more below. Cleaner-burning, alternative-fuel
transit fleets can have important air quality benefits. However, near-source issues, discussed in the
previous section, must also be considered prior to the implementation of publictransportation options,
as these options may in turn be constrained by air and exposure issues affecting majortransit corridors.
4.4.3 Fuel Economy and GHG Standards
While total travel demand and modal split are critical drivers of energy use, the most effective tool for
reducing the energy use and GHG emissions of the transportation sector is the setting of fuel economy
standards for light-duty vehicles, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards.
Fuel economy standards in the U.S. were first set in 1975 as a mechanism to reduce imported oil in
response to the 1973 oil embargo. The standards have continued to evolve over the years, most notably
in 2010 with the joint development of the Model Year 2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards by EPA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010d). This represented
the first time that GHG standards, underthe authority of the Clean Air Act, were established along with
the fleetwide average fuel efficiency standards. In 2012, a joint rulemaking extended the GHG and fuel
economy standards to include model years 2017 to 2025 (US. Environmental Protection Agency 2012e,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2012).
These rules have important implications for the evolution of passenger vehicle fleets in communities
overthe next 10-15 years. The standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwidefuel
economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) (if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements)
for model year 2025 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012e). These fuel economy targets will
mean improvements in gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle weight reduction, improved
aerodynamics, and other vehicle advancements. In addition, increased electrification of the fleet will
likely occur through the expanded production of hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electricvehicles, and
-------
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
65
electric vehicles. These fuel economy changes, and the potential increases in electrification, have
benefits for local air quality as well, given the large reductions in fuel use per vehicle-mile traveled.
Although these standards are set at the national level, any analyses ortools used to meet energy or GHG
reduction targets will need to account for changing vehicle fleets at the community level. Existing tools
used typically for air-quality purposes, such as the EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
model, as well as other emissions factor models such as California's EMFAC, can be applied to assess
GHG emissions and used in combination with travel demand models to develop a baseline of energy use
and GHG emissions (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2013). Perhaps more
important, however, is the need for communities to understand howthey can influence changes in
vehicle and fuel technologies at the local level. A key knowledge gap and research need identified by
the Strategic Highway Research Program is "the effect ofgovernment interventions (e.g. pricing,
infrastructure deployment) on technology advancement...many local and state governments are
interested in how they can provide incentive to help accelerate the adoption of new vehicle
technologies" (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2013).
4.4.4 Operational Considerations Affecting Energy Use and Emissions
Changing vehicle fuel efficiency standards has a critical impact on reducing GHG emissions from the
transportation sector and from a research standpoint is perhaps the most studied aspect of
transportation energy use and GHG emissions. However, the real-world performance of vehicle
technologies and their resulting fuel use/GHG emissions will depend on their actual usage. A number of
factors can affect the usage and operation of vehicles, both conventional and advanced, and can be
considered broadly as system efficiency (Greene and Plotkin 2011). Some of these operational
considerations depend on the vehicle owner/driver, including maintenance issues that affect vehicle
efficiency (e.g., correct tire pressure) as well as driver behavior and resulting impacts on gas mileage.
For example, efficient driving behavior or "eco-driving" can encompass a number of approaches to safer
driving, such as smoothing out changes in vehicle speed, and avoidance of aggressive acceleration and
starts/stops, as well as minimizing idlingtime. Understandingthe potentialfor eco-driving in the U.S.to
reduce GHG emissions and energy use has been identified as a research need (Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies 2013). Support for an eco-driving "ethic" may be a strategy best
implemented in the context of sustainable communities, given that it would have other potential
community benefits, such as traffic congestion mitigation and safety. Some empirical evidence suggests
that this sort of improved driving can improve fuel economy between 5 and 20 percent (various studies
cited in Greene and Plotkin (2011)). System efficiency may also be achieved through more efficient trip-
making, possibly by utilizing GPS routing to find more efficient routes and to aid in trip-chaining, which
can reduce total VMT by combining trips and can reduce the number of cold starts.
There are also measures that can betaken by communities to improve traffic flow, both by promoting
speeds that improve fuel efficiency and by ensuring more constant speeds, instead of stop-and-go
traffic. These measures will also mitigate congestion, which can affect air quality, as well as quality of
life in terms of delays and time lost to commuting. Many congestion-mitigation and traffic-flow-
improvement measures are available to communities and can be implemented on roadways ranging
-------
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
66
from freeways to smaller arterial streets. These can include ramp metering, incident management,
congestion pricing, speed limit enforcement, and improved traffic signalization and coordination. These
measures can have local, regional, and global benefits. For some heavily-congested facilities, such as Los
Angeles freeways, estimates suggest the potential of such measures to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30
percent when used in combination (Greene and Plotkin 2011). However, these measures must also be
used with caution, as the use of operational improvements may reducetravel times by increasing
speeds for single-occupant vehicles, potentially favoring travel in private vehicles over public transit.
4.4.5 Alternative and Renewable Fuels
In addition to measures affecting total demand fortransportation energy and the roles of both vehicle
and system-level efficiency, looking at the fuel used by a number of different vehicle fleets in a
community is also important. At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) Program, ensuring that a minimum volume of renewable fuel, which can come from a
range of qualified biomass feedstocks and technology conversion pathways, is blended and sold in the
U.S. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010d). This program worksto achieve multiple aims by
reducing lifecycle GFIG emissions relative to petroleum fuels, reducing imported petroleum by displacing
gasoline and/or diesel use in the nation's light- and heavy- duty vehicle fleets, and expanding the
production of domestic renewable fuels and of feedstocks used to make them (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2010d, e).
In addition to some biomass-based renewable fuels, other alternative fuels whose lifecycle GFIG and
other environmental impacts may be better than those of gasoline and diesel include natural gas,
propane, and hydrogen. The rates at which these alternative fuels are adopted in a given community
are influenced by a number of strategies that can be implemented by state and local governments.
These strategies generally involve either "provision of alternative fuels infrastructure" or "direct
purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for agency fleets" (Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies 2013). At the community level, much of what is needed is a detailed understanding of
different fuel and vehicle options, their associated energy use and GFIG reduction benefits, and the
factors that are involved in the implementation of new fuel and vehicle combinations. At a basic level,
one key implementation issue for a number of alternative-fuel fleets is the need for dedicated fueling
infrastructure and for people knowing where that fueling infrastructure is. The Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) provides excellent information resources regarding
alternative fuels, vehicles, and related infrastructures. For example, the Alternative Fuel Station Locator
maps fueling stations, is accessible to the general public, and can be updated as new stations come
online regardless of the stations' ownership (www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/) (U.S. Department
of Energy 2013a). Other resources include the Clean Cities coalitions of stakeholders, which can help
interested community stakeholders to understand alternativefuels and to receivetechnical assistance
supporting the deployment of alternative fuels and vehicle fleets (wwwl.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/1
(US. Department of Energy 2013b).
In addition to supporting infrastructure deployment, local governmental agencies are responsible for
large fleets of government vehicles and the management of public transit investments and operations
-------
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
67
(Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2011). As such, their decisions regarding
vehicle purchases can support the penetration of alternative fuels in a community. In fact, local and
state governments can often serve as leaders in the deployment of alternative fuels and vehicles by
using them for diverse fleets ranging from law enforcement, public transit, refuse collection, school
transportation, and shuttle services. Many already-successful efforts are documented as case studies by
the AFDC (www.afdc.energy.gov/case) (U.S. Department of Energy 2013a), and those case studies can
provide background information for communities interested in pursuing similar strategies.
4.4.6 Vehicle Electrification and Related Infrastructure
Infrastructure for alternative fuels such as biofuels or natural gas is one key link between the
transportation sector and energy system in a community. However, perhaps a more critical emerging
trend is the growth in vehicle electrification, which couples the transportation sector to the local electric
grid. The joint GHG and fuel economy standards, discussed above, will likely result in increased vehicle
electrification for light-duty vehicles. The questions of how and where the charging of electric or plug-in
hybrid vehicles will occur can be influenced in a number of ways by decisions and policies at the
community level. Many of these questions are being heavily researched, but because of electrically
powered vehicles' current small share of the transportation sector, there is relatively limited empirical
data regarding charging preferences and potential growth in the use of fully electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles.
However, the build-out of electric charging stations is already occurring, with approximately 6,268
electric stations in the US., excluding private stations (www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations. last
accessed July 2013). This represents more than half of all alternative fuel stations in the US. (12,197
total), and therefore more stations than all other alternative fuels combined, including ethanol (E85),
biodiesel (B20 and higher), liquified natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquified
petroleum gas (propane), and hydrogen. Already, there are a number of government- and private-
sector-provided public charging spaces (836 of the electric-station owners documented by the AFDC in
July 2013 were local governments) (U.S. Department of Energy 2013a). Given this growth in stations,
research on their impact on energy use and GHG emissions is needed.
There is the potential for synergies between the transportation-related choices made at the community
level and broader energy strategies. There are a number of research initiatives attempting to
understand the market for electric vehicles and charging patterns for this still-small but growing
segment of the fleet, as well as to understand potential impacts on electric-power dispatching.
However, beyond that is the question of how communities can promote synergistic solutions between
vehicle electrification and energy strategies, and how to quantify their benefits. For example, research
has been conducted to look at the question of whether plug-in vehicle buyers want green-power
electricity (Axsen and Kurani 2013). This could point to whetherthere are market preferences that
would support a combination of green power and plug-in hybrid or electricvehicles, as well as point to
policy and marketing strategiesto advancethese solutions (Axsen and Kurani 2013). However, there is a
lack of tools and resources available to communities to support these types of strategies. Another
question is that of at-home charging (occurring primarily at night), and howthe built urban environment
-------
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
68
can support, or perhaps even negatively affect, the prospects of electric-vehicle use and the ease of
charging at home. Therefore, vehicle electrification suggests a number of emerging questions related to
interactions between the built environment, private vehicle fleets, and the energy system, including the
question of what the relative impacts are of direct vehicle emissions and power-plant emissions that
result from generating electricity for plug-in vehicles.
4.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Footprint
Greenhouse gas footprint analysis and emissions calculators are approaches that involve estimation of
the GHG footprint of an entire system (or community), transportation service, or facility (Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies 2013). These can include registry- or inventory-based
calculators or life-cycle-analysis calculators (such as the Greenhouse Gases. Regulated Emissions, and
Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model, the Lifecvcle Emissions Model (LEM). GHGenius. or
Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)), many of which are spreadsheet-based, but
often are on the Internet or can utilize more complex software (see Chapter 4 of Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies (2013)). These calculations can then be used to set and track
CO2 reduction targets such as: (a) annual percent reductions, (b) percent reductions in a future year
relativeto a base year, or (c) absolute reductions in CO2 or CCh-equivalent, annually orfor a target year
(Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2013).
Atthe community level, another approach is visualization of the transportation carbon footprint in order
to comparetransportation CO2 emissions to the potentialto biologically sequesterthat sameamount of
CO2. Under this methodology, total system fuel use can be used to estimate the amount of carbon
dioxide emitted over the course of one year. Data from sources such as state departments of natural
resources may then be used to determine how many acres of local forestland would be needed to
absorb and sequesterthat entiresum of CO2, accountingforthe likelihood and rate of sequestered CO2
being rereleased through combustion or decay. Once this footprint has been established,
superimposing it on a map of the community allows a comparison of the carbon-footprint land area with
the community's various other land-use needs. If the jurisdiction carrying out this analysis can meet all
of its other land use needs and still have enough natural areas to sequester all of the carbon dioxide
from its transportation system, that would be one potential indicator of sustainability (Chi and Stone
2005).
4.5 Water Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators
Transportation sources can impact surface and groundwater quality through deposited emissions from
fuel combustion, fluid leaks, and mechanical wear of brakes and tires. These emissions affect
watersheds through the atmospheric deposition of air pollutants and by being transported in
stormwater runoff along impervious surfaces (such as transportation infrastructure), which also
facilitate the movement of non-transportation pollutants into surface and groundwater.
Transportation-related projects also havethe potentialto significantly affect the sustainability ofwater
infrastructure systems.
4.5.1 Runoff from Impervious Surfaces
-------
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
69
There has been a substantial body of research linking water quality and aquatic resources to
imperviousness, of which transportation infrastructure makes up a significant proportion. The
components of imperviousness are made up primarily of rooftops and thetransport systems (roads,
driveways, parking lots) built to serve development. This transport component makes up the majority of
the impervious area created by development. For example, when a study measured imperviousness in
11 typical developments in the Olympia, Washington metropolitan area, the researchers separated the
percentage of a site's area devoted to roads, parking, and sidewalks and found that transportation-
related imperviousness comprised 63-70% of total impervious cover (City of Olympia 1995). Later,
Goetz et al. (2004) found in a GIS study in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that roads accounted for 36%
of all impervious surface area and the combination of roads, driveways, and parking lots accounted for
over 60% of all impervious surface area. The contribution of transportation infrastructure to
imperviousness is even more pronounced in rural and suburban areas, where roads must be longer to
reach homes that are farther apart, driveways must be longer to reach homes that are set back farther
from the road, and parking lots must be larger to accommodate more cars, since alternative modes of
transport are less common or nonexistent (Schueler 1994). However, rural areas still havethe lowest
overall percentages of their land area covered in impervious surfaces.
Percent imperviousness in a watershed has been linked to overall watershed health in a number of
studies (Schueler, Fraley-McNeal, and Cappiella 2009). Currently, the most widely accepted "tipping
point" for watershed health degradation is 10% imperviousness. Once imperviousness reaches an
overall 10% share of land cover, there is noticeable degradation in the watershed. More recent surveys
of impervious-surface impacts on water quality generally find that adverse impacts are detectable when
percentage impervious surface is as low as 5% (Brabec, Schulte, and Richards 2002, Schueler, Fraley-
McNeal, and Cappiella 2009). More information on impervious land cover and its effects may be found
in the concurrent SFICRP Theme 4 synthesis paper on land use.
Imperviousness caps are now being used in city and regional planning. For example, percent impervious
caps have been used as a planning tool in Montgomery County, Maryland forthe Paint Branch
watershed (Montgomery County) and in Fairfax County, Virginia (Fairfax County). Land use controls and
stormwater best management practices that promote natural resource buffers and infiltration are now
commonplace in land-use site design practices.
4.5.1.1 Mitigation Strategies
There are two basic design strategies for mitigating stormwater runoff. The first strategy is to establish
a basin at the low point of a catchment area, holding rainwater until it either infiltrates into the ground,
evaporates, or is harnessed for some purpose (such as watering plants). This function may be served by
a rain garden, a constructed wetland, or a dry basin. The second design strategy for mitigating
stormwater runoff is to routethe flow of water from upland areas to lowland areas across pervious
surfaces, which slow down the flow of surface water and allow more of it to infiltrate. To enact this
strategy, one may create vegetated buffers, including grass swales, downhill from a road or other
impervious surface, or one may replace an area of impervious pavement with an area of pervious
pavement (Guo et al. 2010).
-------
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
70
There are many different types of pervious pavement (Gomez-Ullate et al. 2011, Scholz 2013). Both
concrete and asphalt may serve as materials for a pervious surface and water may either flow in
between paving blocks or through a series of pores in the pavement itself (Chai et al. 2012, Starke,
Gobel, and Coldewey 2010). Beneath the visible layer of a pervious pavement is a layer of aggregate,
the thickness of which must be greater in locations that receive more rainfall (Chai et al. 2012).
Potentially, pervious pavement could be used for the shoulders of a road, as opposed to replacing the
entire road, in which case the thickness of the layer of aggregate would also need to be proportional to
the width of the roadway that the pervious shoulders collect runoff from (Chai et a I. 2012). Unlike other
design elements that mitigate runoff, pervious pavement does not require the use of any more land
than what the roadway currently occupies (Starke, Gobel, and Coldewey 2010), although some pervious
pavements may become clogged with sediment, reducingtheir effectiveness (Gomez-Ullate et al. 2011),
and the usefulness of pervious pavement is limited in places wherethe underlying soil is either already
saturated or a poor conductor of water (Chai et al. 2012). Like other runoff-mitigation tactics, pervious
pavement reduces flooding, improves water quality, aids in replenishing groundwater, and may be
equipped with a system for collecting (non-potable) stormwaterfor more immediate use by humans
(Gomez-Ullate et al. 2011, Starke, Gobel, and Coldewey 2010). Pervious pavement also results in more
evaporation than impervious pavement and causes evaporation to occur less rapidly following a rain
event, both contributing to the reduction of runoff and mitigating the urban heat island effect by
producing a density of moisture in the airthat more closely resembles that which would be found in a
natural environment. However, pervious pavement is unableto produce as much beneficial evaporation
as natural soil and plants (Starke, Gobel, and Coldewey 2010). Currently, the use of pervious pavement
fortransportation-related surfaces is mostly limited to parking lots, driveways, and some minor roads,
with no fully permeable pavement ever having been used on US. highways (Chai et al. 2012, Scholz
2013). Furthermore, insufficient research has been conducted, both experiment-based and simulation-
based, to determine the effect of pervious pavements on roadway design parameters (Chai et al. 2012).
Another knowledge gap is whether or not it is advantageous to include a geotextile layer (a polymer-
based film) within the structure of a permeable pavement, with the theoretical benefit being the
filtering out of pollutants that take the form of suspended solids (Scholz 2013).
4.5.1.2 Assessing the Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies
In a given catchment area or watershed, impervious surfaces may be divided between those that empty
onto a pervious surface and those that are contiguous with the low point and/or discharge point of the
catchment area/watershed, meaningthat there is no pervious surface in between to mitigate runoff
effects. Likewise, pervious surfaces may be divided between those that receive runoff from an uphill
impervious surface and those that do not. Each of these two categories of impervious surface and each
of these two categories of pervious surface has a different effect on overall stormwater runoff, a fact
that is not reflected by simply calculating the percentage of an area that is impervious. Therefore,
calculating an area's "effective imperviousness" may be beneficial, wherein surface areas are weighted
according to whether or not they are part of a relationship where an impervious surface empties onto a
pervious surface and consideration is given to the ratio of uphill impervious area to downhill pervious
-------
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
71
area in each of these relationships. Other important measures to consider are the capacity for runoff
storage in an area and the ratio of the local soil infiltration rate to rainfall intensity (Guo et a I. 2010).
The EPA's Storm-Water Management Model (SWMM) is a useful tool for assessing stormwater runoff
impacts from impervious surfaces, able to model runoff volumes from impervious and pervious surfaces
in a network of catchments and subcatchments under many different circumstances. The SWMM is
primarily geared towards use in urban areas, but it also has nonurban applications (Guo et al. 2010).
Another program that simulates the effects of different kinds of impervious and pervious surfaces on
infiltration and runoff in a variety of contexts is the commercially-available HYDRUS model (Chai et al.
2012).
4.5.2 Groundwater Contamination from Leaked Fuel
Regardless of whether or not they aretransported through stormwater runoff, transportation fuels
contain pollutants that leak from vehicles and storage facilities and enter the ground water. As discussed
for vapor intrusion, a source-term model is being developed by the EPA that accounts for the transport
and fate of fuel components in soil gas and groundwater. Groundwater contamination results from
contact with leaked vehicle fuels and other fuels. Constituents of fuels partition into groundwater and
may form plumes which impact either private or public drinking-water wells. The source-term model
being developed addresses the mechanisms of weathering (changing composition due to dissolution of
components by water, volatilization to air, and sorption to solids) of gasoline, relative to common
geologic settings, and serves as an input for related groundwater modeling work. The purpose of the
model is to provide a basis for understanding the longevity and behavior of difficult-to-remediate
contaminated sites, which contribute to the current backlog of about 90,000 unresolved leaking-tank
sites. The groundwater modeling itself is based on transport along streamlines in flowing groundwater
that connect sources to receptors.
4.5.3 Relationship between Transportation Infrastructure and Water Infrastructure
Automobile-based transportation and water-service infrastructures coexist spatially in an urban
environment. Large diameter water mains are buried underground along main roads leading to
population centers, where small diameter pipe branches serve subdivisions and households. Together
these two types of infrastructures in a metropolitan area form a spatial net work that distributes urban
population and economic production, and hence defines physical centers of major production,
commercial, and living activities. One consequence of this relationship is that if transportation-system
expansion results in the rapid growth of an urban area, the existing water infrastructure may become
incapable of providing the needed services and new infrastructure may be required. Another important
connection between water and transportation infrastructures is that the stormwater runoff collected by
the gutters and drainage ditches along roadways can significantly impact water quality.
4.5.3.1 Water Planning and Adaptation Methods: Implications for Transportation Choices
Water infrastructure in the U.S. has an extensive, far-reaching presence, providing service functions for
water supply-watertreatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater
drainage and urban flooding prevention. For example, drinking water infrastructure, a major asset of a
-------
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
72
water utility, includes pipes, pumps, valves, storagetanks, reservoirs, meters, fittings, and other
hydraulic appurtenances that connect treatment plants to the taps of household, commercial and
industrial users. These drinking water systems are estimated to span almost 1 million miles in the
United States (Kirmeyer, Richards, and Smith 1994), with 3,200 miles (21,239 km) of new pipes installed
each year, including an estimated 154,000 finished waterstoragefacilities (American Water Works
Association 2003). In addition to supplying potable water, water distribution systems must also be able
to provide water for non-potable uses, such as fire suppression, street watering, and irrigation of
landscaping. In wastewater management, 98% public wastewater treatment works are publicly owned
and provide service to 190 million people or 73% of the population. Seventy-one percent serve less than
10,000 people and twenty-five percent of the population are not connected to centralized treatment,
but instead use some form of on-sitetreatment system such as onsite septictanks. In total there are
approximately 600,000 miles of publicly owned pipe in the U.S. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2002b).
The planning and engineering practices for water infrastructure have been developed through many
decades, and are now embodied in the planning guidelines and engineering codes. In this long-held
practice, water supply and water management infrastructures are planned and designed for peak needs
in a projected future state of population and economic activities defined in urban master plans. Urban
master plans define how urban population and economic activity are distributed, setting up physical
boundaries for transportation choice and planning of water infrastructure services.
4.5.3.1.1 Current Practice
-------
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2.697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2.708
73
The general community-development planning and engineering sequence begins with the development
of urban socioeconomic goals, followed by infrastructure planning and engineering, performance
monitoring, and assessment . A general planning-engineering-evaluation sequence is shown in F igure 4.
Methods for transportation planning have been discussed in other sections.
For water infrastructure, master plans are commonly developed for a given set of land use and
economic projections. Major planning and engineering tools include EPANet and its commercial
derivatives (WaterCAD. H20map, etc.) for drinking water supply, EPA's SWMM and related stormwater
packages for stormwater management and urban drainage, and engineering software platforms (e.g,
SewerGems, H20Map/Sewer, HvdraSewer. etc.)
General water infrastructure planning and engineering consists of three major steps, in sequence, as
land use and economic projection, analysis of spatial population distribution, and the projection of
water demand and wastewatergeneration. For the economy of scale, an initial monocentric urban form
favors a centralized water supply system, and mostly a single wastewater and stormwater management
network, if the hydrographic condition permits. A centralized water supply system delivers water from
treatment plants through a vast distribution network, in which energy is consumed and water quality
changes. In reverse, sewer systems collect wastewater from individual users to a central location for
treatment before discharge. Stormwater sewers drain an urban area and discharge overland runoff,
Current Planning Framework
Grtinih ration
* Ecoiwnnc expansion
contraction
¦ Population change
' Life style change
Water and land
availability
Econoraes and
policy preference'
t=>i
Planning
Bmldincs -
Residential
ftaildfags -
Commercial
[Buildup -
Industrial
Green space .&
eco reservation
¦=>
Urban Sprawl
Energy tource:
Material flow
Polycentne
Low density
Construction FTase Ope*afion Phase
Evqimtiwn mMmeni
• Carbon footprint
(global & local)
" Water footprint , '
• Efficiency
¦ Economics
• Satisfaction
Transportation Infrastructure
• Subway, mass transit
• Urban roads
* Mass transit
individual transit
Water Infrastructure
Centrataed
¦s water wpp»y
* Stormwater
Waste and solid waste
Figure 4: General process of urban master planning and its relations to transportatbn and water infrastructure
engineerrig.
-------
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
74
regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. This
arrangement is the most cost-efficient for the water supply and management service of a mono-
centrically distributed population. Other factors such as topography, source water, available discharging
water bodies, and old combined-sewer systems can also affect specific engineering designs.
Monocentric urban formation is common in the US., wherein the population is distributed around a
single central business district (CBD), which contains high levels of economic activity. In the absence of
extensive transit systems, automobile-based mobility is a precondition to facilitate the form of urban-
suburban-exurban arrangement. Examples include numerous, mostly middle-to-large sized, urban
centers such as Las Vegas, Cincinnati, and Houston. As a city grows into a large metropolitan center, the
population becomes dispersed and the monocentric form evolves into a polycentric formation with
connected satellite cities. This is typical for very large metropolitan areas, such as New York City and Los
Angeles. Urban form transformation, and its implications for CBD formation, population distribution,
and transportation service, have been extensively investigated (e.g., Gordon, Richardson, and Wong
(1986), Small and Song (1994), Heikkila et al. (1989), Larson, Liu, and Yezer (2012), Garcia-Lopez (2012),
and Zhou et al. (2013)).
The transition of monocentric urban centers into polycentric forms is most relevant for U.S. cities and
metropolitan areas. As shown in Figure 4, the master planning process for urban development starts by
considering transportation choice and mobility; the improved mobility induces travel demand and
further facilitates urban expansion (Ewing 2008, Burchfield et al. 2006). This process commonly involves
planning, engineering, outcome monitoring, and simulation against a set of urban developmental goals.
Based on given developmental objectives, new developments continue to be planned, leading to further
urban sprawl, which can lead to uncontrolled expansion into exurbs and city perimeters (Figure 4).
Ewing (2008) examined the mechanisms responsible for this tendency, and concluded that public
transportation and improved highway systems are the primary enablers, accelerating urban expansion
along their routes or in a "leap-frog" pattern outward from urban centers. This type of "induced
demand" was discussed in an earlier section of this report.
Water infrastructure expands accordingly in the urban transformation to extend water services to new
developments (Figure 4). This process underthe current planning framework is passive and in response
to transportation-facilitated urban expansion. Existing water infrastructure is expanded and adjusted in
its operation and management in order to meet the expansion-induced new water demand. Usually the
legacy of centralized configuration remains intact even after cities are transformed into a polycentric
form. Practical examples are numerous, such as the vast centralized water service infrastructure in Los
Angles and New York City. This tendency conforms to several notable attributes in urban planning:
¦ Water infrastructures, mostly buried in subsurface, are planned and designed to meet water
demand distribution given by the urban master plans. Once designed and built, the water
infrastructures and their functions have created a "lock-in" condition in heavily built urban
environment, making it difficult to change or modify the infrastructure framework in the future.
¦ In centralized water systems, capital-intensive drinking water and wastewater treatment plants are
located away from urban centers. New developments can be served economically by expanding the
-------
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
75
distribution and collection pipe network at relatively small capital costs, even at the expense of
operational and energy efficiency. However, there is a limit to this expansion beforethe existing
system configuration and operations become unsustainable without significant, fundamental
changes.
¦ Water infrastructure has its primary service functions in providing adequate capacity and reliability
to meet urban service needs, reduce capital and operational costs, and ensure compliance with
applicable Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations. System
efficiency and carbon footprints are often a secondary priority.
¦ Although subject to master development plans, urban water infrastructure is often engineered
independently from transportation infrastructures. Thetwo types may become decoupled and
uncoordinated. This results in greater inflexibility of both infrastructures to change and adapt to
future functionalities and greater incompatibility between them.
Continuous urban expansion toward more dispersed, poly centric forms is a persistent trend leading to
uncontrolled urban sprawl. Thetrade-off in urban efficiency and sustainability ofthetwo
infrastructures is under debate on subjects ranging from resource allocation and urban ecology to
engineering and operations (Small and Song 1994, Ewing 2008, Heikkila et al. 1989, US. Environmental
Protection Agency 2006, US. Environmental Protection Agency 2007a, Baynes 2009, Ostrom 2010).
Notable negative effects have been recognized, such as the challenges to reliable transportation and
mobility, as discussed in other chapters. For urban water services, centralized operation and
management allows for better control of water pollution and management over water regulations,
benefiting from economies of scale. Nevertheless, negative consequences of a centralized water
infrastructure can be found in multiple dimensions: excessive energy inefficiency and thus indirect
carbon emissions, barriers to resource recovery, and vulnerability to the impact of natural and man-
made incidences. Alternative approaches, especially in the form of decentralized water systems, have
been increasingly discussed. As monocentric urban form transforms into polycentric form, the
centralized water system faces technical and engineering challenges to evolve into a decentralized
framework. When this happens, the process requires coordinated urban planning and engineering
among transportation and water services.
4.5.3.1.2 Urban Form Transformation: Scenario Planning
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 3 rd Working Group recently studied climate
change mitigation and adaptation in urban environments, and concluded that urban form
transformation has, by far, the single largest potential for urban efficiency improvement and carbon
emission reduction. Several common planning options are listed for urban transformation, including
infill, interior redevelopment, mixed land use, and employment centers. They have been applied across
U.S. cities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012d). These urban transformation measures,
capable of reversing or at least slowing urban sprawl, require changes in metropolitan transportation
and water services. Two approaches in urban form transformation have emerged — scenario planning
and urban smart growth.
-------
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
76
Specifically, each urban form has a set of characteristic physical layouts in water and transportation
infrastructure, with distinct operational properties. Thus each comes with economic costs, energy
consumption, carbon and water footprints, and the ability to provide desired services. In scenario
planning of existing metropolitan areas, the objective is often to determine the susta inability
parameters associated with each developmental option, and thus provide data for informed actions.
Water and transportation infrastructure, as the two major urban physical systems, can be planned and
engineered through coordinated scenario planning.
In principle, scenario-based urban planning is a systems-engineering approach to examine possible
urban development options. Such scenario-based analysis is conducted as a part of urban master
planning, involving planning, engineering, outcome assessment and re-planning for new development
(Figure 4). The outcome assists city planners and decision-makers to evaluate the capacity and
efficiency of existing transportation and water infrastructures, identify future improvement options, and
compare their benefits against a set of planning objectives. A technical plan consists of the following
major components:
¦ Population and land use planning and future projections
¦ Transportation analysis and planning, including a State Implementation Plan (SIP) on air
quality conformity
¦ Water infrastructure analysis and planning
4.5.3.1.2.1 Urban Population and Land Use Projection
Population and land use projections in planning scenarios are the most difficult and least quantifiable
among the three major components of scenario planning. Future population and land use is a function
of urban economic conditions and future economic policy initiatives that are less predictable or
quantifiable. As an approximation, cellular-automata Markov chain (CA-MC) simulation in GIS has been
used with model boundary conditions representing urban land policy restrictions. Tong, Sun, and Yang
(2012) and Sun et al. (2013) successfully projected future land use changes in the watersheds of the
Cincinnati and Las Vegas suburbs. Their modeling methodologies incorporated population and land use
variables as a GIS model filter in GIS CA-MC simulations.
Recently, ongoing EPA research attempted to simulate land use changes in the resolution of census
tracts in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. In this investigation, CA-MC methods supplemented by
restraints from water and land use policies were used to generate year 2030 land use patterns and
population distributions inside of Cincinnati for four development policy scenarios: 1) current
development or baseline; 2) infill; 3) high density development; and 4) mass-transit development. The
developed model was successfully calibrated against 1990 and 2000 urban land use and population
Census data. Flowever, disruptive urban development policy and events can makethe model
projections less accurate and useful. The disruption can violate spatial continuum assumptions
embedded in the semi-empirical CA-MC methodology. This potential problem and its challenge cannot
be under-estimated in urban land use and population projections.
-------
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
77
Separately, EPA has developed the Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenario (ICLUS) tool and
projections of housing density and land use categories to the year 2100 underthe IPCC Special Report
on Emission Scenarios (SRES). This large development scenario coveringthe entire US. is based on a
pair of models: a demographic model for population projection, and a spatial allocation model to
distribute the projected population into housing units at a 1-ha pixel resolution. Population allocation
from a county scale to census tract resolution is technically challenging, because of a set of model
assumptions for present, near-term and distant economic growth. For example, the Spatially Explicit
Regional Growth Model (SERGoM) is used in population allocation to generate the projections at a
spatiotemporal resolution of 10 years and 1 ha. In generating high-resolution population maps, the
allocation method may produce model error and uncertainty excessive for infrastructure planning and
engineering purposes, although this potential has not been assessed. More details on the methodology
can be found in US. Environmental Protection Agency (2009b) and US. Environmental Protection
Agency (2010c).
4.5.3.1.2.2 Water Planning and Engineering
A wide range of tools and models are available for water infrastructure planning and engineering as the
result of decades of development. These include EPANET-based distribution modeling and design for
drinking water supply, EPA's SWMM and related commercial design packages (e.g., SewerCAD.
Storm CADI for storm water drainage, gravity and forced sewer systems. Essential to all tools and
models is GIS and topographic-information data-processing that describe urban spatial attributes of
infrastructures and their relationships. In urban planning, technical considerations are given to the
unique properties of each water infrastructure: gravity flow of wastewater and storm water systems,
pressured drinking water supply systems and pressure zone distribution, watertreatment, monitoring,
and regulation compliance. All have significant implications to the physical components and layout,
service functions, energy consumption, and other sustainability attributes.
Noteworthy in water planning and design is that water system expansions are always built on the
existing infrastructure framework and physical footprints. The efforts are focused on component
optimization, system improvement and capacity expansion, while system-wide redesign and
reconstruction rarely happen. Urban form also evolves as the urban area grows, with some developing
into polycentric configurations. The transportation-induced redistribution in population and urban
activity can subsequently change the existing spatiotemporal configuration of water demand, for which
water service functions haveto adjust. This continuum of urban growth is widespread across US.
metropolitan centers, with many experiencing urban sprawl (Figure 4). Underthis condition, existing
centralized water infrastructure developed for a monocentric formation shows a mismatch with the new
water needs and existing water service functions and begins to experience difficulties with required
services.
4.5.3.1.3 Urban Form Transformation: Smart Growth and Water Systems Optimization
The second approach in urban transformation is based on smart growth, with the objectives of low-
carbon development, high urban density, and walkable and livable environments. The smart growth
concept initially developed for these general attributes is now propelled into specific urban and
-------
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
78
infrastructure planning activities. For example, US. Environmental Protection Agency (2012d) reported
national trends in smart growth adopted for urban development and urban renewal. Infill and green
field residential developments as means of smart urban growth have been gaining applications
throughout the U.S. So far, EPA has published a series of reports not only on residential smart
development, but also on transportation and water services of a sustainable community (e.g., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2006), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009a), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2011a)). Infill development and mixed transportation modes are
shown as being capable of reducing transportation-source emissions and improving system efficiencies.
For the urban water sector, infill development (within urban boundaries) and green infrastructure are
currently designed around water availability and the cost of providing reliable water services (US.
Environmental Protection Agency 2006). Less often they are considered as a part of smart urban growth
in coordination with transportation systems. Nevertheless, water system optimization is an essential
component to enable smart urban growth and reduce energy consumption for CO2 emission avoidance.
EPA research has been developing planning support tools for regional water infrastructure planning
(Chang, Qi, and Yang 2012), water usage evaluation in urban planning scenarios (Wang, Burgess, and
Yang 2013), and energy optimization in water distribution (Yang, Chang, Neal, et al. 2013). Yang, Chang,
Li, et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2011) further described evaluation criteria based on conjunctive use of
the carbon footprint and water footprint indices for urban infrastructure mitigation and adaptation.
These two footprint indices detail carbon emissions and water usage against the carbon allocation and
water availability of a given urban area.
Life-cycle analysis and Pareto optimization were the techniques used for planning scenario evaluation
and selection in Manatee County, Florida (Chang, Qi, and Yang 2012). A total of 20 developmental
scenarios in water supply infrastructure expansion were compared against their life-cycle carbon
emission and capital/operational cost. Individual structural components were analyzed fortheir life-
cycle impacts under different scenarios of infrastructure construction phases. The analysis was based on
a compromise non-linear programming model as the computation technique.
The EPA research programs (e.g., SHC, ACE, and SSWR) are developing other methods for individual
water infrastructure components. New developments, such as those in nutrient recovery, leak
detections, and green infrastructure, are focused on water infrastructure or its components alone.
Restraints from urban transportation, its mode and accessibility, are not yet considered. For integrated
planning, however, the smart growth methodology needs to simultaneously consider both types of
infrastructures in the evaluation of developmental options.
4.5.3.2 Known Effects of Transportation Decisions on Water Infrastructure Outcomes
In the current urban planning framework (Figure 4), water and transportation infrastructure
improvements are frequently made in the period between two adjacent master planning events. The
uncoordinated infrastructure work potentially creates a "lock-in" condition in urban water
infrastructure, which can hamper future water service optimization and sustainability. These inter-
infrastructure interactions were briefly described in the preceding subsections. Alternatively, smart
-------
2917
2918
2919
2920
292.1
2922
2923
2.924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
79
urban growth shifts the development paradigm to adaptive planning, readjusts developmental goals,
and enables water service function changes through a combination of gray and green water
infrastructures. This systems-approach-process is shown in Figure 5.
Here the impacts of transportation decisions on water services and infrastructure sustainability are
outlined. Discussion is made in reference to the existing development framework and the smart-growth
transformation shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
Adaptive Planning Framework
Planning
• Economic expansion
contraction
¦ Population cluuige
• Ufr style change
Water and laud
availability
Economic* and
policy preference
BiulxllMjrs
| Commercial
Parfcv
recreation* |
Green space & j
] eco immation
Urban Adaptation
High demitv |
development
Economic and policy adjustment
• Carbon footpnnt
(global A- local)
• Water footpnnt
• Efficiency
¦ Economics
• Satisfaction
Traniportation Infraitrudur*
• Subway, ma»5 transit
• Urban roods
•f Mass transit
•f Individual trans*!
T ele-com nulling
H ater Infrastructure
Outranked
" Water supply
¦s storm wnaier
v Wastewater
v* Waste and so4(d waste
W
Figure 5: General process of adaptive urban planning and engineering. Compared to traditional master planning (Figure
4), adaptive planning promotes economic and policy adjustment on urban development goals and urban adaptation for
high-density, polycentric form through transformation and proper transportation and water infrastructure adjustment.
4.5.3.2.1 City Development Examples
4.5.3.2.1.1 Rapid Urban Sprawl
Many metropolitan areas with rapid growth experience undesired impacts that were facilitated by their
transportation choices. The experience of Las Vegas illustrates this. Las Vegas has rapidly increased its
physical urban footprint overthe past decades. The urban population increased from 273,288 in 1970
to 741,368 in 1990, and approached 1,900,000 by 2010. Correspondingly the urban area increased by
2.9 times from 58 square miles to 170 square miles from 1970 to 1990. The majority of the urban
expansion occurred along major highways, US-95, 1-15, and 1-215 extending from the valley toward Lake
Mead. Accompanying this rapid growth, the metropolitan water distribution system has expanded,
consisting of >4,500 miles of water pipes, 65 pump stations, and 68 water storage facilities. The
-------
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
80
network is currently expanding into the Summerlin area to the west, responding to new road and
housing developments. Through this history of development, the water distribution system remains
centralized, with two watertreatment plants and a single distribution network, at significant energy cost
for pumping. Lake Mead to the southeast is the primary water source for the city.
Rapid expansion of the centralized water infrastructures met the urban development needs, but also
brought technical challenges to the required water service objectives. During the economic depression
starting in the late 2000s, vacancy rates were high and water demand was chronically low compared to
the preceding housing boom periods. This change led to over-capacity in the water distribution system,
and excessively long water ages or water residence time in many parts of the distribution network. A
direct consequence was high levels of disinfection by-products (DBPs) (e.g., chloroform) in the tap
water, risking violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) DBP Stage-ll regulations.
Many metropolitan areas with rapid growth have experienced problems of a similar nature in water
supply and water sanitation. A lack of adaptability of centralized water systems to further urban
development or changes is a common cause. Such an observation can be made in old industrial cities in
the Midwest, such as Detroit, Cleveland, Youngstown, etc., where long periods of economic depression
in urban centers are followed by renewed redevelopment efforts in recent years. As an extreme
international example, unprecedented urban sprawl in Beijing, China is accelerated by the rapid
expansion of car and mass-transit transportation systems along the continuously expanding ring roads
around the city center, leading to ecological and water environmental problems (Wang et al. 2007).
Because of flat topography in the Beijing metropolitan area, urban drainage and stormwater
management becomes a daunting challenge as the monocentric city expands. Inner-city flooding
occurred in the last three years with over 86 people killed in flooded roads during a flash flood in
October 2012. Although less severe in magnitude, urban drainage problems and investment in runoff
control have been a major issue for many U.S. metropolitan areas.
4.5.3.2.1.2 Leao-Froa Development and Small/Community Water Systems
Highway transportation and mass transit have resulted in "leap-frog" new urban development centers
— isolated developments, mostly in exurban areas, that exist before further development fills the
undeveloped areas between. Sun et al. (2013) showthrough land use modelingthe likelihood and
evolution of such development in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. In general, leap-frog development is
characteristic of small-community settlement, propelled by highway development and mass transit, in
areas away from the urban continuum (Figure 6). Such development can be for the purpose of
affordable land, natural scenery, orvaluable but low-density estate properties.
Leap-frog development, fueled by transportation infrastructure, has direct implications for the form of
water services. Such development often has no existing water and wastewater services from water
utilities, tending to be served by small water systems or on-site treatment, like septic tanks. Examples
can be found outside Washington, DC. Small-scale, operationally simple, decentralized community or
household systems are preferable choices in these areas. As described in US. Environmental Protection
Agency (2002a) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007c), these small systems employ less
-------
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
81
robust watertreatment technologies, receive little operational and maintenance attention, and
frequently are vulnerable to performance upsets. The environmental consequences have been well
documented, particularly nutrient pollution from small wastewater systems. For mitigation, the states
of Maryland and Virginia have enacted laws and regulations for these small community water and
wastewater systems.
Figure 6: Leap-frog development.
4.5.3.2.1.3 High-density Urban Centers
Urban areas of high population density are developed with the assistance of mass transport. They often
are the focus of water master planning and operational adjustment, due to high water consumption and
vulnerability to service disruptions. Unique requirements includesteady and reliable water supply for
domestic consumption by a large population, daily and seasonal variation in commercial services, and
high-rise firefighting, in addition to wastewater and storm water management in regulation compliance.
Transportation-supported high-density urban forms can significantly affect water services. In the US.,
many high-density urban centers are also old development districts with aged water infrastructures and
compromised pipe integrities. These high-density urban centers are characteristic of old business and
urban centers, such as those in New York City. Constant transportation improvement in these cities
reinforces their high population density in a geographically restricted area. Many historically deprived
high-density urban centers are now redeveloped with the assistance of improved transportation
services. These urban centers are characterized by high population concentrations, a high fraction of
impervious surface, nearly 100% land coverage, and frequently old and structurally-compromised water
infrastructures. Old structures for combined sanitary and stormwater sewers are common in U.S.
Northeastern, Eastern, and Midwestern urban centers. Such combined sewers are vulnerable to
Contiguous urban
development
Highway
Leap-frog
development
-------
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
82
overflow in heavy rain events, sending raw sewage into waterways, a problem which is exacerbated by
runoff from impervious surfaces that is funneled through roadside curb-and-gutter systems.
These conditions make it difficult to improve or redevelop underground water infrastructures. For this
reason, mitigation and correction of combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems have proven to be
difficult in high-density urban areas.
Another problem for old high-density urban districts occurs in the operation of drinking-water piping,
wherein persistently high rates of water loss from drinking-water pipes occurs, particularly between
points with a large elevation difference. Forthese areas, pressure zone management is a challenge to
meet the varying water demand in a day, pressure requirement in building fire code, and reduce the risk
of damaging aged and structurally compromised underground water pipes.
Urban water and transportation infrastructure improvement can be coordinated to avoid or minimize
these problems in high-density urban centers. Urban redevelopment presents an opportunity for
integration of the two systems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009a). One example is the use
of green infrastructure (vegetated natural systems instead of "grey infrastructure," or engineered
concrete systems) as a part of smart urban growth measures, described below.
4.5.3.2.2 Smart Growth
Smart growth in urban development is often defined differently in literature than in practice. In terms
of urban development, smart growth refers to high population density, low carbon intensity, walkability,
and green infrastructure, thus creating a livable environment. This premise requires the
accommodation of mass transit and othertransportation infrastructures, making use of the "Five Ds" of
influencing travel behaviorthrough the built environment, discussed earlier. The transportation policies
contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) all aim to increase urban population density,
create a walkable and pedestrian-friendly community, and maximize the use of existing infrastructure
through infill and redevelopment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) outlined majortypes
of transportation modes with the following sustainability metrics:
¦ Transit accessibility, for reduced VMT and increased public transportation
¦ Bicycle and pedestrian mode share
¦ VMT per capita, to reduce automobile reliance and commute distances
¦ Carbon intensity (of transportation) per capita
¦ Percentage land-use mixture in terms of residential and commercial activities
Flowthese changes toward smart growth affect urban water infrastructures and, in return, how the
water services facilitate or impede smart growth have received little attention. Many questions persist,
ranging from paradigm changes in the water supply and water management, the use and application of
green infrastructure, and transitioning the existing grey infrastructure to the new developmental
paradigm. Green stormwater infrastructure has been a focus area, wherein EPA has conducted a series
of research and site studies, as well as provided significant information on its website. In this context,
green infrastructure improves surface water quality (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009a),
-------
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
83
retards transportation pollutant transport (Baldauf et al. 2008), and enhances the livability of an urban
environment.
4.5.4 Transportation Fuel Choice and Impacts on Water Resources
Water usage in biofuel production for automobile fleets also links water resources to urban
transportation sustainability. These two categories, on the surface, do not reveal much of the inter-
dependency. The relationship, however, may be revealed through close examination of upstream water
usage in alternativetransportation fuel production. The transportation choice of renewable fuels is
driven by U.S. national energy policy. More extensive biofuel use in the future will consume a significant
portion of available-but-limited water resources for energy-related biomass production in competition
with other beneficial uses. Additionally, associated new transportation technologies will require
modification to current fuel supply chains and distribution, travel patterns, VMT distribution, and,
importantly, the emission characteristics at the road and in near-road environments. This future state
of the transportation system has been discussed and is summarized in preceding sections. Information
and data, however, are limited at the present, hampering an informed decision on future urban
developmental sustainability.
The use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector has significant implications in
multiple dimensions of water sustainability. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
been conducting an Integrated Planning Model (IPM) assessment to analyzefuel change impacts both in
upstream and downstream environments, with a focus on the power sector. The upstream impacts on
water are largely in the form of water usage and wastewater generation during biomass and fuel
production. Downstream, the impact is anticipated to be in the form of automobile emission changes
for future fleets, urban forms (i.e., buildings, road network, population and activity distribution), and
climate conditions.
Water consumption in biomass production for renewable fuels has been extensively investigated and
discussed (e.g., National Research Council of the National Academies (2008), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2011a), Dominguez-Faus et al. (2009), Berndes (2002), and de Fraiture, Giordano,
and Liao (2008)). In a triennial report to Congress, the US. Environmental Protection Agency (2011b)
described significant water quality and quantity impacts in the production of bioethanol and biomass-
based biodiesel. This nationwide large-scale assessment is further supplemented by ongoing research
work in EPA's Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) research program, including detailed region-specific
analysis using MARKAL (a model that can optimize energy mixes to accomplish any given function)
(Dodder et al. 2011), and by other work on water usage and wastewater generation in the biofuel
production process (Lingaraju, Lee, and Yang 2013). This existing pool of knowledge points to a larger
water footprint of biofuels than of conventional petroleum counterparts. This impact on water
resources, particularly in the form of water-availability competition against both urban water supplies
and ecological water needs, is a prominent issue in water-poor regions.
The downstream impacts of biofuel usage on emissions have been studied at national scales (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2010a), while the upstream impacts have been reported as well. One
-------
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
84
significant recent study to address the emission impacts of biofuels is the EPAct/V2/E-89 Tier 2 Gasoline
Fuel Effects Study (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/epact.htm) (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2013f). Numerous published studies (e.g., US. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b)) have
shown that biofuel combustion in current-fleet engines leads to a meaningful reduction in some
pollutants (e.g., particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons), but an increase in
others (e.g., aldehydes and nitrous oxides (NO*)). Chemical and physical properties of PM emissions also
change, but much is uncertain about their implications. These changes are important to near-road air
pollutant monitoring and mitigation options (Baldauf et al. 2008). Their potential effects on land use
decisions, and hence water infrastructure planning, have not been thoroughly investigated.
4.6 Human Weil-Being Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators
Human well-being consists not just of physical health outcomes, but also of psychological and social
health outcomes, economic outcomes (discussed in the next section), and equity outcomes. More
information on the effects of transportation projects and policies on human health and well-being may
be obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at
http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/default.htm.
4.6.1 Physical Health Outcomes
The transportation sector is increasingly recognized as a critical determinant of human health outcomes.
In addition to public health's traditional focus on vehicle emissions and injuries as sources of morbidity
and mortality, new areas of investigation are enhancing our understanding of the diverse pathways
through which the design and use of transportation systems affect human health. These impacts can be
direct or indirect and exert their influence over a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. They not
only affect human well-being, but represent a costly externality of the transportation sectorthat adds
additional burden to the rising cost of healthcare in the United States.
4.6.1.1 Direct Impacts
Direct health impacts from the transportation sector result primarily from exposure to environmental
contamination or unintentional injuries. Effects may befelt by users of thetransportation system or
those in proximity to it or its supporting industries.
4.6.1.1.1 Air Pollution
A large body of literature has characterized the adverse health outcomes associated with particulate
matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SOx, NOx, carbon monoxide, and ozonethat result from
tailpipe emissions produced from the combustion of fossil fuels. These pollutants, addressed elsewhere
in this synthesis paper, contribute to significant cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity and mortality.
While exposure carries well-described risk, factors that determine level of exposure are less clearly
defined. Two important considerations forthis exposure route are that: children are disproportionately
affected, because they breathe in more air fortheir body size than do adults; and economically-
disadvantaged populations are often disproportionately affected by living closer to roadways and other
transportation sources (e.g., ports, rail yards) than wealthier populations.
-------
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
85
Growing interest in shifting a greater percentage of mode share to active forms of transportation
(primarily walking and bicycling) has raised questions about the impacts of such a shift on exposures to
air pollutants. While the overall effect of decreased automobile use might be reduced emissions of
criteria pollutants and particulates, and thus lower levels of overall population exposure, some have
suggested that individuals who choose to walk or bike might receive disproportionately high exposures
when compared to motor vehicle or transit passengers. Existing research is inconclusive (Knibbs, Cole-
Hunter, and Morawska 2011, Zuurbier et al. 2010, McNabola, Broderick, and Gill 2009). However, some
studies have shown that while walkers and cyclists are actually exposed to lower or similar
concentrations of pollutants than motor vehicle passengers, the increased gas exchange from physical
exertion and travel time associated with active transportation significantly modifies total inhaled or
deposited doses for these mode choices (Int Pan is et al. 2010). Given strong inverse associations
between distance from tailpipe emissions and level of exposure, there is evidencethat providing greater
separation between bicycle/pedestrian facilities and roadways could modify this effect. Further
research is needed to more effectively quantify relative exposure by mode of transportation while
properly accounting for associated levels of gas exchange and duration of exposure, in addition to
accounting forthe substantial health benefits of walking and cycling (see below).
Transportation-associated air pollution extends beyond tailpipe emissions. Pollution, and its associated
health impacts, can occur throughout the production of any vehicle fuel source. For example, while
increasing dependence on electricity as an energy source for personal and commercial vehicle use (all-
electric or plug-in hybrid) may reduce harmful tailpipe emissions, the overall impact on human health
depends largely on the fuel stock used to generate electricity. Use of renewable energy sources could
reduce air pollution while continued reliance on coal could merely transfer the source of harmful
emissions and change the affected population. Comparing the relative benefits and harms to human
health of any transportation energy source requires consideration of emissions from the full lifecycle of
energy production, as previously discussed in the context of greenhouse gas emissions, and the
populations affected.
Air pollution occurs within both the operational and non-operational components of the transportation
sector. Operational components referto pollution stemming directly from vehicle use while non-
operational components refertothe manufacture, distribution, and disposal of vehicles andtheir
supporting infrastructure (including roads). Comparison of the relative health impacts of
transportation-associated air pollution requires evaluation of emissions from both components. Energy
consumption and production of criteria air pollutants from non-operational components of
transportation can exceed that of operational components by orders of magnitude. The health impacts
of air pollution from non-operational components of the transportation sector could therefore be
significant, although this effect will be mediated by both the fuel stock used for energy production and a
population's level of exposure.
4.6.1.1.2 Noise
A growing body of evidence has found significant associations between environmental noise and
adverse impacts on human health. A World Health Organization study in western Europe found that
-------
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
86
traffic-related noise was responsible for over 1 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), a measure
of healthy life years lost, primarily due to sleep disturbance and annoyance (Fritschi et al. 2011).
Despitethese conclusions, evidence linking sleep disturbance and annoyance caused by road-traffic
noise to specific health outcomes is limited (Hume, Brink, and Basner 2012). However, positive
associations between road-traffic noise and ischemic heart disease and hypertension have been
demonstrated with greater certainty, even when controlling for air pollution as a potential confounder
(Davies and van Kamp 2012).
4.6.1.1.3 Injuries
Transportation-related injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, with
32,885 individuals killed and 2.24 million injured in traffic crashes in 2010. Fatal and nonfatal injuries
among motor vehicle occupants have declined - per 100,000 population and per vehicle mile traveled
(VMT) - over the past two decades, largely due to advances in roadway and vehicle engineering as well
as interventions targeting seat belt use and drunk driving. Fatal and nonfatal injuries have also declined
among pedestrians and cyclists duringthis time period. Nonetheless, traffic crashes remain the leading
cause of death among individuals aged 5 to 24, one of the top ten leading causes of death among all age
groups, and the fourth leading cause of nonfatal injury treated in emergency departments (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention). In addition to their devastating emotional toll, traffic crashes cost $99
billion annually in medical expenses (Naumann et al. 2010).
Criticalto evaluation of the relative health implications of motorvehicle transportation versus active
forms of transportation is an understanding of their associated risks for injury. Unfortunately,
comparing these risks is challenging. While many more motorvehicle occupants are killed and injured
than pedestrians and cyclists each year, the extent to which this reflects higher levels of exposure versus
increased risk is unclear. The absence of an agreed upon, consistent, and appropriately comparable
metric for standardizing level of exposure limits current efforts to assess relative safety. Vehicle miles
traveled has commonly been used to standardizefatality and injury rates for automobiles. Although
various measures have been proposed - including number of walkers and cyclists, number of trips, time,
and distance traveled - none is commonly accepted for pedestrians and cyclists.
Experience from Europe demonstrates that pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be enhanced through a
combination of engineering, educational, and policy interventions (Fischer et al. 2010). In Germany,
Denmark, and the Netherlands, the risk of cycling - as measured by number of fatalities per distance
cycled - is three to five times lower than in the United States (Pucher and Buehler 2008). Perhaps more
impressively, risks associated with cycling have been so successfully reduced in these European
countries that, despite rising levels of cycling over the past four decades, the total number of cyclist
fatalities has decreased. The frequently observed inverse association between absolute numbers of
pedestrians and cyclists and risk for injury is commonly known as safety-in-numbers (Jacobsen 2003).
Some have suggested that the safety-in-numbers phenomenon reflects a change in driver behavior in
the presence of increased numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, and thus provides support for policies
that promote walking and cycling as a method by which to enhance safety. However, such interventions
-------
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
87
may not be justified based upon the primarily cross-sectional data that underlies the safety-in-numbers
principle (Bhatia and Wier 2011). Increases in levels of walking and cycling may have occurred in
response to interventions that enhanced pedestrian and cyclist safety, or perceptions thereof.
Alternatively, if increased numbers of pedestrians and cyclists reflect a shift in mode sharefrom driving
to activetransportation, decreases in injuries may be dueto reductions in traffic volume, a known
predictor of crash frequency.
Enhancing pedestrian and cyclist safety is not only possible, but is likely essential to achieving significant
shifts in mode share. Although beyond the scope of this review, numerous studies have demonstrated
that the design of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure can both reduce injuries and influence
transportation decisions through individuals' perception of safety (de Nazelle et al. 2011).
4.6.1.2 Indirect Impacts
The transportation sector affects human health indirectly through diverse pathways. Transportation
system design and access to transportation services influence health behaviors, as well as other critical
social determinants of health, such as access to essential services, personal finance, and social
interaction. Indirect health impacts also occurthrough environmental effects operating at a global
scale, such as climate change.
4.6.1.2.1 Health Behaviors
Regular physical activity can help prevent ortreat many chronic diseases, including hypertension,
coronary artery disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, breast and colon cancer, and osteoporosis and may be
protective against depression (Warburton et al. 2010, Teychenne, Ball, and Salmon 2008). Furthermore,
physical activity protects against obesity, which is a risk factor for many chronic health conditions. Yet,
despite these known health benefits, nearly 40% of US citizens fail to meet recommended levels of
exercise through a combination of leisure-time, occupational, and transportation-associated physical
activity (Tucker, Welk, and Beyler 2011). The individual and societal price is high. Physical inactivity is
responsible for nearly 11% of all deaths in the United States (Murray et al. 2012), and has been
estimated to cost the US $250 billion annually in healthcare expenses, workers' compensation, and
productivity losses (Chenoweth and Leutzinger 2010).
Recently, many have suggested that decisions within thetransportation sector have contributed to and
could offer a solution for high rates of physical inactivity in the United States. Greater reliance on the
automobile for transportation at the expense of public transit and active forms of transportation has
reduced population levels of transportation-associated physical activity. Concerns about safety, tied
closely to individuals' perceptions of protection afforded by pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, are an
important deterrent to increased levels of walking and cyclingfortransportation (de Nazelle et al. 2011).
A growing body of literature suggests that efforts to shift mode share from motor vehicles to transit and
activetransportation could have impacts on physical activity levels and associated health outcomes.
Although high quality intervention studies are limited, observational studies of active transportation
have identified associations with reductions in cardiovascular disease outcomes (Hamer and Chida 2008)
and obesity (Wanner et al. 2012). Walking to and from public transportation can help individuals obtain
-------
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
88
recommended amounts of physical activity (Besserand Dannenberg 2005). In particular, populations in
urban areas with access to rail transit are more likely to meet guidelines for physical activity than other
populations (Freeland et al. 2013). Modeling exercises suggest that reducing automobile usage by 1%
would result in a 0.4% reduction in the chance of obesity, a 0.3% reduction in the chance of high blood
pressure, a 1.3% reduction in the chance of high cholesterol, and a 1% reduction in the chance of heart
attack (Samimi and Mohammadian 2010).
Development density, street connectivity, traffic calmingfeatures, and pedestrian safety measures are
all aspects of the built environment that are associated with higher rates of active transportation.
However, research has yet to establish the degreeto which these factors affect the overall health of
community members (Samimi and Mohammadian 2010). In fact, the amount that people walk and ride
bicycles is moregreatly affected by thefactors of inhospitabletopography, darkness, inclement
weather, and the demographics of the travelers. The built-environment feature that most strongly
predicts more walking is the presence of retail establishments near people's homes. The built-
environment features that most strongly predict more cycling are density, mixed land uses, and
favorable neighborhood design characteristics, especially when thesethings are found at the home end
of people's trips (Cervero and Duncan 2003).
People are also more likely to travel by active modes in neighborhoods with good aesthetics, safety
features, and amenities. Conducive aesthetic features include green space, attractive architecture, and
the absence of noise, air pollution, and physical disorder. A safe walking environment is one where both
crime and traffic accidents occur at low levels. Amenities conduciveto walking include public benches
and sidewalk retail and restaurants. Also, pedestrians generally prefer an environment where numerous
other pedestrians are around, whereas drivers generally prefer an environment wherethere are as few
other drivers as possible. An advantage of using aesthetics and safety upgrades to promote physical
activity is that it takes less time to implement than increasing urban densities or changing land-use
patterns. Another advantage is that improvements to aesthetics and safety are easy to convey to
community members. Research is still wanting on the relative impacts that various aesthetic and safety
features have on physical activity. More research is also needed on how people's demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics affect their walking behavior when all otherfactors are controlled for.
Finally, research could shed more light on the degree to which pedestrians regard public spaces as either
a destination or an obstruction (Neckerman et al. 2009).
4.6.1.2.2 Social Determinants of Health
A large body of research has characterized the importance of social and economic factors on health and
well-being, broadly referred to as social determinants of health (Braveman, Egerter, and Williams 2011).
Transportation - itself a determinant of health (Wilkinson and Marmot 2003) - influences other social
determinants of health such as access to healthcare, personal finance, employment opportunity, and
social interaction. Decisions about transportation, and their ultimate health effects, reflect tradeoffs
between the need to access housing, services, and opportunities and the money and time people spend
on transportation. The magnitude of this impact is often inequitably distributed, creating a greater
-------
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
89
burden on those with more limited transportation options such as minority, economically
disadvantaged, disabled, and rural populations.
Amongthose with a usual source of outpatient health care, lack of transportation can be a major factor
causing individuals to seek care in an emergency department (ED) ratherthan with a regular provider
(Rust et al. 2008). Seeking care for nonurgent conditions in the emergency department can contribute
to worse patient outcomes, ED crowding, and higher healthcare costs (Hoot and Aronsky 2008).
Expenditures on transportation represent the second largest household expense behind housing
(Surface Transportation Policy Project 2003). Transportation costs consume a disproportionately large
percentage of economically disadvantaged populations' income, an important social determinant of
health (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). Those who rely on personal automobiles for commuting are
particularly affected (U.S. Department of Transportation 2003a). In efforts to obtain affordable housing,
many households accept greatertransportation costs associated with commuting, as opposed to
choosing to save money on transportation through location efficiency. In addition to higher commuting
expense, greater spatial separation from places of employment results in increased commute times that
can compromise individuals' ability to find and hold jobs, as well as theirtime availablefor other
priorities, such as accessing child care. Limited transit options or frequency place a greater burden on
those dependent upon public transportation for commuting (Roberto 2008).
Increased commutetime can also have an impact on social interactions, another well-described social
determinant of health (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton 2010). Longer commutes have been associated
with fewertrips taken for social purposes and decreased time spent with family (Besser, Marcus, and
Frumkin 2008, Christian 2012a), as well as decreased time spent in health-related activities (Christian
2012b). Access to transportation also affects levels of social interaction and social isolation, both of
which have been associated with health outcomes (Fujiwara and Kawachi 2008, Holt-Lunstad, Smith,
and Layton 2010, Dickens et al. 2011). Older populations are at particularly high risk of social isolation
and its attendant health risks. Disabled individuals disproportionately report being unable to leave their
homes due to transportation difficulties (U.S. Department of Transportation 2003b).
4.6.1.2.3 Air Pollution and Climate Change
As previously discussed, exposure to air pollution emitted by vehicles has been shown to increase risks
of adverse health effects for a number of outcomes, including respiratory, cardiovascular, cancer, and
premature mortality. These exposures can occur from being close to transportation sources and the
emissions from vehicles using transportation facilities, or from more regional air-quality deterioration
from the cumulative effect of vehicle emissions within an urban or larger area. These regional impacts
can increase concentrations of air pollutants that are directly harmful to human health. While exposure
to air pollution increases public health risks, two studies suggest that the risks from air pollution and
injury are outweighed by the health benefits of increased physical activity from walking or biking (de
Hartog et al. 2010, Rojas-Rueda et al. 2011), although these studies focused on regional air pollution
impacts and did not account for elevated exposures near roadways and other transportation sources.
-------
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
90
Global climate change is increasingly recognized as a significant public health threat, and, as discussed
previously, the transportation sector is a key contributorto greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change
is anticipated to affect human health through diverse mechanisms including heat waves, extreme
weather events, changes in air quality, impacts on ecological systems that affect food production,
vectorborne disease transmission, water quality and quantity, and short- and long-term population
displacement dueto changing environmental conditions (McMichael, Montgomery, and Costello 2012,
Confalonieri et al. 2007). In the year 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that climate
change was responsible for 150,000 deaths globally each year (Patz et al. 2005). In the United States
between 2000 and 2009, six climate-related events of the type projected to increase with rising global
temperatures were cumulatively responsible for an estimated $14 billion in health damages (Knowlton
et al. 2011).
4.6.1.3 Tools
With growing recognition of and interest in the diverse health impacts of the transportation sector, a
number of tools and processes have been developed to evaluatethe potential health effects of
transportation planning decisions.
Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for Walking or Cycling
The World Health Organization's Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking or cycling
(Kahlmeier et al. 2011, World Health Organization) can be used to calculate the magnitude of mortality
reduction from a given level of active transportation in a population and determine the associated
economic value. The tool was designed for transportation planners, among others, in order to inform
decision-making around transportation infrastructure projects. HEAT can be used to determine the
value of specific levels of walking or cycling at a point in time or before and after an intervention.
HEAT combines existing epidemiological data quantifying the mortality risk reduction associated with
activetransportation with local data. Users enter the number of walkers or cyclers and time spent per
year in either activity. Default parameters such as baseline mortality rate, projected mode share, time
over which to average benefits, and locally accepted estimates of value of a statistical life can be
modified. Cost information can be incorporated in order to derive cost-benefit ratios.
Currently HEAT only considers savings from mortality risk reductions associated with active
transportation since epidemiological data characterizing associated reductions in morbidity is less
robust. HEAT does not incorporate potential costs dueto changes in numbers of injuries or morbidity
and mortality from exposure to air pollution that could be associated with increased walking and cycling.
Recognizing this limitation, the tools' creators state that information about air pollution risks to walkers
and cyclists is currently limited and the observed 'safety in numbers' phenomenon suggests injury risk
could decrease with increased walking and cycling. They cite the two studies mentioned earlier that
foundthat risks from air pollution and injury arefar outweighed bythe health benefits of increased
physical activity (de Hartog et al. 2010, Rojas-Rueda et al. 2011). Given an absence of strong
epidemiological data in children or by gender, HEAT can only be applied to adult populations.
-------
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
91
Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM)
The Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM), created by the Centre for Diet and
Activity Research (CEDAR), has been developed to evaluate the health impacts of different
transportation scenarios and policies via their effects on physical activity, injuries, and air pollution
exposure (Centre for Diet and Activity Research). ITHIM uses a comparative risk assessment
methodology to model changes in population risk associated with changes in transportation mode share
and/or vehicle emissions. Unlike HEAT, which is based on changes in all-cause mortality associated with
active transportation, ITHIM models transportation impacts on both morbidity and mortality from
numerous chronic conditions, providing an output in disability adjusted life-years (DALYs). The output
also includes changes in greenhouse gas emissions with under modeled scenarios.
ITHIM has been used to model the health impacts of transportation scenarios in England and Wales
(Woodcock, Givoni, and Morgan 2013) and in the San Francisco Bay Area (Maizlish et al. 2013).
Although not currently available as a tool for public use, the Excel-spreadsheet-based model can be
obtained from CEDAR.
Health Impact Assessment
Health impact assessment (HIA) is rapidly gaining acceptance as a tool with which to ensure the health
implications of decisions like those in transportation planning are taken into consideration during the
initial design stages. HIA is grounded in the observation that many health outcomes are influenced less
by individuals' interactions with the healthcare sectorthan by policies and interventions implemented in
other sectors. The HIA process is used to evaluate the potential health impacts of a proposed plan or
policy and the distribution of those impacts within a population. The process culminates in
recommendations by which to minimize and mitigate adverse effects and maximize health benefits.
These recommendations are provided to decision-makers in order to inform the design process prior to
finalization and implementation (National Research Council of the National Academies 2011a).
HIA is rooted in a process of active stakeholder engagement and, as such, provides an opportunity for
communities to participate in the planning process. Although the process consists of numerous
standardized steps, the HIA is a flexible tool that can be applied to a wide variety of projects and policies
using diverse methodologies and analytic tools. The ability to quantify the direction and magnitude of
potential health outcomes is often a reflection of the availability of necessary population data, existing
epidemiological data relevant to health impacts of interest, and the feasible scope of analysis that can
be conducted within project constraints.
Community Cumulative Assessment Tool (CCAT)
Expected to be available in summer 2015, the Community Cumulative Assessment Tool (CCAT) is a
computerized, step-by-step assessment method that leads users through a guided, yet flexible, process
to sort through information and develop a "to-do" list of actions to address social, environmental, and
economic impacts in their community, primarily focused around human health and
ecological/environmental concerns. CCAT was developed by the EPA as part of its Sustainable and
Healthy Communities Research Program. CCAT is a component of a largertool, the Community-Focused
-------
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
92
Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST), discussed earlier in this paper, which provides a wide range
of information, datasets, GIS maps, and guidanceto help inform users of potential health and
environmental issues in their community.
CCAT provides guidance on how to relate stressors to impacts, and provides an evidence-based scoring
method to evaluate and compare a wide range of issues simultaneously and help to prioritize solutions
based on the weight of a given impact. CCAT is not an exposure or risk model, but rather a decision-
making support tool. CCAT includes a conceptual model builder in its computer framework, where users
can assemble cause-effect flowcharts of stressors and impacts related to a particular issue, such as the
range of impacts potentially associated with landfills. Transportation-related issues (focused around
health and ecological/environmental concerns), for example, could include near-road air, water, or soil
quality; mobile-source emissions impacts on sensitive land-use areas related to daycare facilities,
schools, or healthcare centers; or an exploration of the benefits and potential impacts of a given
transportation-infrastructure expansion project.
When viewed from a local-scale, community-based perspective, sustainabletransportation relates to a
wide variety of stakeholders and considerations. CCAT allows users to examine and compare a diverse
range of issues at the same time, and therefore makes it easier to assemble a to-do list of actions to
address these issues. The CCAT framework is general enough to betransferable across communities,
yet specific enough to be tailored to each community and application. CCAT draws from cumulative-risk
assessment methodologies established by the EPA and the broader scientific community (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007b, National Research
Council of the National Academies 2009). The ability to include and compare multiple social,
environmental, and economic issues across a range of stressors and impacts provides a suitable context
in which to weigh sustainability options when considering solutions to various problems (National
Research Council of the National Academies 2011b).
Eco-Health Relationship Browser
The Eco-Health Relationship Browser is an interactive, web-based tool that displays published linkages
between ecosystem services (benefits supplied by nature) and many aspects of public health and well-
being. The Browser provides information about four of the nation's major ecosystem types, the natural
benefits they provide, and how those benefits ortheir absence may affect human health and well-being.
Ecosystems such as wetlands and forests provide a wide variety of goods and services, many of which
we use every day. However, some of these goods and services, such as air and water filtration, are not
only free of direct financial cost, but also "out of sight," and so can be difficult to appreciate in terms of
their relevance to people's daily lives. The Eco-Health Relationship Browser reflects a detailed review of
the recent scientific literature, with more than 300 citations in its bibliography. The most compelling
research findings are summarized for dozens of public health issues. Many of the featured studies do
not address causality, but document statistical associations. Plausible, proposed, and known causal
mechanisms are also presented. The Eco-Health Relationship Browser is accessible through EnviroAtlas,
discussed in an earlier section, and at
http://www.epa.gov/resea rch/healthscience/browser/introduction.html.
-------
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
93
4.6.2 Social Interaction Outcomes
Transportation infrastructure and the ways in which people use it are able to produce substantial
effects, both positive and negative, on how much and in what ways the members of a community
interact with one another. Even though theoretical connections have been established between a
community's transportation system and social interaction/isolation, the magnitudes of these impacts
are challenging to quantify (Kennedy 2002).
If roadways or rail lines are designed with the primary goal of moving people and freight efficiently and
at minimum cost, this system is likely to have a significant negative effect on the perceived quality of the
public space in a community, leadingto less use of that space, and hence less social interaction. This
phenomenon is due to traffic noise, pollution, the unaesthetic appearance of the infrastructure, and the
tendency of majortransportation routes to divide communities into segments by forming a physical
and/or psychological barrierto movement by pedestrians and cyclists perpendicularto a major roadway
or rail line. Alternatively, transportation infrastructure (including bridges, public transit stops, and
bicycle paths) may be designed in accordance with architectural principles that encourage social
interaction. A particularly memorable, aesthetically pleasing, and enjoyable-to-use piece of
transportation infrastructure may serve as a common reference point within the geography of a
community, with the result that people will tend to use it as a gathering place. Regardless of whether a
community's transportation infrastructure promotes or discourages social interaction, the effects are
liable to be very long-lasting, as it is difficult for major infrastructure elements to be removed in their
entirety and replaced with something dramatically different, as opposed to merely being modified or
expanded (Meyboom 2009).
Transportation mode choice may have a significant effect on social interaction within a community, as
well. Particularly, personal automobiles, more than other modes, represent a choice of private space
over public space. As a result, people may become more isolated from one another and have less sense
of community, and socioeconomic segregation may be more easily facilitated (Mercier 2009).
Furthermore, the noise produced by automobiletraffic has been found to discourage sidewalk activity in
residential neighborhoods, meaning that automobiles may increase social isolation both for people that
use them and for people who do not use them (Kennedy 2002). However, if someone travels for the
express purpose of taking part in social activities, the speed, flexibility, security, and comfort of personal
automobile travel serve to increase that person's access to opportunities for social interaction,
especially in areas that have been developed at too low of a density for other modes to be practical
(Kennedy 2002). Regardless, a study in Miami, FL found that residents of neighborhoods with more
automobile commuters per land area tend to experience more depressive symptoms and also found
that residents of neighborhoods with higher housing densities tend to experience fewer depressive
symptoms (Miles, Coutts, and Mohamadi 2012).
Senior citizens eventually reach a point in time when they must either stop driving or greatly reduce the
amount that they drive; hence, losing the access to social interaction that driving provided, senior
citizens may especially benefit from the availability of alternative transportation modes, especially if
-------
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
94
they are unable to meet their travel needs by riding with friends and family members (Waldorf 2003). If
the non-driving transportation alternatives in a community happen to include good walking
environments, the resultant physical activity may also benefit the psychological well-being of older
residents (Kim and Ulfarsson 2008).
4.6.3 Equity Outcomes
Issues related to equity are discussed in various sections of this synthesis paper, such as in discussions of
pollution exposure, health outcomes, and transportation funding mechanisms. Ratherthan discuss
equitability in the distribution of the effects of externalities, this subsection is dedicated to equitability
in the distribution of transportation as a product that the government provides to its constituents. For
the purpose of assessing equity among the various users of a community's transportation system, the
most appropriate measure by which to compare those users is destination accessibility. Destination
accessibility is a function of how fast people are able to travel, how cheaply they can travel, and the
number and variety of desirable destinations that are located relatively close to their home or place of
business. Destination accessibility is distinct from potential mobility, which merely consists of being able
to easily travel a long distance at a great speed. Measures of potential mobility do not consider whether
or not the journeys a person is able to make lead to places that are worth the trip. Discussing
destination accessibility only in terms of a single mode of transportation would be misleading, as most
people have more than one modal option (even if those options are not created equally) and may
choose different modes under different circumstances or mix modes within a trip. Furthermore, while a
transportation agency may directly influence the potential-mobility component of people's destination
accessibility, the distribution of origins and potential destinations within a community (the other
component of people's destination accessibility) is mostly outsidethe ability of transportation agencies
to directly influence, making it necessary to also consider as inputs to any model of destination-
accessibility equity the local land-use regime, economic-development activities, and the provision of
various other services. Flowever, transportation-agency actions still indirectly affect the distribution of
origins and destinations, since changes in accessibility produce reactions in the real estate market, which
then alter land-use patterns, producing more changes in accessibility. The resulting feedback loop
makes long-term transportation equity outcomes difficult to predict. In addition, individual community
members make different tradeoffs between accessibility, the cost of housing, and other considerations
when they make decisions on whereto live, where to work, and how to travel, meaning that a situation
that may seem equitable or inequitablethrough the lens of destination accessibility might actually be
the opposite when a widerview is taken. This represents yet another complication to account for in the
evaluation of transportation equity (Martens 2012).
While one might be inclined to define an equitable transportation system as one where every user's
destination accessibility is roughly equal, the fact that urban areas tend to organize themselves into
cores and peripheries (with the core usually having access to more destinations than the periphery)
suggests that transportation planners must accept the existence of at least some variation in the
destination accessibility of different individuals and groups of individuals. In that case, seeking to
simultaneously maximizethe average level of accessibility among community members and keep the
difference between worst accessibility and best accessibility under a certain limit may be advisable.
-------
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
95
Alternate ways of achieving an equitable distribution of accessibility include distribution accordingto
need and distribution accordingto merit (wherein destination accessibility is considered a "reward" for
some "burden," such as living someplace undesirable). Neither of these ways of looking at equity is
well-suited to transportation questions, though. Distribution by need would encounter the complication
of distinguishing between "need" and "want," as well as differences in need among people who would
equally benefit from a transportation project and changes in people's relative levels of need that occur
faster than the transportation sector can respond. Meanwhile, merit-based distribution would require
making an inherently subjective judgment of what is a "burden" and what constitutes an appropriate
"reward" (Martens 2012).
One of the most important indicators contributing to measures of destination-accessibility equity within
a transportation system is how much it costs to use the system. Because traveling by automobile is
usually costlierthan traveling by public transit, low-density cities with automobile-dependent
transportation systems are not very equitable; low-income travelers will have to either spend a large
percentage of their earnings on automobile transportation ortravel on an underfunded and inefficient
publictransit system (Mercier 2009), bearing in mindthat eventhe publictransit systems in citiesthat
are not particularly automobile-dependent do not necessarily serve all of the destinations that a given
transit-dependent individual may require (Berechman and Paaswell 1997). Furthermore, the societal
costs of traveling by private automobile are not as internalized as those of other modes of
transportation, which is another form of inequity (Sinha 2003) (i.e., drivers do not "pay for" the cost to
the broader tax base of motor-vehicle infrastructure on their own, or for negative externalities like
pollution).
Even when two neighborhoods provide the same amount of access to modes of transportation other
than private automobiles, there may still betransportation inequalities between them. If two
neighborhoods are equally walkable in terms of their density, land-use mix, street connectivity, and
access to transit, the richer neighborhood is likely to have better aesthetics, better pedestrian safety
features, and other amenities that make pedestrian travel a more attractive prospect. Though the
walkability of a neighborhood (measured in terms of density, land-use mix, street connectivity, and
access to transit) is strongly correlated with the amount of physical activity its residents get, reduced
aesthetics, safety, and amenities dampen this effect. This may partially account for higher rates of
health problems that are associated with insufficient physical activity in high-poverty neighborhoods
(Neckerman et al. 2009). In addition, residents of different neighborhoods with comparable access to
transportation do not necessarily have comparable access to destinations.
Two other dimensions of transportation equity are the international and intergenerational aspects. For
example, even though North America is only hometo 5% ofthe world's population, it accounts for 40%
of worldwide transportation energy use (Mercier 2009). Also, the negative externalities of
transportation policy decisions are often not felt until a later generation than the one in which they are
implemented (Loo and Chow 2006).
-------
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
96
More research is still needed on how accounting for racial segregation would change models of future
population and employment distribution and models of future land use patterns. More research is also
needed on how a given geographic area may derive an economic advantage over another geographic
area from the particular mix of jobs that it has, as opposed to its total level of employment (Carruthers
and Vias 2005). If verifiable answers are provided to these research questions, which have clear equity
implications, those answers could provide additional guidance in the setting of transportation policies
that have equitable outcomes.
4.7 Economic Issues and Related Tools, Resources, and Indicators
Before considering the specific case of how transportation-related government actions affect the
economy, familiarity with several concepts that may be applied to analyzing the economic impacts of
any government action is advisable. The following are some such concepts (US. Environmental
Protection Agency 2010b):
• Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA): A method of calculating the net benefits to society produced by a
given action, regardless of which specific individuals within society experience the benefits of
the action and which ones experience the costs. The results of a benefit-cost analysis are
considered to support a particular government action if they conclude that the benefits accrued
from the action are greater than the costs imposed, regardless of who experiences the benefits
and who experiences the costs. In isolation, this kind of analysis is blind to issues of equity.
• Willingness to Pay (WTP)\ The greatest amount of money that either a person or a collection of
people would be willing to part with in order to either bring about a "favorable" government
action or prevent an "unfavorable" government action.
• Willingness to Accept (WTA)\ If a particular action would be detrimental to a given individual or
group, this is the minimum amount of compensation that they would agree to receive in
exchange.
• Baseline: Describes the future scenario that would occur if no changes are made to the status
quo (i.e., "business as usual"). Preferably, any scenario would be projected out to a time when
the adjustment periods related to any changes in the status quo have passed and a new state of
economic equilibrium has been reached.
• Kaldor-Hicks Criterion'. This criterion describes a situation that is favorable to initiating a given
change in the status quo. The expected beneficiaries of a proposed change may incentivizethe
expected cost-bearers to compromise and allowthe changetotake place; in this case, the
minimum amount of compensation must be less than the maximum the beneficiaries of the
change are willing to provide. Likewise, the expected cost-bearers may incentivizethe expected
beneficiaries to maintain the status quo; in this case, the minimum value of the incentive must
be greater than the maximum the people providing it are willing to sacrifice.
• Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)\ Disaggregates the analysis of the benefits and costs of a
government actiontothescale of individual sectors ofthe economy or individual entities and
institutions. This may include looking at effects on specific industries, specific governmental
units, nonprofit organizations, individual companies, and the consumers and suppliers of given
-------
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
97
products. This kind of analysis delineates which parties benefit from a government action and
which ones lose from it.
• Equity Assessment. An analysis ofthe benefits and costs of a government action that are
experienced by specific subpopulations, especially those that are regarded as disadvantaged.
• Standing: If the potential effects of a particular government action on a given party are
significant enough to be considered in the economic analyses of that government action, the
party in question is regarded as having "standing." Ideally, an economic analysis would grant
standing to all individuals who have any potential of being affected. However, for practical
purposes, standing may not be granted to those who are assumed to only be very remotely
affected, such as residents of foreign countries.
• Externalities'. Benefits and costs of an action that are experienced by those who are not directly
connected to it (e.g., air pollution is a negative externality, while a pleasant view of green
infrastructure would be a positive externality).
• Opportunity Cost. The value that would be derived from the best of any ofthe alternatives to a
given course of action (not always reducible to monetary terms). This is the value that someone
accepts missing the opportunity to receive wheneverthey choose between mutually exclusive
alternatives. Choosing a given course of action is only advisable if the value derived from that
course of action is greater than the opportunity cost (i.e., the opportunity provides more value
than any alternative would).
• Discounting'. An analytical operation that equates the value of some amount of future economic
consumption to the value of some lesser amount of present-day consumption. Due to
considerations of uncertainty about thefuture, inflation, and opportunity costs, people
generally preferto receive a given quantity of benefits in the present than to wait to receive
that same quantity of benefits sometime in the future, meaning that benefits that occur in the
distant future are valued less, or discounted, relative to benefits that occur in the near future.
Sincethe buying power of a dollar generally goes down overtime, spending and investing both
provide more valuethan simply saving. If someone owns an object that they do not use and
which physically degrades overtime (such as an unoccupied house), they receive more value
from selling it now than from waiting to do so. An investment that takes one year to turn a
profit is more attractive than an investment that takes twenty years to turn a profit, since the
profits from the former investment could be reinvested sooner, resulting in more profits
(opportunity cost). The longer it takes for an investment to pay out, the more opportunities
there are for unforeseen events to reduce the odds of making a profit (natural disaster disrupts
operations, economy goes into recession, etc.). However, if anticipated future benefits from a
given action sufficiently exceed a theoretical set of near-term benefits, people will regard the
two as equally attractive. Since different alternative courses of action yield their benefits and
costs over different amounts of time after they are initiated, translating all of them to the
amount of present-day benefit or cost they are regarded as being equivalent to enables direct
comparisons. They are all converted to their Net Present Value (NPV). When it comes to natural
resources that either are nonrenewable or renew very slowly, this practice could become
problematic.
-------
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
98
• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA): If a given government action is intended to produce a specific
quantifiable benefit, the result of a cost-effectiveness analysis is the ratio of dollars spent on the
government action in question per unit of change in whatever measure is used for the
quantifiable benefit under consideration (i.e., bang per buck).
When considering a new, altered, or expanded transportation system, several basic questions of an
economic nature must be considered, including (Sastry 1973):
• How many people will use the system?
• How will changes to the transportation system alter forecasts of future population distributions
and land use patterns?
• Will business activity near the transportation infrastructure be discouraged, encouraged, or
otherwise shifted?
• If business activity is shifted, what neighborhoods will respectively suffer and benefit? What will
be the effect on the local real estate market?
• What environmental and aesthetic impacts will the transportation system produce that might
affect the economy?
• Going beyond just the local area around new transportation connections, what impact will those
new connections have on the state of the regional economy?
• What impact will a transportation project or policy have on the size of the tax base for a given
jurisdiction and how does that impact compare with any governmental expenditures resulting
from the project or policy?
When economic analyses are carried out to address the above questions for a particulartransportation
project under consideration, varying the extensiveness of the analysis in proportion to the size and cost
of the project being proposed is well-advised. Upon carrying out such analyses, which generally require
very large datasets, the step of determining economic costs and benefits must be preceded by the step
of defining the population and employment bases for which costs and benefits will be considered. Then,
costs and benefits must be considered that are both of a quantifiable and of an abstract nature. The
most quantifiable items in an analysis of a transportation infrastructure project arethe costs of capital,
maintenance, and administration, which must be paid by the agency responsible forthe project. More
abstract costs may consist of environmental and societal impacts, while major components of a project's
benefits include increases in travelers' access to various types of destinations (which is independent of
how far away those destinations are), their overall mobility across the landscape (which is independent
of how many worthwhile destinations occupy that landscape), safety improvements, and the reduction
of environmental impacts. However, the most critical source of economic costs and benefits from a
transportation project is its effect on area-widetraffic patterns, preferably expressed in the form of link-
by-link forecasted traffic volumes for each alternate scenario contemplated. Not only must costs and
benefits be identified forthe entire area impacted by a transportation project, but also forthe entire
timeframe of the project's useful life (Shadewald, Hallmark, and Souleyrette 2001).
-------
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
99
The potential benefits and costs of transportation projects and policies that are listed above may be
referred to as direct economic impacts, which may produce any number of indirect impacts. Both direct
and indirect effects must be considered in order for an economic analysis to be complete. One of the
most noteworthy indirect effects of transportation projects is when development is attracted to an area
by the reduced transportation expenditures that followfrom increased accessibility. However, such
increases in development activity often result in air pollution, noise pollution, and other such deterrents
to development in close proximity to heavily-used transportation infrastructure (Hof, Hey ma, and van
der Hoorn 2012, Jha and Kim 2006). Land use impacts from transportation projects and policies, as well
as other indirect effects, typically come about over a period of years and are difficult to estimate. The
long-term, indirect effects of new rail transit projects are especially difficult to predict, since very few
case studies exist of such projects that have been in existence long enough for all of their economic
impacts to have manifested (Polzin 1999, Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010). One reason that the
overall economic impacts of transportation projects are so uncertain isthat performing benefit-cost
analyses runs the risk of some effects being double-counted, as indirect benefits and costs are not
necessarily additive (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012). Meanwhile, some effects are simply
neglected in the analysis or not quantified.
According to a study of economic models from the Netherlands (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012),
direct economic effects from transportation projects may be significantly greater than the indirect
effects of the same projects. However, even if this conclusion holds true in other settings and with
other models, identifying direct and indirect impacts would still help to keep effects from being double-
counted. Models would be useful that feature a "quick scan" function that estimates whether or not a
proposal's indirect effects would be great enough to warrant taking the extra time necessary to produce
a detailed estimate of those effects (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012). Other beneficial model
attributes include:
• The consideration oftravel into and out of the study area (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn
2012).
• The representation of both personal travel and freight travel (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn
2012).
• The anticipation of as many of the reasons for which people travel as possible (Hof, Heyma, and
van der Hoorn 2012).
• Accounting for people valuingtheirtime in different ways (Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010).
• Showing how changes to the transportation network may result in changes in the distribution of
land uses, which results in changes in the distribution of trafficvolumes, which may necessitate
further changes to the transportation system (Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010).
• Modeling the elasticities of housing demand and housing supply for the determination of land
use effects (Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010).
• Allowances for uncertainties in demand and supply (Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010).
• The calculation of tradeoffs between the interests of various parties, including unequal changes
in landowners' profits (Szeto, Jaber, and O'Mahony 2010).
-------
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
100
• Modeling activity on the various links within a transportation network instead of modeling all of
the paths that may be traveled between origins and destinations within that network, as the use
of path-based modeling on large networks is burdensomely complex (Szeto, Jaber, and
O'Mahony 2010).
• Making it so that transportation models that address different geographic scales have consistent
units, inputs, and assumptions, so that the outputs of large-scale models may be used as inputs
forthe small-scale models (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012).
• Modeling that is based on empirical observations and describes the path that all relevant
measures take from the starting year to the ending year of the model simulation, in contrast to
many current models of the economic effects of transportation projects and policies (Hof,
Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012).
4.7.1 Accessibility
Changes in accessibility are considered to be one of the most fundamental economic impacts stemming
from transportation projects and policies; the primary purpose of most transportation projects and
policies is to decrease the amount of time and money required by people and businesses to meet their
travel requirements. A few basic methods exist by which accessibility may be enhanced. First, a
transportation project may increase the number of people who have the option of traveling to a given
location, such as by extending a newtransit line to a previously unserved commercial district and
allowingtransit-dependent individuals to become customers and workersthere. Second, improvements
to the transportation system may increase the percentage of the local population that is able to reach a
given location within a given travel time, such as by reducing traffic congestion. Third, a transportation
project may provide travelers with value in the form of an additional option for how to travel. Even if
the new option is not necessarily superiorto existing options, simply having an expanded range of
choices may be regarded as beneficial (Polzin 1999). Finally, a transportation project or policy may open
up a travel option that is not faster, more flexible, or more comfortable than preexisting options, but
which is cheaper than those other options and frees up the opportunity cost of paying forthem
(Kennedy 2002). At the sametime, though, travel is not purely a derived demand. While arriving at
given destinations in a timely and cost-effective manner is still the primary reason that people travel,
they also derive at least some value from the act of traveling itself, meaning that people may be willing
to trade some amount of accessibility in exchange for a more pleasant travel experience (Loo and Chow
2006, Polzin 1999). Furthermore, value may be derived from working (or doing some other worthwhile
activity) while traveling, such as during the commute to and from an individual's place of employment,
effectively making the commute part of the workday (Gripsrud and Hjorthol 2012).
4.7.2 Announcement Effect
The "announcement effect" is when land prices around a transportation infrastructure project increase
before anything has actually been built, in anticipation of a future increase in accessibility. So far, there
has been little research on how to calculate the timing of the announcement effect (Tsutsumi and Seya
2008).
-------
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
101
4.7.3 Non-Accessibility Benefits from Transportation Projects
The primary intended economic benefits from transportation projects usually consist of providing faster,
cheaper, and/or more convenient travel for a greater number of people and businesses, with fewer
externalities. However, such projects may also produce other economic benefits, whose influence may
be difficult to distinguish from that of thetransportation-related benefits. Government intentions to
invest in thetransportation infrastructure of a given area may convince businesspeopleto invest their
own money in the area as well, with the first wave of new investors inspiring additional investors. This
effect may be enhanced by efforts of the government to promote the economic advantages of the
transportation project. However, if the transportation infrastructure in a particular area is built up at
too much faster of a pace than nearby land development, the apparent mismatch may discourage
private-sector investment (Polzin 1999).
Some transportation infrastructure projects are initiated in conjunction with other policy actions that
serve the purpose of making investment in the area around thetransportation project more attractive.
For example, the government may choose to expedite the approval process for nearby development
proposals, reduce relevant fees, change the local land-use zoning map, increase maximum building
densities, alter parking requirements, providetax incentives, or locate othertypes of government
facilities in the same area. The government may also choose to use the power of eminent domain to
buy properties near the transportation project for resale to developers who would not have been able
to gather the land needed for their planned buildings on their own. Furthermore, the presence of a new
transportation project may serve as a rallying point to inspire government actors to institute unrelated
improvements in the area. This may include beaut if icat ion projects, historic preservation efforts,
increased public lighting, increased police presence, or increased trash service. In some cases, the
complementary policies stemming from a transportation project will affect a jurisdiction far larger than
the immediate area around the project (Polzin 1999).
Other non-transportation economic effects may arise unintentionally from the implementation of a
transportation infrastructure project. For example, when the government buys land for the right-of-way
of a transportation project, the entire property must be purchased, even if only a portion is needed.
Selling the part of the property that they do not need can produce an economic benefit. Similarly,
public building projects may require that some plots of land be purchased strictly for the temporary
purpose of holding construction equipment and materials. This land, too, is likely to be resold when the
project is finished (Polzin 1999).
4.7.4 Agglomeration Effects
When a transportation project increases the profitability of doing business in a given area, either by
reducingthe cost of transportation or other means, more money will likely be invested in that particular
area, with new businesses moving in and preexisting businesses increasing their presence. In addition,
as a particular kind of business increases its presence in an area, businesses that are complementary
may be motivated to locate in the same area, as proximity reduces transportation costs. As businesses
become agglomerated in a particular area, whether around a transportation facility or some other initial
focal point, greater competition arises between businesses, resulting in lower prices and smaller profit
-------
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
102
margins. However, if improvementstothetransportation system increase the number of businesses
within range of the same customer base, those businesses have greater opportunities to differentiate
their products from their competitors' products, potentially allowing higher prices and higher profits.
Therefore, the same initial event may produce drivers of low prices and drivers of high prices at the
exact same time (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012). The concentration of businesses in a given area
also increases land-use diversity and destination accessibility within that area, which, as discussed
earlier in this paper, are factors that encouragethe use of modes of transportation otherthan the
private automobile. However, if businesses become concentrated in one part of a region at the expense
of others, regional land-use diversity and destination accessibility may be reduced.
4.7.5 Regional Adjustment Model
Both jobs attract people to an area and people attract jobs to an area, although much is still unknown
about the exact nature of this relationship (Kim 2007). Consequently, assessing the economic
sustainability of transportation decisions would be greatly aided by the use of a tool that can untangle
the connections between population changes and employment changes. A regional adjustment model
consists of two separate equations describing the migration of people and jobs in and out of a given
area, with changes in population and changes in employment both being functions of the starting values
of population and employment and any number of additional variables, such as measures of ecosystem
services, infrastructure provision, and beneficial government policies. This type of model uses a positive
feedback loop, where jobs and people both follow each other, as opposed to employers locating jobs
wherever they like and then counting on workers to move to the area. One of the implications of this
dynamic is that non-job-related amenities (which elements of the transportation system may either
create or destroy) in a given area may attract more residents and subsequently more jobs (Carruthers
and Vias 2005, Kennedy 2002). Under this theoretical construct, the economy is taken to be in a state of
partial equilibrium, constantly readjusting towards an ideal spatial distribution of people and jobs, which
is never actually reached, on account of shocks to the economic system (Carruthers and Vias 2005).
Furthermore, because some people may be willing to accept worse job prospects in exchange for good
location-specific amenities (such as natural environments and vibrant communities) and other people
may be willing to accept living in an amenity-poor area in exchange for a high income, a state of
equilibrium in the distribution of people and jobs would not necessarily appear homogenous (Carruthers
and Vias 2005). The mutual causality between population and employment levels has not been firmly
established at all geographic and time scales, with the greatest evidence found at the very-large-region
scale (i.e., consisting of several states or provinces within a country) (Carruthers and Vias 2005). Most
likely, the interactions between population and employment levels vary from region to region, meaning
that different regions need to have different models. Ideally, each region's model would consider
interrelationships with other regions (Carruthers and Vias 2005).
4.7.6 Models of Transportation-Infrastructure Land Use and Other Land Uses
TheSolow and Vickrey model describes the relationship between trafficvolumes, real estatevalues, and
the amount of land dedicated to transportation infrastructure in an urban area in simplified terms.
Using economic principles, this model concludes that land rents do not typically fully reflect the
transportation advantage enjoyed by properties at the center of an urban area. This subsequently
-------
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
103
affects the distribution of transportation demand throughout the urban area, with the result of an
unnecessarily large number of lane-miles of roads being built, most especially at the center of the urban
area. A variation on the Solow and Vickrey model, the Legey, Ripper, and Varaiya model, goes on to
predict that in a city where a central authority does not allocate land in a manner contrary to market
forces, not only will too many resources be dedicated to transportation at the urban center, but there
will also be too many resources dedicated to housing along the outer edges of the urban area, a finding
which one may interpret as describing market-based drivers of urban sprawl. In another variation on
the Solow and Vickrey model, attention is given to the case of a city laid out in a circular pattern. In this
scenario, the transportation system would be optimized by a balance between radial roads leading out
from the center of the urban area and several progressively larger ring roads that encircle the center
and intersect with the radial roads. Meanwhile, another study adapted the Solow and Vickrey model to
the scenario of a square city with streets that all intersect at right angles. In this case, the model
showed that the amount of land dedicated to transportation infrastructure would be excessive in all
parts of the city, with the worst of the overbuilding of roads occurring along the edges of the urban
area, instead of the center; at the same time, the center of the urban area would still experience the
highest rents. Finally, adaptation of the Solow and Vickrey model shows that if an urban area is
polycentric, whichever of its multiple centers is the most central will experience the greatest amount of
traffic. Consequently, that particular center will most likely be the one that is the most heavily
developed and the one where the greatest amount of land is required fortransportation infrastructure
(Medda, Nijkamp, and Rietveld 2003).
4.7.7 Market Imperfections
An imperfect market is one in which the price of a product, such as transportation, is either unequal to
the cost of supplying it or unequal to the value derived from it by the buyer. Most markets are
imperfect and may come to bethat way eitherthrough government actions (subsidies, taxes, etc.) or
through private-sector actors exerting market powerthat comes from economies of scale. When
market imperfections exist, they prevent thetheoretical economic effects of a transportation project
from being realized in their entirety. For example, zoning laws and other land-use regulations constrict
the reaction of the real estate market to changes in the transportation system. Also, if a company either
has a monopoly or is part of an oligopoly, they are less likely to pass onto customers the savings from a
reduction in transportation-related expenses. Flowever, transportation improvements may also
mitigate existing market imperfections. If a transportation project triggers an agglomeration effect,
those companies that are consequently placed in more direct competition with one another are forced
to make the prices of their products more closely reflect the cost of providing them. Furthermore, a
transportation project may create market imperfections, for either good or bad, by way of benefits
being derived from something in a non-transaction manner. An example is when a transportation
system benefits someone who is not part of the tax base that supports the system, or whose tax
payments going to the transportation system are not proportional to their use of that system (Hof,
Fleyma, and van der Floorn 2012).
4.7.8 Import Substitution
-------
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
104
If one is primarily concerned with the economic well-being of a specific geographic region, such as a
metropolitan area, considering the distinction between transportation expenditures that are paid to
parties within the same local economy and those that are paid to outside parties is important (for
example, depending on location-specific circumstances, one may drive a plug-in electric vehicle whose
energy source is a potentially-local power plant instead of driving a gasoline-powered vehicle whose fuel
may come from a refinery in a different state, or one may buy a car at a local dealership instead of going
out of town to shop for a vehicle). If the latter expenditures are too great, it may contribute to a trade
imbalance, hurting the local economy. Furthermore, even if a given area currently has a trade balance
with the outside world, a lack of diversity in its exports or an inability to meet its own needs by way of
internal sources may still produce a state of inflexibility that will endanger the local economy in the
future. If the area in question contains a car factory, for example, a portion of the money that residents
spend on automobiles will eventually contribute to the wages of local workers. When it comes to
import substitution, public transit has an advantage over travel by private automobile. Wages paid to
employees living in the transit system's service area may represent a significant portion of the money
that the local government spends on public transit, and the local government may choose to favor
locally-based companies when deciding whereto buy transit vehicles and other products necessary to
the operation of thetransit system (Kennedy 2002).
4.7.9 Cost-Effective Use of Government Budgets
In orderto spend transportation-related funds in a cost-effective manner, tradeoffs must be considered
between different kinds of costs. An example of such a tradeoff is when a government entity spends
moneyto build a bridgeacross a body ofwaterand is consequently able to end a previous practice of
subsidizingferry service across that body of water (Hof, Heyma, and van der Hoorn 2012). Another
important area fortradeoffs is the Level of Service (LOS) that exists on freeways and arterial streets.
Urban freeways are expensiveto build, requiring large amounts of land and building materials, and are
often designed with the primary goals of achieving a high free-flow speed and accommodating heavy
truck traffic. Achieving these design goals requires the creation of shoulders on the road and wide
traffic lanes. The result is fewer total traffic lanes and a smaller traffic volume that can be
accommodated, potentially resulting in economic costs from traffic congestion. If a particular urban
area generates very high traffic volumes during the peak travel periods of the day, and a relatively small
percentage of overall vehicle traffic consists of trucks, having a greater number of narrower traffic lanes
may be more cost-effective than a smaller number of wider lanes, choosing the economic benefits of
optimizing peak-travel-period traffic volumes overthe economic benefits of optimizing off-peak traffic
speeds. Going farther, in some highly congested areas, thetravel-timesavings of having freeways
instead of non-limited-access, unsignalized arterial streets may not produce enough economic benefit to
offset the added expense of building freeways. However, freeways also tend to have lower accident
rates than ordinary arterial streets, which may save the government enough additional money to make
freeways cost-effective (Ng and Small 2012).
Maintaining a transportation system will be far more cost-effective for the government if it takes
advantage of economies of scale. If a large number of destinations and transportation-system users are
densely concentrated in a small geographic area, theirtravel needs can be met at a low cost per capita
-------
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
105
or per ton of freight, such as when companies agglomerate around a major seaport (Hof, Heyma, and
van der Hoorn 2012). The cost-effectiveness benefits of high development densities are especially
noticeable in the case of publictransit systems. There are certain thresholds of development density
required for economically feasible operation of fixed-route trans it systems (Kennedy 2002). However,
more research is still warranted to arrive at better estimates of these thresholds. The question of what
minimum development density may justify introducing publictransit service may have different answers
in different contexts, such as monocentric and polycentric urban areas, or different-size of jurisdictions
(Kennedy 2002).
Other economy-of-scale benefits can be derived from the size of the government agency in charge of a
given transportation network. If an organization has a frequent need for a specific asset (such as
concrete or vehicle-fleet maintenance services), the organization will seek to reduce the uncertainty and
transaction costs associated with purchasing the asset. To do this, the organization will tend to favor
transitioning from buying the asset on the open market to buying it from a contractor on a standing
basis and then transitioning to providing the asset in-house. However, the benefits of reducing
uncertainty and transaction costs in this manner are offset by the overhead costs associated with
supplying an asset in-house. If an organization is large enough, economies of scale can reduce the
overhead cost per unit of a repeatedly needed asset. As a result, providing or producing the asset
within the organization becomes more economical, or, if in-house provision is not practical, the
organization uses the promise of a large-volume order to get a contractor to agree to a low per-unit
price to supply thesame asset (Mercier 2009).
4.7.10 Equity in Transportation Funding Mechanisms
Two of the most common ways of perceiving the equitability of how a transportation system is funded
include: (1) how proportionate someone's contribution is to the amount of value they get from the
system and (2) how regressivethefundingscheme is interms of the percentage of a person's income
that is required. Asidefrom a progressive incometax, most of the ways in which a government entity
may collect revenue are regressive, likely requiring low-income peopleto pay a larger percentage of
their earnings than what high-income people must pay. Therefore, if potential transportation funding
mechanisms are to be analyzed in terms of their regressiveness, asking whether a given mechanism is
more or less regressive than its alternatives may be more appropriate than simply asking whether the
cost is regressive at all. Meanwhile, the question of whether or not the amount people pay for the use
of a transportation system and the amount of use they receive from it are proportional becomes more
relevant in cases where use of the transportation system produces significant negative externalities,
such as noise, air pollution, or accidents. If the amount someone pays for a service is little affected by
how much they use it, they are likely to use it more than they otherwise would, resulting in an increase
in any associated externalities. Common ways of funding surface transportation infrastructure include
fuel taxes, vehicle registration taxes, vehicle sales taxes, general sales taxes, and tolls and fares. All of
these options are regressive to some extent, but fuel taxes, tolls, and fares are mostly proportional to
people's usage of the transportation system. Fuel taxes, though, have a difficult time keeping pace with
the demand fortransportation-infrastructure revenue, thanks to increases in motor vehicles' fuel
efficiency and the phenomenon of fuel taxes being set as a fixed amount of money per gallon instead of
-------
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4|039
4040
4041
106
a percent of the price of the fuel purchase. General sales taxes are both regressive and blind to the
relative amounts that people use the transportation system, placing the greatest cost burden on
infrequent users of the system. However, because sales taxes spread the cost of transportation
infrastructure across a very large number of individuals, are paid in numerous small increments over the
course of a year, and are easy forthe government to collect, these are often seen as a more attractive
option than road tolls, even by people who would ultimately pay more in transportation-related sales
taxes than they otherwise would in tolls and fees. Nonetheless, if a roadway system is funded through
tolls and low-income people retain the option of traveling by cheaper means than a toll road ortoll lane
(such as riding on public transit), mosttolls will be paid by middle-income and upper-income individuals,
making road pricing potentially less income-regressive than otherfunding schemes; however, this could
still leave low-income individuals traveling by slower means than other people (Schweitzer and Taylor
2008).
4.7.11 Economic Analysis Software for Transportation Planning
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has put out several different software programsthat
analyze the economic impacts of transportation project alternatives, including the Spreadsheet Model
for Induced Travel Estimation (SMILE) and the Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model (SPASM).
The ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) and the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model
(STEAM) focus on the estimation of system-wide impacts and include default values forthe economic
costs of parameters such as vehicle emissions, fuel consumption, and traffic accidents (Shadewald,
Hallmark, and Souleyrette 2001).
Iowa State University's Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) created an interface
between the GIS platform ArcView and thetransportation demand model Tranplan. In combination
with a program such as FH WA's STEAM, an interface like this can be used in the early planning stages of
a transportation project to compare alternative and base design scenarios through visual
representations. One may map the economic benefits that an alternative scenario will produce for
different districts within a study area, allowing analysis of economic equity issues (Shadewald, Hallmark,
and Souleyrette 2001).
5 EXAMPLE APPUCATION OF SUSTAIN ABILITY PRINCIPLES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS: COMPLETE
STREETS
This section assesses the sustainability of transportation policies and practices related to "Complete
Streets" design principles and compares them with more typical urban designs, oriented around
personal vehicle use, that have predominated development in the United States for many years. This
comparison highlights many of the sustainability principles presented in this paper, as well as the
assessment tools described. This comparison also demonstrates the consideration of transportation and
other land-use decisions through a systems approach to account forthe multiple benefits, and potential
costs, of transportation-related decisions, including the indication of tradeoffs, co-benefits, and
mitigating factors. The complete streets principles examined here are increasingly used in communities
to address growth management, economic development, and multi-modal transportation issues.
-------
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
107
When a transportation corridor is designed in accordance with the principle of "Complete Streets," it is
designed to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, typically including private automobiles,
publictransit vehicles, cycling, and walking. This type of design may also include other benefits and
amenities, such as green stormwater infrastructure, park-like elements, sidewalk dining, or on-street
parking. Design elements that may serve this purpose include frequent intersections, traffic calming
measures, other non-automobile-oriented safety features, features that make travel by a given mode
more comfortable even if they do not make it safer, a compact development pattern, mixed land uses,
and having building set back as little as possible from the property line. However, the most central
element of Complete Streets is how much of a transportation corridor's cross-section is available for use
by each specific mode and to what degreethose modes are kept out of conflict with one another. Due
to the development of adjoining private properties, most transportation corridors cannot be widened
indefinitely; therefore, the amount of transportation-corridor width dedicated to each mode must be
traded off with one another.
One of the most prominent benefits attributed to Complete Streets is safety from vehicle-pedestrian
and vehicle-cyclist collisions. Roads that do not include facilities for pedestrians (sidewalks) or cyclists
(bike lanes and shoulders) will likely still be used by at least some pedestrians and cyclists, especially
those who do not have the option of motorized travel. Pedestrians and cyclists who travel along
roadways that are designed only for motor vehicles face a greater risk of being involved in traffic
accidents than they would if the transportation corridor's cross-section included segregated facilities for
each mode. Furthermore, the replacement of ordinary vehicle traffic lanes with medians, turning lanes,
and/or on-street parking makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists to cross intersections, as it reduces
the amount of time they must spend crossing motor-vehicle lanes. The effects of transportation policies
and practices on accident rates, as well as other public health outcomes, can be assessed usingthe
Integrated Transport and Health Impact ModellingTool (ITHIM).
Since reductions in the safety, comfort, and convenience of a given mode inhibit the destination
accessibility of individuals who already have limited modal options (for reasons such as household
budget or physical disability/infirmity), a transportation system that accommodates as many modes as
possible provides an equity benefit.
If Complete Streets practices succeed in making travel by modes other than the private automobile
safer, easier, and more pleasant, the result may be increased usage of these alternative modes and
decreased usage of private automobiles, especially if capacity constraints reduce the average speed of
automobile travel (Figure 2). Verification of these effects may be aided by various transportation
behavior models, some common (but not universal) elements of which include travel time budgets
(Figure 3) and the conventional four-step transportation modeling process of first determining the
number of trips that people will make, then those trips' destinations, then mode choices, then route
choices. Some examples of such models include the EPA's Smart Growth Index (SGI), the Multiclass
Simultaneous Transportation Equilibrium Model (MSTEM), CONTRAM, and the Unified Mechanism of
Travel (UMOT).
-------
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
108
As discussed throughout this paper, numerous benefits would follow from such a shift in modal shares,
including decreased transportation-energy use, decreased tailpipe emissions (including both greenhouse
gases and chemicals that more directly affect human health), increased levels of physical activity,
reduced traffic-related noise pollution, and decreased levels of social isolation (especially if the resulting
pedestrian facilities are aesthetically pleasing and conducive to personal interaction). However, even if
overall emissions of air pollution from motor vehicles are reduced, Complete Streets practices may
simultaneously increase exposuretothose emissions by encouragingthe construction of buildings closer
to roadways and placing pedestrians and cyclists (who breathe in more air per period of time than do
motor-vehicle occupants) in close proximity to vehicles' tailpipe emissions for the duration of trips that
take more time to complete than they would if taken by motor vehicle. Changes in energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a given shift in transportation behavior may be assessed using
the EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model or California's EMFAC, models that
consider the composition of the vehicle fleet whose use is being affected. Also useful in this task are
assessment tools that use greenhouse-gas footprint methodologies and/or consider life-cycle emissions
impacts, such as the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET)
model, the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM), GHGenius, and Economic Input-Output Life Cycle
Assessment (EIO-LCA). Meanwhile, emissions and transport of a variety of othertransportation-related
airborne pollutants may be assessed usingthe EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model.
Evaluations of the health impacts of modals shifts to walking and cycling may be aided by the Health
Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) and by ITHIM. Useful tools for assessing a broader range of health
impacts from transportation policies and practices may include Health Impact Assessments and the EPA-
developed Community Cumulative Assessment Tool (CCAT).
A community may chooseto enact Complete Streets policies and practices for economic reasons. If the
number of available modal options for reaching a given commercial district is increased, a greater
number of people will have an easy time getting there, theoretically increasing their patronage of the
businesses within that district. Furthermore, since Complete Streets principles encourage mixed land
uses and minimal setbacks of buildings from their property lines, the benefits of agglomeration
economies may also be realized. However, if dedicating more of a transportation right-of-way to non-
automobile modes too greatly reduces the convenience of automobiletravel, travel to a given district by
that mode could conceivably be reduced by a greater amount than use of other modes is increased. In
that event, economic activity in that particular district could suffer. The assessment of economic
outcomes may be aided by the programs SMILE, SPASM, IDAS, and STEAM, all put out by the FHWA, and
by the tools of benefit-cost analyses, economic impact analyses, equity assessments, and cost-
effectiveness analyses.
Depending on what design elements are incorporated, Complete Streets has the potential to produce
benefits that are independent of how people usethetransportation system. Trees, grass, and other
forms of vegetation may be incorporated into medians and pedestrian facilities. Such features may
mitigatethe detrimental effects of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (such as paved
transportation facilities) and absorb a portion ofthegreenhouse gases emitted duringthe combustion
-------
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
109
of transportation fuels. Furthermore, if it would not be practical to use pervious paving materials in the
construction of motor-vehicle lanes on a particular roadway, those materials might instead be used for
other surfaces within the transportation corridor, such as shoulders, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Finally,
because Complete Streets encourages a compact development pattern, it may lead to greater efficiency
in the provision of various public services, such as the distribution of drinking water, the collection of
wastewater, and the provision of fire and police services. The effects of particular Complete Streets
designs on stormwater runoff effects could be evaluated using the EPA's Storm-Water Management
Model and the commercially-available FIYDRUS. The assessment of water-infrastructure outcomes may
be aided by commercial design packages such as SewerCAD and StormCAD, as well as the development
of a water footprint index, comparing water usage with water availability. The degree to which
vegetation in a transportation right-of-way mitigates CO2 emissions may be assessed using greenhouse
gas footprint analysis.
Other tools discussed in this paper that may aid in the assessment of sustainability outcomes in
scenarios that do or do not feature Complete Streets practices include, but are not limited to, LEED-ND,
INVEST, and the EPA-developed DOSII, DASEES, C-FERST, Tribal-FERST, TRACI, EnviroAtlas, and Green
Communities Program.
6 IMPORTANT INFORMATION GAPS
The following is a compilation of important information gaps described by cited researchers and
highlighted throughout this report. This section has been organized to highlight issues raised in the
previous discussions ratherthan consolidate and integrate the research needs in orderto provide the
summary in order of topics presented and avoid confusion or oversimplification that may occur when
consolidating these issues.
From "Tools, Resources, and Indicators for Assessing Sustainability" (Opening) Section
• Insufficient understanding of the measurement of sustainability in the regularfunctions of a
transportation agency (Ramani et al. 2011).
• Uncertainty in the inputs of transportation and land use models (Duthie et al. 2010).
• Insufficient understanding of how the built environment affects pedestrian and bicycle travel, as
opposed to motorized transportation (Cervero and Duncan 2003).
From "Drivers of Transportation Behavior" Section
• Research to date has given little attention to the travel-behavior effects of the land uses that
surround a person's place of work, as opposed to those that surround their place of residence
(Frank et al. 2008).
• The phenomenon of induced demand is not well understood, would require very complex
theories to model, and is not incorporated into standard travel demand forecasts (Kitamura
2009).
-------
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
110
• The greatest source of doubt that exists regarding the magnitude of the effect of the built
environment on travel behavior is residential self-selection, the idea that a neighborhood built
around a particular kind of transportation behavior will simply attract residents who already had
a predisposition towards that kind of transportation behavior ratherthan motivating other
peopleto change their transportation behavior (Ewing and Cervero 2010).
• Little research has so far been conducted on the manner in which parents decide how their
children will travel to school (Faulkner et a I. 2010).
From "Transportation-BehaviorModeling Techniques" Subsection
• Most conventional travel behavior models consist of four sequential steps, based on the
assumption that people first decide to make a trip, then decide what the destination of that trip
will be, then decidewhat mode they will makethetrip by, then decide what routethetrip will
follow. Flowever, a better reflection of reality might be modeling these decisions as being
simultaneous. Unfortunately, just like most other modeling techniques that produce a closer
representation of reality, modeling people as making multiple decisions at the sametime would
be very complex, difficult, and time-consuming, resulting in a necessary tradeoff between
accuracy and expediency (Flasan and Dashti 2007, Newman and Bernardin Jr. 2010).
• A better understanding is needed of systems approaches to integrating behavior choices with
other factors in the decision-making process.
• Few studies have so far examined the possibility of modeling mode choices before destination
choices (Newman and Bernardin Jr. 2010).
• The theoretical link between transportation system capacity and trip generation has not yet
been proven (Kitamura 2009).
• Most travel behavior models do not give much consideration to thetime of day at which a
person departs on a trip, and most of the models that do give this consideration only narrow
down departure times to one of a series of broad time periods, usually a couple hours in
duration. Greater precision than this would be required in order to study variations in traffic
congestion within a given peak travel period, which is currently considered a high-priority
research area (Kristoffersson and Engelson 2009).
From "Energy Use" Section
• While there is a range of studies regarding specific issues (e.g., underground storage tanks for
ethanol blends), there do not appear to be tools or resources that look systematically at how
transportation fuel infrastructure fits within the broader sustainable communities context.
• While research on life-cycle impacts has often focused on upstream impacts of fuel and
electricity production, there are also GFIG and other environmental impacts related to material
flows. Although theirtotal contribution to GFIG impacts and energy use may be small, the
production of vehicles and vehicle components, as well as of larger transportation infrastructure
(e.g., concrete production), may need to be considered in terms of other environmental
endpoints.
-------
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
111
• A key knowledge gap and research need identified by the Strategic Highway Research Program
is "the effect of government interventions (e.g. pricing, infrastructure deployment) on
technology advancement...many local and state governments are interested in how they can
provide incentive to help accelerate the adoption of new vehicle technologies."
• Understanding the potential for eco-driving in the US. to reduce GHG emissions and energy use
has been identified as a research need.
• There are a number of research initiatives attempting to understand the market for electric
vehicles and charging patterns for this still-small but growing segment of the fleet, as well as to
understand potential impacts on electric-power dispatching. However, beyond that is the
question of how communities can promote synergistic solutions between vehicle electrification
and energy strategies, and how to quantify their benefits.
• Research has been conducted to look at the question of whether plug-in vehicle buyers want
green-power electricity. This could point to whetherthere are market preferences that would
support a combination of green power and plug-in hybrid or electricvehicles, as well as point to
policy and marketing strategiesto advancethese solutions. However, there is a lack oftools and
resources availableto communities to support these types of strategies.
From "Water Infrastructure" Subsection
• Methods for projecting population growth and activity modeling.
• The EPA research programs (e.g., SHC, ACE, and SSWR) are developing analysis methods for
individual water infrastructure components. New developments, such as those in nutrient
recovery, leak detection, and green infrastructure, are focused on water infrastructure or its
components alone. Restraints from urban transportation, accountingfor mode and
accessibility, are not yet considered. For integrated planning, however, the smart growth
methodology needs to simultaneously consider both types of infrastructures in option
evaluation.
• Smart growth in urban development is often defined differently in literature than in practice. In
light of urban development, smart growth refers to high population density, low carbon
intensity, and green infrastructure, thus creating a livable environment. This premise requires
the accommodation of mass transit and other transportation infrastructures. The
transportation policies contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) all aim to
increase urban population density, create a walkable and pedestrian-friendly community, and
maximize the use of existing infrastructure through infill and redevelopment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) outlined majortypes of transportation modes with
the following sustainability metrics:
¦ Transit accessibility, for reduced VMT and increased public transportation
¦ Bicycle and pedestrian mode share
¦ VMT per capita, to reduce automobile reliance and commute distances
¦ Carbon intensity (of transportation) per capita
¦ Percentage land-use mixture in terms of residential and commercial activities
-------
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
112
• How changes toward smart growth affect urban water infrastructure, and in return how water
services facilitate or impede smart growth, has received little attention.
• Numerous published studies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b)) have shown
that biofuel combustion in current fleet engines leads to a meaningful reduction in some
pollutants (e.g., particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons), but an
increase in others (e.g., aldehydes and nitrous oxides (NO*)). Chemical and physical properties
of PM emissions also change when biofuels are used. These changes are important to near-road
air pollutant monitoring and mitigation options (Baldauf et al. 2008). Their potential effects on
land use decisions, and hence water infrastructure planning, have not been thoroughly
investigated.
From "Physical Health" Subsection
• Research is still wanting on the relative impacts that various aesthetic and safety features have
on physical activity.
• More research is also needed on how people's demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
affect their walking behavior when all other factors are controlled for.
• Research could shed more light on the degree to which pedestrians regard public spaces as
either a destination or an obstruction.
As theSHCRP program develops, these and other research needs raised should be considered for further
evaluation both as individual activities and as integrated programs to enhance communities in their
drive to achieve sustainable transportation developments.
-------
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
113
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Water Works Association. 2003. Waterstats 2002 Water Utility Distribution Survey CD-ROM.
Denver, CO: American Waterworks Association.
Axsen, J., and K. Kurani. 2013. Do plug-in vehicle buyers want green electricity? A survey of U.S. new car
buyers. In Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. Washington, DC.
Balbus, John M., Jeffery B. Greenblatt, Ramya Chari, Dev Millstein, and Kristie L. Ebi. 2014. "A wedge-
based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the
United States." Climatic Change no. 127 (2):199-210. doi: 10.1007/sl0584-014-1262-5.
Baldauf, R., E.Thoma, A. Khlystov, V. Isakov, G. Bowker, T. Long, and R. Snow. 2008. "Impacts of noise
barriers on near-road air quality." Atmospheric Environment no. 42 (32):7502-7507. doi:
10.1016/j.atmosenv .2008.05.051.
Baldauf, R. W., T. A. Cahill, C. R. Bailey, A. Khlystov, K. M. Zhang, J. R. Cook,... G. Bowker. 2009. Can
roadway design be used to mitigate air quality impacts from traffic? Environmental Manager
(EM), August.
Bare, Jane. 2011. "TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other
environmental impacts 2.0." Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy no. 13 (5):687-696.
doi: 10.1007/sl0098-010-0338-9.
Bare, Jane C. 2012. Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental
Impacts (TRACI), Software Name and Version Number: TRACI version 2.1 - User's Manual. US.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division, Systems Analysis Branch.
Bare, Jane C., Patrick Hofstetter, David W. Pennington, and Helias A. Udo de Haes. 2000. "Midpoints
versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
no. 5 (6):319-326. doi: 10.1007/bf02978665.
Bare, Jane C., Gregory A. Norris, David W. Pennington, and Thomas McKone. 2002. "TRACI: The Tool for
the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts." Journal of
Industrial Ecology no. 6 (3-4):49-78. doi: 10.1162/108819802766269539.
Baynes, Timothy M. 2009. "Complexity in urban development and management: Historical overview and
opportunities." Journal of Industrial Ecology no. 13 (2):214-227. doi: 10.1111/j.l530-
9290.2009.00123.x.
Berechman, J., and R. E. Paaswell. 1997. "The implications of travel profiles fortransportation
investment: The Bronx Center Project." Transportation no. 24 (l):51-77. doi:
10.1023/a: 1017912602000.
Berndes, Goran. 2002. "Bioenergy and water - the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for
water use and supply." Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions no. 12
(4):253-271. doi: 10.1016/s0959-3780(02)00040-7.
-------
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
114
Besser, Lilah M., and Andrew L. Dannenberg. 2005. "Walkingto PublicTransit: Stepsto Help Meet
Physical Activity Recommendations." American Journal of Preventive Medicine no. 29 (4):273-
280. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.010.
Besser, Lilah M., Michele Marcus, and Howard Frumkin. 2008. "Commutetimeand social capital in the
U.S." American Journal of Preventive Medicine no. 34 (3):207-211. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.004.
Bhatia, Rajiv, and Megan Wier. 2011. ""Safety in Numbers" re-examined: Can we makevalid or practical
inferences from available evidence?" Accident; analysis and prevention no. 43 (l):235-240. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.08.015.
Black, J. A., A. Paez, and P. A. Suthanaya. 2002. "Sustainable urban transportation: Performance
indicators and some analytical approaches." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 128
(4):184-209.
Brabec, Elizabeth, Stacey Schulte, and Paul L. Richards. 2002. "Impervious surfaces and water quality: A
review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning." Journal of Planning
Literature no. 16 (4):499-514.
Braveman, Paula, Susan Egerter, and David R. Williams. 2011. "The Social Determinants of Health:
Coming of Age." Annual Review of Public Health no. 32 (l):381-98. doi: 10.1146/annurev-
publhealth-031210-101218.
Burchfield, Marcy, Henry G. Overman, Diego Puga, and Matthew A. Turner. 2006. "Causes of sprawl: A
portrait from space." The Quarterly Journal of Economics no. 121 (2):587-633. doi:
10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.587.
Byun, Daewon, and Kenneth L. Schere. 2006. "Review of the governing equations, computational
algorithms, and other components of the models-3 Community Mult iscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
modeling system." Applied Mechanics Reviews no. 59 (l-6):51-77. doi: 10.1115/1.2128636.
Carruthers, John I., and Alexander C. Vias. 2005. "Urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl in the Rocky
Mountain West: Evidence from regional adjustment models." Journal of Regional Science no. 45
(1):21-48. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4146.2005.00363.x.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Injury Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics
(WISQARS) [cited March 22 2013]. Available from
http://www.cdc.gov/iniurv/wisqars/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. CDC Transportation Recommendations, August 2 2012
[cited April 11 2013]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/default.htm.
Centre for Diet and Activity Research. 2013. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool
(ITHIM), 2013/04/02/16:35:47 [cited April 2 2013]. Available from
http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/research/modelling/ithim/.
Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. 2003. "Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from
the San Francisco bay area." American Journal of Public Health no. 93 (9):1478-1483.
-------
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
115
Chai, Lin, Masoud Kayhanian, Brandon Givens, John T. Harvey, and David Jones. 2012. "Hydraulic
performance of fully permeable highway shoulderforstorm water runoff management." Journal
of Environmental Engineering-Asce no. 138 (7):711-722. doi: 10.1061/(asce)ee.l943-
7870.0000523.
Chang, Ni-Bin, Cheng Qi, and Y.Jeffrey Yang. 2012. "Optimal expansion of a drinking water infrastructure
system with respect to carbon footprint, cost-effectiveness and water demand." Journal of
Environmental Management no. 110:194-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.004.
Chang, Shu Chun. 2007. "Measuring and assessing economic activities of central business districts for
planning purposes." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 133 (2):95-98. doi:
10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2007)133:2(95).
Chenoweth, David, and Joe Leutzinger. 2010. "The Economic Cost of Physical Inactivity and Excess
Weight in American Adults." Journal of Physical Activity and Health no. 3 (2).
Chi, Guangqing, and Brian Stone. 2005. "Sustainabletransport planning: Estimating the ecological
footprint of vehicle travel in future years." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 131
(3): 170-180. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2005)131:3(170).
Christian, Thomas J. 2012a. "Automobile commuting duration and the quantity of time spent with
spouse, children, and friends." Preventive Medicine no. 55 (3):215-218. doi:
10.1016/j.ypmed .2012.06.015.
Christian, Thomas J. 2012b. "Trade-offs between commutingtime and health-related activities." Journal
of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine no. 89 (5):746-757. doi:
10.1007/sll524-012-9678-6.
City of Olympia, Public Works Department, Water Resources Program. 1995. Impervious Surface
Reduction Study: Final Report. Olympia, WA.
Confalonieri, Ulisses, Bettina Menne, Rais Akhtar, Kristie L. Ebi, Maria Hauengue, R. Sari Kovats, ...
Alistair Woodward. 2007. "2007: Human Health." In Climate Change 2007: impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof,
P.J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson, 391-431. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dallmann, Timothy R., and Robert A. Harley. 2010. "Evaluation of mobile source emission trends in the
United States." Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres no. 115. doi:
10.1029/2010jd013862.
Davies, Hugh, and Irene van Kamp. 2012. "Noise and cardiovascular disease: A review of the literature
2008-2011." Noise & Health no. 14 (61):287-291. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.104895.
Davis, Stacy C., Susan W. Diegel, and Robert G. Boundy. 2012.Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
31. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
-------
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
116
de Fraiture, Charlotte, Mark Giordano, and Yongsong Liao. 2008. "Biofuels and implications for
agricultural water use: Blue impacts of green energy." Water Policy no. 10 (Sl):67-81. doi:
10.2166/wp .2008.054.
de Hartog, Jeroen Johan, Hanna Boogaard, Hans Nijland, and Gerard Hoek. 2010. "Do the Health
Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?" Environmental Health Perspectives no. 118 (8): 1109-
1116. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901747.
de Nazelle, Audrey, Mark J. Nieuwenhuijsen, Josep M. Anto, Michael Brauer, David Briggs, Charlotte
Braun-Fahrlander, ... Erik Lebret. 2011. "Improving health through policies that promote active
travel: A review of evidenceto support integrated health impact assessment." Environment
International no. 37 (4):766-777. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003.
Dickens, Andy P., Suzanne H. Richards, Colin J. Greaves, and John L. Campbell. 2011. "Interventions
targeting social isolation in older people: A systematic review." BMC Public Health no. 11. doi:
10.1186/1471-2458-11-647.
Dodder, Rebecca, Tyler Felgenhauer, Carey King, and William Yelverton. 2011. Water and greenhouse
gas tradeoffs associated with a transition to a low carbon transportation system. In 2011
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Denver, CO: American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Dominguez-Faus, R., Susan E. Powers, Joel G. Burken, and Pedro J. Alvarez. 2009. "The waterfootprint of
biofuels: A drink or drive issue?" Environmental Science & Technology no. 43 (9):3005-3010. doi:
10.1021/es802162x.
Duthie, Jennifer, Avinash Voruganti, Kara Kockelman, and S. Travis Waller. 2010. "Highway improvement
project rankings dueto uncertain model inputs: Application of traditional transportation and
land use models." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 136 (4):294-302. doi:
10.1061/(asce)up.l943-5444.0000026.
El-Diraby, T. E., B. Abdulhai, and K. C. Pramod. 2005. "The application of knowledge management to
support the sustainable analysis of urban transportation infrastructure." Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering no. 32 (1):58-71. doi: 10.1139/104-115.
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the built environment." Journal of the American
Planning Association no. 76 (3):265-294. doi: 10.1080/01944361003766766.
Ewing, Reid H. 2008. "Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: A literature review." In Urban
Ecology, edited by John M. Marzluff, EricShulenberger, Wilfried Endlicher, Marina Alberti,
Gordon Bradley, Clare Ryan, Ute Simon and Craig ZumBrunnen, 519-535. Springer US.
Fairfax County. 2013. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance [cited May 29 2013]. Available from
http://www.fairfaxcountv.gov/dpwes/environmental/cbav/.
Faulkner, Guy E. J., Vanessa Richichi, Ronald N. Buliung, Caroline Fusco, and Fiona Moola. 2010. "What's
"quickest and easiest?": Parental decision making about school trip mode." International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity no. 7. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-62.
-------
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
117
Fischer, Edward L., Gabe K. Rousseau, Shawn M.Turner, Ernest J. Blais, Cindy L. Engelhart, David R.
Henderson,... Charles V. Zegeer. 2010. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe.
Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
Frank, Lawrence, Mark Bradley, Sarah Kavage, James Chapman, and T. Keith Lawton. 2008. "Urban form,
travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice." Transportation no.
35 (l):37-54. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-007-9136-6.
Free land, Amy L., Shailendra N. Banerjee, Andrew L. Dannenberg, and Arthur M. Wendel. 2013.
"Walking associated with public transit: Moving toward increased physical activity in the United
States." American Journal of Public Health no. 103 (3):536-542. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2012.300912.
Fritschi, Lin, A. Lex Brown, Rokho Kim, Dietrich Schwela, and Stelios Kephalopoulos. 2011. Burden of
disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe.
Copenhagen, Denmark: World HeaIth Organization.
Fujiwara, Takeo, and Ichiro Kawachi. 2008. "Social capital and health - A study of adult twins in the US."
American Journal of Preventive Medicine no. 35 (2):139-144. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2008.04.015.
Garcia-Lopez, Miquel-Angel. 2012. "Urban spatial structure, suburbanization and transportation in
Barcelona." Journal of Urban Economics no. 72 (2-3):176-190. doi:
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.iue.2012.05.003.
Gim, Tae-FlyoungTommy. 2012. "A meta-analysis of the relationship between density and travel
behavior." Transportation no. 39 (3):491-519. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-9373-6.
Goel, Rahul, and Mark W. Burris. 2012. "Flot lane policies and their implications." Transportation no. 39
(6): 1019-1033. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-9382-5.
Goetz, Scott J., Claire A. Jantz, Stephen D. Prince, Andrew J. Smith, Dmitry Varlyguin, and Robb K. Wright.
2004. "Integrated analysis of ecosystem interactions with land use change: The Chesapeake Bay
watershed." In Ecosystems and Land Use Change, edited by R. S. DeFries, G. P. Asner and R. A.
Floughton, 263-275. Washington: American Geophysical Union.
Gomez-Ullate, Elena, Elena Castillo-Lopez, Daniel Castro-Fresno, and Joseba Rodriguez Bayon. 2011.
"Analysis and contrast of different pervious pavements for management of storm-water in a
parking area in northern Spain." Water Resources Management no. 25 (6):1525-1535. doi:
10.1007/sll269-010-9758-x.
Gordon, P., H. W. Richardson, and H. L. Wong. 1986. "The distribution of population and employment in
a polycentric city: The case of Los Angeles." Environment & Planning A no. 18 (2): 161-173. doi:
10.1068/a180161.
Greene, David L., and Steven E. Plotkin. 2011. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S.
Transportation. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Gripsrud, Mattias, and Randi Hjorthol. 2012. "Working on thetrain: From 'dead time' to productive and
vital time." Transportation no. 39 (5):941-956. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-012-9396-7.
-------
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
118
Guo, James C. Y., Gerald E. Blackler, T. Andrew Earles, and Ken MacKenzie. 2010. "Incentive index
developed to evaluate storm-water low-impact designs." Journal of Environmental Engineering-
ASCE no. 136 (12):1341-1346. doi: 10.1061/(asce)ee.l943-7870.0000270.
Hamer, Mark, and Yoichi Chida. 2008. "Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: A meta-analytic
review." Preventive Medicine no. 46 (1):9-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.03.006.
Hasan, Mohamad K., and Hussain M. Dashti. 2007. "A multiclass simultaneous transportation
equilibrium model." Networks & Spatial Economics no. 7 (3):197-211. doi: 10.1007/sll067-006-
9014-3.
Haustein, Sonja. 2012. "Mobility behavior of the elderly: An attitude-based segmentation approach for a
heterogeneous target group." Transportation no. 39 (6):1079-1103. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-
9380-7.
HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution. 2010. Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A
Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects. Boston: Health
Effects Institute.
Heikkila, E., P. Gordon, J. I. Kim, R. B. Peiser, H. W. Richardson, and D. Dale-Johnson. 1989. "What
happened to the CBD-distance gradient?: Land values in a policentric city." Environment and
Planning A no. 21 (2):221-232. doi: 10.1068/a210221.
Hof, Bert, Arjan Heyma, and Toon van der Hoorn. 2012. "Comparing the performance of models for
wider economic benefits of transport infrastructure: results of a Dutch case study."
Transportation no. 39 (6):1241-1258. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-9383-4.
Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, and J. Bradley Layton. 2010. "Social relationships and mortality
risk: A meta-analytic review." PLOS Medicine no. 7 (7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.
Hoot, Nathan R., and Dominik Aronsky. 2008. "Systematic review of emergency department crowding:
Causes, effects, and solutions." Annals of Emergency Medicine no. 52 (2):126-136. doi:
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.03.014.
Horner, John W., John R. Stone, and Let a F. Huntsinger. 2008. "Data reuse methods for transportation
planning in small- and medium-sized towns." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 134
(4):149-152. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2008)134:4(149).
Hume, Kenneth I., Mark Brink, and Mathias Basner. 2012. "Effects of environmental noise on sleep."
Noise & Health no. 14 (61):297-302. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.104897.
Int Panis, Luc, Bas de Geus, Gregory Vandenbulcke, Hanny Willems, Bart Degraeuwe, Nico Bleux, ...
Romain Meeusen. 2010. "Exposure to particulate matter in traffic: A comparison of cyclists and
car passengers." Atmospheric Environment no. 44 (19):2263-2270. doi:
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.028.
Jacobsen, P. L. 2003. "Safety in numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling." Injury
Prevention no. 9 (3):205-209. doi: 10.1136/ip.9.3.205.
-------
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
119
Jacobson, Justin, and Ann Forsyth. 2008. "Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in
Transit-Oriented Development projects." Journal of Transport and Land Use no. 1 (2):51-88.
Jha, Manoj K., and Eungcheol Kim. 2006. "Highway route optimization based on accessibility, proximity,
and land-use changes." Journal of Transportation Engineering no. 132 (5):435-439. doi:
10.1061/(asce)0733-947x(2006)132:5(435).
Kahlmeier, Sonja, Nick Cavill, Hywell Dinsdale, Harry Rutter, Thomas Gotschi, Charlie Foster, ...
Francesca Racioppi. 2011. Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling.
Methodology and user guide. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Karner, Alex A., Douglas S. Eisinger, and Deb A. Niemeier. 2010. "Near-roadway air quality: Synthesizing
the findings from real-world data." Environmental Science & Technology no. 44 (14):5334-5344.
doi: 10.102 l/esl00008x.
Kennedy, C. A. 2002. "A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems:
Study of the GreaterToronto Area." Transportation no. 29 (4):459-493. doi:
10.1023/a: 1016302913909.
Kim, Hong Sok, and Eungcheol Kim. 2004. "Effects of public transit on automobile ownership and use in
households of the USA." Review of Urban & Regional Development Stud ies no. 16 (3):245-262.
doi: 10.Ill 1/j.1467-940X.2005.00090.x.
Kim, Sukkoo. 2007. "Changes in the nature of urban spatial structure in the United States, 1890-2000."
Journal of Regional Science no. 47 (2):273-287. doi: 10.1111/j.l467-9787.2007.00509.x.
Kim, Sungyop, and Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson. 2008. "Curbing automobile use for sustainable
transportation: Analysis of mode choice on short home-based trips." Transportation no. 35
(6):723-737. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-008-9177-5.
Kirmeyer, G., W. Richards, and C. D.Smith. 1994. An Assessment of Water Distribution Systems and
Associated Research Needs. Denver, CO: American Waterworks Association Research
Foundation.
Kitamura, Ryuichi. 2009. "The effects of added transportation capacity on travel: A review of theoretical
and empirical results." Transportation no. 36 (6):745-762. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-009-9245-5.
Knibbs, Luke D., Tom Cole-Hunter, and Lidia Morawska. 2011. "A review of commuter exposure to
ultrafine particles and its health effects." Atmospheric Environment no. 45 (16):2611-2622. doi:
10.1016/j.atmosenv .2011.02.065.
Knowlton, Kim, Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, Linda Geballe, Wendy Max, and Gina M.Solomon. 2011. "Six
Climate Change-Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In Lost
Lives And Health Costs." Health Affairs no. 30 (11):2167-2176. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0229.
Koo, Dae-Hyun, Samuel T. Ariaratnam, and Jr Edward Kavazanjian. 2009. "Development of a
sustainability assessment model for underground infrastructure projects." Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering no. 36 (5):765-776. doi: 10.1139/109-024.
-------
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
120
Kristoffersson, Ida, and Leonid Engelson. 2009. "A dynamic transportation model forthe Stockholm
area: Implementation issues regarding departure time choice and OD-pair reduction." Networks
& Spatial Economics no. 9 (4):551-573. doi: 10.1007/sll067-009-9104-0.
Lahvis, Matthew A., Ian Hers, Robin V. Davis, Jackie Wright, and George E. DeVaull. 2013. "Vapor
intrusion screening at petroleum UST sites." Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation no. 33
(2):53-67. doi: 10.1111/gwmr.l2005.
Landers, Dixon H., and Amanda M. Nahlik. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification
System (FEGS-CS). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development.
Larson, William, Feng Liu, and Anthony Yezer. 2012. "Energy footprint of the city: Effects of urban land
use and transportation policies." Journal of Urban Economics no. 72 (2-3):147-159. doi:
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.iue.2012.05.001.
Lemp, Jason D., Bin Zhou, Kara M. Kockelman, and Barbara M. Parmenter. 2008."Visioning versus
modeling: Analyzingthe land-use-transportation futures of urban regions." Journal of Urban
Planning & Development no. 134 (3):97-109. doi: 10.106l/(asce)0733-9488(2008)134:3(97).
Levinson, Flerbert S. 2004. "Flighways, people, and places: Past, present, and future." Journalof
Transportation Engineering no. 130 (4):406-411. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-947x(2004)130:4(406).
Lingaraju, Bala P., Joo-Youp Lee, and Y. Jeffrey Yang. 2013. "Process and utility water requirements for
cellulosic ethanol production processes via fermentation pathway." Environmental Progress &
Sustainable Energy no. 32 (2):396-405. doi: 10.1002/ep.11604.
Loo, Becky P. Y., and S. Y. Chow. 2006. "Sustainable urban transportation: Concepts, policies, and
methodologies." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 132 (2):76-79. doi:
10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2006)132:2(76).
Maizlish, Neil, James Woodcock, Sean Co, Bart Ostro, Amir Fanai, and David Fairley. 2013. "Flealth
Cobenefits and Transport at ion-Related Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the San
Francisco Bay Area." American Journal of Public Health no. 103 (4):703-709. doi:
10.2105/AJPH .2012.300939.
Majeau-Bettez, Guillaume, Troy R. Flawkins, and Anders FlammerStromman. 2011. "Life cycle
environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid
and battery electric vehicles." Environmental Science & Technology no. 45 (10):4548-4554. doi:
10.1021/esl03607c.
Martens, Karel. 2012. "Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: Applying Walzer's 'Spheres of
Justice' to the transport sector." Transportation no. 39 (6):1035-1053. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-012-
9388-7.
Mashayekh, Yeganeh, Paulina Jaramillo, ConstantineSamaras, Chris T. Flendrickson, Michael Blackhurst,
Fleather L. MacLean, and Fl. Scott Matthews. 2012. "Potentials for sustainable transportation in
cities to alleviate climate change impacts." Environmental Science & Technology no. 46 (5):2529-
2537. doi: 10.1021/es203353q.
-------
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
121
McDonald, Noreen C. 2008. "Children's mode choice for the school trip: The role of distance and school
location in walking to school." Transportation no. 35 (l):23-35. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-007-9135-7.
McHugh, Thomas, Robin Davis, George Devaull, Harley Hopkins, John Menatti, and Tom Peargin. 2010.
"Evaluation of vapor attenuation at petroleum hydrocarbon sites: Considerations for site
screening and investigation." Soil & Sediment Contamination no. 19 (6):725-745. doi:
10.1080/153 20383.2010.4999 23.
McMichael, T., H. Montgomery, and A. Costello. 2012. "Health risks, present and future, from global
climate change." BMJ no. 344 (I):el359-el359. doi: 10.1136/bmj.el359.
McNabola, Aonghus, Brian M. Broderick, and Laurence W. Gill. 2009. "A principal components analysis
of the factors effecting personal exposureto air pollution in urban commuters in Dublin,
Ireland." Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A no.44 (12):1219-1226. doi:
10.1080/10934520903139928.
Medda, Francesca, Peter Nijkamp, and Piet Rietveld. 2003. "Urban land use for trans port systems and
city shapes." Geographical Analysis no. 35 (l):46-57.
Mercier, Jean. 2009. "Equity, social justice, and sustainable urban transportation in the twenty-first
century." Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe) no. 31 (2):145-163. doi:
10.2753/atpl084-1806310201.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 2013. Creating a "Park Once" District, February 3 2010 [cited
August 8 2013]. Available from htt p://www. mapc.org/ resources/parking-toolkit /parking- issues-
quest ions/create-park-once-district.
Meyboom, Annalisa. 2009. "Infrastructure as practice." Journal of Architectural Education no. 62 (4):72-
81. doi: 10.1111/j.l531-314X.2009.01006.x.
Miles, Rebecca, Christopher Coutts, and Asal Mohamadi. 2012. "Neighborhood urban form, social
environment, and depression." Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine no. 89 (1):1-18. doi: 10.1007/sll524-011-9621-2.
Montgomery County, Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. The Paint Branch Watershed
[cited May 29 2013]. Available from
http://www6.montgomervcountvmd.gov/dectmpl.asp7urh/content/dep/water/sub paint .asp.
Mui, Simon, Jeff Alson, Benjamin EMies, and David Ganss. 2007. A Wedge Analysis of the U.S.
Transportation Sector. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Transportation and Climate Division.
Murray, Christopher J. L., Theo Vos, Rafael Lozano, Mohsen Naghavi, Abraham D. Flaxman, Catherine
Michaud, ... Alan D. Lopez. 2012. "Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and
injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2010." The Lancet no. 380 (9859):2197-2223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736( 12)61689-4.
National Research Council of the National Academies, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Health Impact Assessment. 2011a.
-------
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
122
Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council of the National Academies, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009.Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk
Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council of the National Academies, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Water Science
and Technology Board, Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United
States. 2008. Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council of the National Academies, Policy and Global Affairs Division, Science and
Technology for Sustainability Program, Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the US.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. Sustainability and the US. EPA. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Naumann, Rebecca B., Ann M. Dellinger, Eduard Zaloshnja, Bruce A. Lawrence, and Ted R. Miller. 2010.
"Incidence and Total Lifetime Costs of Motor Vehicle-Related Fatal and Nonfatal Injury by Road
User Type, United States, 2005." Traffic Injury Prevention no. 11 (4):353-360. doi:
10.1080/15389588.2010.486429.
Neckerman, Kathryn M., Gina S. Lovasi, Stephen Davies, Marnie Purciel, James Quinn, Eric Feder, ...
Andrew Rundle. 2009. "Disparities in urban neighborhood conditions: Evidence from GIS
measures and field observation in New York City." Journal of Public Health Policy no. 30:S264-
S285. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2008.47.
Newman, Jeffrey P., and Vincent L. Bernardin Jr. 2010. "Hierarchical ordering of nests in a joint mode
and destination choice model." Transportation no. 37 (4):677-688. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-010-
9277-x.
Ng, Chen Feng, and Kenneth A. Small. 2012. "Tradeoffs among free-flow speed, capacity, cost, and
environmental footprint in highway design." Transportation no. 39 (6):1259-1280. doi:
10.1007/sllll6-012-9395-8.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. "Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic
systems." American Economic Review no. 100 (3):641-672. doi: 10.1257/aer.l00.3.641.
Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. 2004. "Stabilization wedges: Solvingthe climate problem for the next 50
years with current technologies." Science no. 305 (5686):968-972. doi:
10.1126/science.1100103.
Patz, Jonathan A., Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Tracey Flolloway, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2005. "Impact of
regional climate change on human health." Nature no. 438 (7066):310-317. doi:
10.1038/nat u re04188.
Polzin, Steven E. 1999. "Transportation/land-use relationship: Public transit's impact on land use."
Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 125 (4): 135-151.
-------
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
123
Popuri, Yasasvi, Kimon Proussaloglou, Cemal Ayvalik, Frank Koppelman, and Aimee Lee. 2011.
"Importance of traveler attitudes in the choice of public transportation to work: Findings from
the Regional Transportation Authority Attitudinal Survey." Transportation no. 38 (4):643-661.
doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-9336-y.
Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. 2008. "Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe." Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board no. 2074 (-l):58-65. doi:
10.3141/2074-08.
Ramani, Tara L., Josias Zietsman, William E. Knowles, and Luca Quadrifoglio. 2011. "Sustainability
enhancement tool for state departments of transportation using performance measurement."
Journal of Transportation Engineering no. 137 (6):404-415. doi: 10.1061/(asce)te.l943-
5436.0000255.
Roberto, Elizabeth. 2008. Commutingto Opportunity: The Working Poor and Commuting in the United
States. In Transportation Reform Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Metropolitan
Policy Program.
Rojas-Rueda, David, Audrey de Nazelle, Marko Tainio, and Mark J. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2011. "The health
risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact
assessment study." British Medical Journal no. 343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4521.
Rose, Eliot, and Rex Burkholder. 2009. "CO(2) reduction through better urban design: Portland's story."
In Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation Sector, edited by Daniel Sperling and James S.
Cannon, 139-157. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Rust, George, Jiali Ye, Peter Baltrus, Elvan Daniels, Bamidele Adesunloye, and George Edward Fryer.
2008. "Practical barriers to timely primary care access - Impact on adult use of emergency
department services." Archives of Internal Medicine no. 168 (15):1705-1710. doi:
10.1001/archinte.l68.15.1705.
Samaras, Constantine, and Kyle Meisterling. 2008. "Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions
from plug-in hybrid vehicles: Implications for policy." Environmental Science & Technology no.
42 (9):3170-3176. doi: 10.1021/es702178s.
Samimi, Amir, and Abolfazl Kouros Mohammadian. 2010. "Health impacts of urban development and
transportation systems." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 136 (3):208-213. doi:
10.1061/(asce)up.l943-5444.0000020.
Santos, A., N. McGuckin, H. Y. Nakamoto, D. Gray, and S. Liss. 2011. Summary of Travel Trends: 2009
National Flousehold Travel Survey. US. Department of Transportation, Federal Flighway
Administration.
Sastry, M. V. Rama. 1973. "Systems approach to cost-benefit analysis of urban transportation."
Transportation Journal (American Society of Transportation & Logistics inc) no. 12 (3):39-45.
Scheiner, Joachim, and Christian Flolz-Rau. 2013. "Changes in travel mode use after residential
relocation: A contribution to mobility biographies." Transportation no. 40 (2):431-458. doi:
10.1007/sllll6-012-9417-6.
-------
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
124
Scholz, Miklas. 2013. "Water quality improvement performance of geotextiles within permeable
pavement systems: A critical review." Water no. 5 (2):462-479. doi: 10.3390/w5020462.
Schueler, T. R. 1994. "The importance of imperviousness." Watershed Protection Techniques no. 1
(3): 100-111.
Schueler, Thomas R., Lisa Fraley-McNeal, and Karen Cappiella. 2009. "Is impervious cover still
important? Review of recent research." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering no. 14 (4):309-315.
doi: 10.106 l/(asce)1084-0699(2009)14:4(309).
Schweitzer, Lisa, and Brian D. Taylor. 2008. "Just pricing: The distributional effects of congestion pricing
and sales taxes." Transportation no. 35 (6):797-812. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-008-9165-9.
Shadewald, Jerry K., Shauna Hallmark, and Reginald R. Souleyrette. 2001. "Visualizing system-wide
economic impacts of transportation projects." Journal of Urban Planning & Development no. 127
(4):158-168.
Sinha, Kumares C. 2003. "Sustainability and urban public transportation." Journal of Transportation
Engineering no. 129 (4):331-341.
Small, Kenneth A., and Shunfeng Song. 1994. "Population and employment densities: Structure and
change." Journal of Urban Economics no. 36:292-313.
Starke, P., P. Gobel, and W. G. Coldewey. 2010. "Urban evaporation rates for water-permeable
pavements." Water Science and Technology no. 62 (5):1161-1169. doi: 10.2166/wst.2010.390.
Steinmetz, Scott A., Jason S. Herrington, Christopher K. Winterrowd, William L. Roberts, Jost O. L.
Wendt, and William P. Linak. 2013. "Crude glycerol combustion: Particulate, acrolein, and other
volatile organic emissions." Proceedings of the Combustion Institute no. 34:2749-2757. doi:
10.1016/j.proci.2012.07.050.
Stockton, T., B. Dyson, W. Houghteling, K. Black, M. Buchholtz ten Brink, T. Canfield, ... A. Rehr. 2011.
Decision Support Framework Implementation of DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society. Cincinnati, OH: US. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sun, Yu, Susanna T. Y. Tong, Mao Fang, and Y. Jeffrey Yang. 2013. "Exploring the effects of population
growth on future land use change in the Las Vegas Wash watershed: An integrated approach of
geospatial modeling and analytics." Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:
10.1007/sl0668-013-9447-z.
Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2003. Transportation Costs and the American Dream: Why a Lack
of Transportation Choices Strains the Family Budget and Hinders Home Ownership. Washington,
DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
Sweet, Matthias N., and Mengke Chen. 2011. "Does regional travel time unreliability influence mode
choice?" Transportation no. 38 (4):625-642. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-011-9335-z.
-------
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
125
Szeto, W. Y., Xiaoqing Jaber, and Margaret O'Mahony. 2010. "Time-dependent discrete network design
frameworks considering land use." Computer-Aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering no. 25
(6):411-426. doi: 10.1111/j.l467-8667.2010.00654.x.
Teychenne, Megan, Kylie Ball, and Jo Salmon. 2008. "Physical activity and likelihood of depression in
adults: A review." Preventive Medicine no. 46 (5):397-411. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.01.009.
Tomalty, Ray. 2009. "Urban tipping point." Alternatives Journal no. 35 (5):12-16.
Tong, S. T. Y., Y. Sun, and Y. J. Yang. 2012. "Generating a future land use change scenario with a modified
population-coupled Markov Cellular Automata model." Journal of Environmental Informatics no.
19 (2):108-119. doi: 10.3808/jei.201200213.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Committee for a Study of Potential Energy
Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Transportation. 2011. Policy Options for Reducing
Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from US. Transportation. Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Second Strategic Highway Research Program.
2013. Incorporating Green house Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Tsutsumi, Morito, and Hajime Seya. 2008. "Measuring the impact of large-scale transportation projects
on land price using spatial statistical models." Papers in Regional Science no. 87 (3):385-401. doi:
10.1111/j.l435-5957.2008.00192.x.
Tucker, Jared M., Gregory J. Welk, and Nicholas K. Beyler. 2011. "Physical Activity in U.S. Adults:
Compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans." American Journal of Preventive
Medicine no. 40 (4):454-461. doi: 16/j.amepre.2010.12.016.
Tuomisto, Jouni T., and Marko Tainio. 2005. "An economic way of reducing health, environmental, and
other pressures of urban traffic: A decision analysis on trip aggregation." BMC Public Health no.
5:123. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-123.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2013. Alternative Fuels Data
Center 2013a [cited July 2013]. Availablefrom http://www.afdc.energy.gov/.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Clean Cities 2013b. Available from
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Consumer Expenditures in 2010: Lingering
Effects of the Great Recession.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003a. Commuting Expenses:
Disparity for the Working Poor.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003b. Transportation
Difficulties Keep Over Half a Million Disabled at Home.
-------
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
126
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Context Sensitive
Solutions.org [cited August 7 2013]. Available from http://contextsensitivesolutions.ore.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Flighway Administration. 2012. INVEST: Sustainable
Highways Self-Evaluation Tool [cited October 2 2012]. Available from
https://www.sustainablehighwavs.org/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Statistics. 2013a. Monthly Energy Review June
2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis. 2013b.
Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Energy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Green Communities [cited June 12 2013]. Availablefrom
http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/index.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of
Infill Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Water Quality Scorecard: Incorporating Green
Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance
Measures.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Ecosystem Goods and Services Production Function Library,
May 31 2012a [cited June 14 2013]. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/research/ecoscience/eco-goods-services-librarv.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. National Ecosystems Goods and Services Classification
System (NEGSCS), May 31 2012b [cited June 14 2013]. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/research/ecoscience/eco-negscs.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-
FERST), April 29 2013a [cited July 12 2013]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/heasd/c-ferst/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Inventory of US. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2011. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013c. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter." Federal Register no. 78 (10):3085-3287.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Smart Growth Index, October 30 2013d [cited December 8
2014]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/topics/sg index.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Tribal-Focused Environmental Risk and Sustainability Tool
(T-FERST), April 29 2013e [cited July 12 2013]. Availablefrom
http://www.epa.gov/heasd/research/tferst.html.
-------
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
127
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2012. "2017
and later model year light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate average fuel
economy standards." Federal Register no. 77 (199):62623-63200.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources,
Transportation Air Quality Center. 1998.Transportation Control Measures: WorkSchedule
Changes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division. 2010a. Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Changes to the
Renewable Fuel Standard Program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation, Development,
Community, and Environment Division. 2006. Growing Toward More Efficient Water Use:
Linking Development, Infrastructure, and Drinking Water Policies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, National Center for Environmental Economics.
2010b. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Office of Sustainable Communities. 2014. Smart
Location Mapping, April 10 2014 [cited August 5 2014]. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smartlocat iondatabase.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Centerfor
Environmental Assessment. 2007b. Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative Health
Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects: A Resource Document.
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Centerfor
Environmental Assessment. 2011b. Biofuels and the Environment: First Triennial Report to
Congress. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Centerfor
Environmental Assessment, Global Change Research Program. 2009b. Land-Use Scenarios:
National-Scale Housing-Density Scenarios Consistent with Climate Change Storylines.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Centerfor
Environmental Assessment, Global Change Research Program. 2010c. Integrated Climate and
Land-Use Scenarios (ICLUS) vl.3 User's Manual: ArcGIS Tools and Datasetsfor Modeling US
Housing Density Growth. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. 2007 c. Small Drinking Water Systems: State of the Industry and Treatment
Technologies to Meet the Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Sustain able Technology Division. 2012 c. A Framework for Sustainability
Indicators at EPA.
-------
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
128
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water. 2002a.
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Communities, Smart Growth Program.
2012d. Residential Construction Trends in America's Metropolitan Regions: 2012 Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2010d. EPA Finalizes
Regulationsforthe National Renewable FuelStandard Program for 2010 and Beyond.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2010e. EPA Lifecycle
Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2012e. EPA and NFITSA
Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-
2025 Cars and Light Trucks.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2013. EPAct/V2/E-89
Tier 2 Gasoline Fuel Effects Study, May 30 2013f [cited September 25 2013]. Availablefrom
http://www. eDa.gov/otaa/models/moves/eDact. htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division. 2002b. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. 2003. Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment. Washington, DC.
U.S. Green Building Council. 2012. LEED [cited November 26 2012]. Available from
https://new.usgbc.org/leed.
U.S. Green Building Council, Congress for the New Urban ism, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
2012. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development, October 2012 [cited October5 2012].
Available from https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20Rating_ND_10-
2012_9c.pdf.
Venkatram, Akula, Vlad Isakov, Eben Thoma, and Richard Baldauf. 2007. "Analysis of air quality data
near roadways using a dispersion model." Atmospheric Environment no. 41 (40):9481-9497. doi:
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.08.045.
Waldorf, Brigitte. 2003. "Automobile reliance among the elderly: Race and spatial context effects."
Growth & Change no. 34 (2):175-201. doi: 10.1111/1468-2257.00213.
Wallbaum, Flolger, Sabrina Krank, and Rolf Teloh. 2011. "Prioritizing sustainability criteria in urban
planning processes: Methodology applicationJournal of Urban Planning & Development no.
137 (l):20-28. doi: 10.1061/(asce)up.l943-5444.0000038.
Wang, Guangmei, Gaoming Jiang, Yunlong Zhou, Quanru Liu, Yanshou Ji, Shixiong Wang,... Hui Liu.
2007. "Biodiversity conservation in a fast-growing metropolitan area in China: A case study of
plant diversity in Beijing." Biodiversity and Conservation no. 16 (14):4025-4038. doi:
10.1007/sl0531-007-9205-3.
-------
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
129
Wang, Xinhao, Amy Burgess, and Jeff Yang. 2013. "A scenario-based water conservation planning
support system (SB-WCPSS)." Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment no. 27
(3):629-641. doi: 10.1007/s00477-012-0628-3.
Wanner, Miriam, Thomas Gotschi, Eva Martin-Diener, Sonja Kahlmeier, and Brian W. Martin. 2012.
"Active Transport, Physical Activity, and Body Weight in Adults: A Systematic Review." American
Journal of Preventive Medicine no. 42 (5):493-502. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.030.
Warburton, Darren E. R., Sarah Charlesworth, Adam Ivey, Lindsay Nettlefold, and Shannon S. D. Bredin.
2010. "A systematic review of the evidence for Canada's Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults."
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity no. 7. doi: 10.1186/1479-
5868-7-39.
Wilkinson, Richard, and Michael Marmot, eds. 2003. Social determinants of health: the solid facts. 2nd
ed. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Wong, Bonny Yee-Man, Guy Faulkner, and Ron Buliung. 2011. "GIS measured environmental correlates
of active school transport: A systematic review of 14 studies." International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity no. 8. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-39.
Woodcock, James, Moshe Givoni, and Andrei Scott Morgan. 2013. "Health impact modelling of active
travel visions for England and Wales using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling
tool (ITHIM)." PLoS ONE no. 8 (1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051462.
World Health Organization. 2013. Health economic assessment tool, 2013/04/01/21:48:23 [cited April 1
2013]. Available from http://www.heatwalkingcvcling.org/.
Yang, Y. J., J. Neal, S. Liang, Z. Yao, T. C. Keener, H. Wei, and X. Wang. 2011. On the black carbon related
carbon footprints in urban transportation. Paper read at 104th Air and Waste Management
Association Annual Conference and Exhibition, June 21-24, at Orlando, FL.
Yang, Y.Jeffrey, Ni-Bin Chang, Zhiwei Li, Steven G. Buchberger, Susanna Tong, Xinhao Wang, ... James
A. Goodrich. 2013. A systems approach to manage drinking water quality through integrated
model projections, adaptive monitoring and process optimization. In World Environmental &
Water Resources Congress 2013. Cincinnati, OH: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Yang, Y.Jeffrey, Ni-Bin Chang, Jill Neal, Heng Wei, Marissa S. Liang, and Timothy C. Keener. 2013. Water
and carbon footprints for sustainability analysis of urban infrastructure. In World Environmental
& Water Resources Congress 2013. Cincinnati, OH: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Zhou, Jian, Jianyi Lin, Shenghui Cui, Quanyi Qiu, and Qianjun Zhao. 2013. "Exploringthe relationship
between urban transportation energy consumption and transition of settlement morphology: A
case study on Xiamen Island, China." Habitat International no. 37:70-79. doi:
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.habitatint.2011.12.008.
Zhou, Ying, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2007. "Factors influencing the spatial extent of mobile source air
pollution impacts: A meta-analysis." BMC Public Health no. 7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-89.
-------
130
4889 Zorn, Lisa, Elizabeth Sail, and Daniel Wu. 2012. "Incorporating crowding into the San Francisco activity-
4890 based travel model." Transportation no. 39 (4):755-771. doi: 10.1007/sllll6-012-9405-x.
4891 Zuurbier, Moniek, Gerard Hoek, Marieke Oldenwening, Virissa Lenters, Kees Meliefste, Petervan den
4892 Hazel, and Bert Brunekreef. 2010. "Commuters'Exposureto Particulate Matter Air Pollution Is
4893 Affected by Mode of Transport, FuelType, and Route." Environmental Health Perspectives no.
4894 118 (6):783-789. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901622.
4895
4896
------- |