Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sustainability and Urban Transportation Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest
Jeff Frkonja, RSG
Mike Coleman, Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Jeff Tumlin, Nelson \ Nygaard
1
Overview of the Session
Syllabus and Agenda The logic Sustainability Overview.
A Framework for Transportation Decision-Making: Does Sustainability Change Anything?
Implications for Data.
Directions for sustainable transportation.
Tying it together.
Speaker backgrounds
Your backgrounds and interests
2
A Framework for Thinking about Sustainable Public Action
Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest
3
Public Policy: What are we trying to achieve?
4
The Big Picture: Level 1
Make everyone happy
All impacts, all people, all times
Net Social Welfare; The Public Good
5
Level 2
Livability
(Sustainability)
6
Goals and Sub-Goals
Goals = What we care about= Impacts= Benefits and costs= Performance Measures Evaluation Criteria= 7
Smart
Powerful
Strong Slender
Rich Stable 8
Public Policy: What actions do we take to achieve what we want?
9
Measures of
Outcomes
Outputs Inputs
10
Public Policy: Where does Sustainability fit in?
11
Triple Bottom Line: E3
Livability
Economy Environment
Equity Distribution of Impacts
Fiscal
12
Attributes Important to Defining Sustainability
Time….How long?
Perspective….For whom?
13
14
Attributes Important to Defining Sustainability
Time….How long?
Perspective….For whom?
How much does Bruntland help?
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
15
New ideas, or just new terms?
Old School
Measure, monitor
All Impacts
Of alternative courses of action
On classes of people
Now and future
To achieve
Net Benefits, Social Welfare, Public Interest
New School
Performance measures, outcomes
TBL E3
Possible futures
Equity
Future generations
To achieve
Sustainability, Quality of Life, Livability
16
But some things (may) have changed
Better science, better measurement
Changing (greener) values (?)
Extended planning horizon
Result:
Increasing concern with ability to sustain current levels of consumption
Find more “efficient” and fair policies
17
Why the Change in Public Attitude about Sustainability?
18
Demand
More People
More
Consumption
19
Exponential Growth: People
20
Why Now? Technology and Energy
21
Per capita consumption
22
Supply
23
24
25
Pollution
26
Estimated # of polluted industrial sites in the
US?
600,000
27
And the Other Stuff
Genetic mutation
Viruses and pandemics
Resource wars
Terrorism
Natural disasters
Government crisis: national debt, health care system, social security, tax system
Higher parking fees
28
Recipe for a Bad Brew
In a globe of increasingly stressed resources
Add
Population growth (inevitable without catastrophe)
Increasing per capita demand (globalization, developing countries, redressing inequality)
Water (while you can)
Bake (either between brown-outs, or wait for global warming)
29
Public Policy: Where does Transportation fit in?
30
Transportation in the Context of Typical Goal
Categories for Local and State Agencies
Effects on Everything
Economy
Environment
Land Use
Infrastructure
Social
Fiscal
Public Process
(Legality: usually implied)
31
Transportation System Performance
Safety
Speed (accessibility and mobility)
Reliability
Convenience
Cost / Effectiveness / Fiscal Constraint
Distribution of impacts (equity)
Transportation and Sustainability
1/3 of US energy consumption
Travel > VMT > Fuel Consumption (+ Congestion)
> Emissions > GHG > Climate Change > …..
Transportation systems > land use patterns >
costs of services + “livability”
Other effects (e.g., health, equity)
Sustaining existing infrastructure: inadequate
maintenance
More efficient use of the existing infrastructure.
32
What we will cover today
33
How We Narrowed the Scope
Surface transportation in urban areas
A subset of issues related to sustainability
Sustainability means, in part, better evaluation: full
impacts over the longer run
Better evaluation = better framework & data
34
Decision Tools and Data for Finding Sustainable Transportation Policies Terry Moore, FAICP, ECONorthwest
1
Remember the Framework…
2
All impacts, all people, all times
Net Social Welfare; The Public Good
3
Typical Public-Sector Goal Categories
Effects on Everything
Economy
Environment
Land Use
Infrastructure
Social
Fiscal
Public Process
(Legality: usually implied)
4
Transportation System Performance
Safety
Speed (accessibility and mobility)
Reliability
Convenience
Cost / Effectiveness / Fiscal Constraint
Distribution of impacts (equity)
Triple Bottom Line: E3
Livability
Economy Environment
Equity Distribution of Impacts
Fiscal
5
Oregon DOT
Transport Performance
Mobility, Accessibility, Safety & Security
Other Effects
E1: Economic Vitality, Funding & Finance
E2: Environmental Stewardship, Land Use and Growth Management, Q of L & Livability
E3: Equity 6
Puget Sound MPO
Transport Performance
Mobility, Transportation-related Q of L (safety, options), Finance / Cost
Other Effects
E1: Economic Prosperity, Finance
E2: Environmental Stewardship, Growth Management
E3: Equity
7
Overarching Framework
Environment
Development Pattern
Economy
Transportation
Puget Sound
Regional Council
Categories of goals
Evaluation criteria
Measurement Evaluation Criteria
Mobility
Finance
Growth Management
Economic Prosperity
Equity
Environment
Quality of Life
8
Techniques consistent with the Framework
9
Framework vs. Technique
Broad agreement: need multi-objective framework
Sustainability & TBL: multi-objective framework for “other” effects (beyond “transportation system performance”)
Lots of techniques for multi-objective evaluation; different emphases:
Quantification and summation of impacts and weights
Benefit-cost analysis, least-cost planning, STARS, multi-attribute utility analysis, goals achievement matrix, AHP, conjoint
Quantification of opinions
Delphi, public-opinion surveys, voting exercises
List and discuss
EIS, matrix display
10
Typical techniques
Benefit-cost analysis
The grandfather and gold standard
Good in concept; often flawed in practice (or not used)
Multi-attribute utility analysis
BCA in different units
Least-cost planning
Assumes a cost-minimization problem
Triple-bottom line
Often with rating systems: e.g., STARS, I-LAST
Matrix display of performance measurement
11
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Well-established techniques
All impacts, over time
But:
Can be inappropriately applied
Benefits to non-motorized units difficult; May be more of an equity issue
Hard:
In concept
In practice
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 127/Friday, July 1, 2011/Notices Tiger grants BCA
12
Hard to do this in your head, based on professional judgment
Calculating travel B-C complex
13
Regional
Economic
Forecasts
Benefit-Cost
Analysis
Air Quality
Analysis
Alternatives
Development
Land Use
Forecasts
Travel
Forecasts
Transport
System
Least-Cost Planning
Oregon DOT: Mosaic note the typical steps
14
Least-Cost Planning, ODOT Mosiac
Oregon DOT: Mosaic
15
Performance Measurement
16
Examples of Measurement
ODOT LCP
17
OUTCOMES
MOBILITY
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
PROSPEROUS ECONOMY
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
& EQUITY
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
Mode Choice
MEASURES
Improved Modal
Connection
Passenger VMT
Reduction
Travel Time
Reliability Benefits
Center Mobility &
Access
Bicycle Pedestrian
Trips (Health)
Injury & Fatality
Reduction
Fostering Economic Growth
Benefits to Trucks
Special Needs
Accessibility
Benefits to EJ
Populations
Water & Habitat
Protection/ Improvemen
t
Energy Use
GHG Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Regional Geography
Puget Sound Regional Council
Rating Systems
19
Rating Systems
20
5 categories
3 subcategories
each with several
credits
Rating Systems
21
The typical matrix display
22
Problems: Measurement
23
Measurement challenges
Identification of relevant measures
Unlimited possibilities
Different purposes Different perspectives Different time periods Different level of effort: Cost and Time
Measurements vs. forecasts
Complexity of causal relationships
24
Multiplying measures: A transportation example
Each measure of transportation performance has multiple variations
By mode: motor vehicle, transit (bus for this evaluation), bicycle, and walking
By performance measure: e.g., safety, travel time, emissions
By distribution: e.g., subareas and user groups
By units of measurement: e.g., total, per person, per acre, % change, rate of change
By time period
By cost type and and funding available
25
More measurement challenges
Accuracy vs. transparency
Get it right vs. keep it simple
In the aggregate and on average vs. details of impacts on subareas and groups
Models /numbers vs. Judgment / opinion
Spillover effects
Politics of measurement
26
Problems: Valuation and Aggregation
27
Valuation and Aggregation Challenges
No common units for impacts
Monetization or scoring
Weighting (values)
Multiple constituencies > different values
Inconsistent values
28
The “ideal” steps (per analysts)
Categories of goals (i.e., objectives, outcomes, etc.)
Measurements of goals in “natural units”
For each measurement, a score based on relative performance across alternatives
For benefit-cost analysis, score = $
Weights for (1) goals categories, and (2) scores for measurements within goals
Sum to weighted score
29
Some problems with the “ideal”
Weighting
Ex Ante: does it make it fair or flawed?
Outlier cases: projects with fatal flaws
Getting to weights: problems with both statistical and non-statistical methods
Sticking with the weights: attitudes change
Analysis
Requires models: cannot be “transparent”
Future uncertain: results depend on assumptions
Model results may be counterintuitive
Perspective matters (e.g., whose funding?)
Politics and public opinion matters
30
Concluding Observations
31
Performance Measurement and
Sustainability / Triple Bottom Line
Not new ideas. Haven’t been done because:
Hard
Potentially expensive
Payoffs are long run
Problems weren’t judged by public and their elected officials as “bad enough”
Sustainability and TBL
Has always been the public-sector’s charge
A framework; can use any of many possible techniques
Changing data, techniques, values, and problems all encouraging more measurement of TBL factors
32
A Fundamental Dilemma
Measurement not the challenge
But unlimited (or just extensive) measurement
Not cost effective or useful for decisionmaking
Gets stuck on consolidation and ranking So, fewer measures, right…?
How can just a few measures capture all that people care about?
Even if good-faith agreement at the start, hard to dismiss “other” measures later
33
Measurement and Sustainability
Neither is a new idea; just haven’t been done because….
But the concepts and attempts to apply them important
Implications:
Not: Do nothing
Rather:
Recognize challenges
Decide: What level & type of measurement makes sense for our community?
34