©1999-2003 Reinventing Transportation Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives

A sustainable economy is sensitive to economic, social and environmental constraints. Sustainability requires more efficient, equitable, and environmentally sensitive transport. This cannot be achieved simply by improving the efficiency of vehicle designs or traffic management. It requires changes in the way we think about transportation, and how we identify and evaluate solutions to transport problems, “paradigm shifts.” This paper discusses these changes and their implications for transportation decision making. Sustainability requires rethinking how we measure transportation. Transport planners often treat vehicle movement as an end in itself. Sustainable transportation planning focuses on access, which can often be improved with strategies that reduce the need to travel altogether, such as land use management and improved communications. Sustainability requires comprehensive decision-making that takes into account indirect and interrelated impacts. Sustainable transport planning begins with a community’s strategic plan, which individual transportation decisions must support. It requires policies that reward individuals, agencies and communities for achieving sustainability objectives. There are many specific transportation strategies that can help support sustainability, including improved travel choices, more efficient pricing, and more efficient land use. Individually such strategies may have modest impacts, but implemented together they can provide substantial benefits. A third or more of current motor vehicle use could be reduced by eliminating market distortions that encourage inefficient travel. A version of this paper was published in Transportation Research Record 1670, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 1999, pp. 8-12. Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed for Sustainable Transportation 1 “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” – Albert Einstein. Why Change Paradigms? Our transport system provides many benefits, but it also causes many problems. It serves non-drivers poorly. It distributes benefits and costs inequitably. It is financially burdensome to households, governments and businesses. It is increasingly inefficient due to traffic congestion and dispersed land use. It is a major cause of death and disability. It contradicts environmental and quality of life objectives. It relies on non-renewable resources that may become scarce in the future. Our current approach to problem solving tends to fail when confronted with so many challenges. Conventional decision-making is reductionist; each problem is assigned to a different person or agency with narrow expertise and responsibilities. That approach tends to be ineffective at solving complex problems with interrelated and conflicting objectives. To identify truly optimal solutions transport planning must become more comprehensive, more sophisticated, and more integrated with other decision making institutions. A paradigm refers to how people think about problems and develop solutions. Famous paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the universe, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and liberal democracy as a social structure. The common management clichés, “Work smarter, not harder” and “Think outside the box” are admonitions to consider new approaches to problem solving, i.e., a paradigm shift. This paper explores the paradigm shifts needed to achieve more sustainable transport. What is Sustainable Development? There is growing interest in sustainable development. Hundreds of articles, reports and books have been published dealing with sustainability issues, and many communities are involved in sustainable planning projects. Sustainable development can be defined as, “...providing for a secure and satisfying material future for everyone, in a society that is equitable, caring, and attentive to basic human needs.” Sustainability planning is to development what preventive medicine is to health: it anticipates and manages problems rather than waiting for crises to develop. Just as preventive medicine requires individuals to be informed and motivated to maintain healthy habits, sustainable development requires that individuals be involved in community decisions and be rewarded for socially beneficial behaviors. 1 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago, 1970. 2 Timothy Beatley, “The Many Meanings of Sustainability,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9, No. 4, May 1995, pp. 339-342. 3 William Rees, “Defining ‘Sustainable Development’,” CHS Research Bulletin, Centre for Human Settlements , University of British Columbia (www.interchg.ubc.ca/chs), May, 1989. Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed for Sustainable Transportation 2 Sustainable economics is sensitive to environmental and social constraints, including indirect and long-term impacts. It is concerned with intergenerational equity (insuring that people living in the future receive a fair share of existing resources) and long-term ecological viability. But it makes little sense to be concerned about future generations while ignoring current equity and ecological issues. Sustainability is therefore inherently concerned with equity and ecological health, both now and in the future. Sustainable economics maintains a distinction between growth (increased quantity) and development (increased quality). It focuses on social welfare outcomes rather than simply measuring material wealth, and questions common economic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product, which measure the quantity but not the quality of market activities. Unlike neoclassic economics, sustainable economics does not strive for ever increasing consumption, but rather for sufficiency. Just as either underand over-eating can be unhealthy, there is a socially optimal level of material consumption. Recognizing this is increasingly important as society becomes wealthier. Poor people usually benefit significantly from increased income, but marginal benefits decrease with affluence. For example, a household living on $10,000 annually can benefit significantly from an additional $5,000, which purchases better food, clothing and shelter. But a household that earns $100,000 annually may hardly notice another $5,000. If every household in a wealthy community receives an additional $5,000 there may be no net benefit as each household simply consumes more status goods. Not everybody accepts the limits implied by sustainable economics. Critics argue that human ingenuity mobilized through market incentives can overcome material constraints. They conclude that resources may rationally be depleted provided that humanity is made better overall (i.e. increased industrial capital exceeds loss of natural capital). For example, depletion of wild fisheries is acceptable if fish can be raised efficiently in farms, or if equally satisfying food can be produced artificially. They assume that human ingenuity can develop substitutes for virtually any resource, including wood, petroleum and soil. Advocates of sustainable development counter by pointing out major economic and cultural collapses caused by resource mismanagement. They recommend applying the “precautionary principal,” which takes into account small but possible threats of catastrophe. Some sustainability advocates also challenge the anthropocentric (human centered) assumption that nature only has value if it directly benefits humans, arguing that biological diversity and ecological health have existence value in their own right. 4 A Survey of Ecological Economics, Island Press (www.islandpress.org), 1995. 5 Herman Daly, Beyond Growth; Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press (Boston), 1996. 6 Fred Hirsch, Social Limits to Growth, Harvard University Press (Cambridge), 1976. 7 Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource, Princeton University Press (Princeton), 1996. Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed for Sustainable Transportation 3 What is Sustainable Transportation? Sustainability has significant implications for transportation planning, since transport activities tend to be highly resource intensive, have numerous external costs, and frequently distribute impacts inequitably. Sustainable transportation requires using each mode for what it does best, which typically means greater reliance on non-motorized for local travel, increased use of public transit in urban areas, a reduction (but not elimination) of personal automobile use. Sustainable planning challenges the assumption that increased vehicle travel reflects legitimate consumer demand, since consumers lack viable alternatives and markets are distorted in ways that underprice driving. While the first increment of motor vehicle travel (measured for example, as average per capita vehicle miles) may provide significant benefits to society, marginal benefits tend to decline with increased use. Doubling mileage does not double benefits for the simple reason that consumers select their most valuable trips first. Sustainable planning focuses on outcomes, such as the quality of access (the ability to obtain desired goods, services, and activities), rather than simply measuring quantity of mobility (such as travel speed or total mileage). Mobility is seldom an end in itself. Even recreational travel usually has a destination. Increased movement is not necessarily beneficial, it may indicate inefficiencies that require more travel to meet needs. John Whitelegg states, “It is the ease of access to other people and facilities that determines the success of a transportation system, rather than the means or speed of transport. It is relatively easy to increase the speed at which people move around, much harder to introduce changes that enable us to spend less time gaining access to the facilities that we need.” Only by measuring transport in terms of access can options that reduce the need for travel (such as telecommuting and more efficient land use) be properly evaluated. The disciplines of geography and urban economics often measure access, but the analysis tends to be theoretical. The professions that implement transport policies – transport planners and traffic engineers – tend to measure vehicle movement, using indicators such as level of service (LOS), V/C ratios, congestion delay, and average vehicle speeds. These are inappropriate because: • It is impossible build enough urban road and parking capacity to satisfy potential demand. • Motor vehicles impose significant economic, environmental, and social costs. • Some people cannot own or drive a motor vehicle. 8 Sustainable Transport; Priorities for Policy Reform, World Bank (Washington DC), 1996; Toward a Sustainable Future, Special Report 251, TRB (www.trb.org), 1997; Towards Sustainable Transportation, proceedings of OECD conference held March 1996 in Vancouver, BC. 9 TAC, Achieving Livable Communities, Transportation Association of Canada (www.tac-atc.ca), 1998. 10 Mobility and Access; Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997, BTS (www.bts.gov); Elliot Sclar and K. Schaeffer, Access For All, Columbia University Press (NY), 1980. 11 John Whitelegg, “Time Pollution,” The Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 4, July 1993, p. 131. Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed for Sustainable Transportation 4 Changing Transportation Institutions Sustainable transportation requires fundamental changes in our transportation planning practices. It demands more comprehensive analysis of impacts (including consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts) and consideration of a broader range of solutions than usually occurs. It also requires that the public be involved in determining alternatives to be considered and evaluation criteria. Those are principles of good planning that are particularly necessary for sustainability planning. Sustainable transportation planning requires public involvement for two reasons. First, because sustainable development reflects a community’s values, the public must be effectively involved at each stage of the planning process. Second, because sustainable transportation often involves changes in community design and residents’ behavior, residents need to feel a stake in decisions if they are to be implemented effectively. Sustainable development requires that individual transport decisions be subordinate to a community’s long-term strategic objectives. Transport planners must recognize that their decisions can create self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, increasing highway capacity can stimulate automobile-dependent transport and land use patterns, while investments in transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities can help create multi-modal transportation systems. Transportation professionals have just as much reason to object to decisions that create automobile dependent land use patterns as they would to the closure of a highway lane or a reduction in transit service, since all result in reduced access. Transportation planners and engineers receive professional rewards for implementing capacity expansion projects, but are seldom rewarded for finding ways to avoid the need for such projects. Demand management tends to involve skills such as education and marketing that are not traditionally valued in transportation agencies. Sustainable planning requires that transportation professionals shift from being traffic engineers concerned only with vehicle flow, into “public space architects” concerned with balancing diverse and often conflicting uses of road environments. Street are more than just conduits for vehicle traffic, they are part of the public realm, where people meet and interact. Roadway design must not focus on traffic movement objectives at the expense of non-moving and slow-moving uses of streetscapes. Traffic engineers traditionally describe any increase in road or parking facility capacity as an “improvement,” although from many perspectives (pedestrians, residents, aesthetics, environmental quality) it may represent degradation. Sustainable transport planning avoids language biased in favor of automobile travel, as described in the box below. 12 Louis Berger & Associates, Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects, Report 403, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 1998. 13 Rick Cole, Trish Kelly and Judy Corbett, The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org), 1998. 14 Terry Moore and Paul Thorsnes, The Transportation/Land Use Connection, Report #448/449, Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association (www.planning.org), 1994. Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed for Sustainable Transportation 5 Developing Objective Transportation Language Many transportation planning terms are unintentionally biased toward motor vehicle travel. For example, projects that increase road or parking capacity are often called “improvements,” although they may be harmful to many activities and people. Wider roads and larger parking facilities can degrade the local environment and reduce adjacent residential property values. Projects that increase vehicle traffic volumes and speeds can reduce the safety and mobility of pedestrians and cyclists. Calling such changes “improvements” indicates a bias in favor of one activity and group over others. Objective language uses more specific and neutral terms, such as “added capacity,” “additional lanes,” “modifications,” or “changes.” The terms “traffic” and “trip” often refer only to motor vehicle travel. Short trips, non-motorized trips, travel by children, and non-commute trips are often undercounted or ignored in transport surveys, models, and analysis. Although most automobile and transit trips begin and end with a pedestrian or cycling link, they are usually classified simply as “auto” or “transit” trips. The term “efficient” is frequently used to mean increased vehicle traffic speeds. This assumes that increasing motor vehicles speeds increases overall efficiency. This assumption is debatable. High vehicle speeds can reduce total traffic capacity, increase resource consumption, increase costs, and increase automobile dependency, reducing overall economic efficiency. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions for a particular user group (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.). Transportation professionals often assume that, unless specified otherwise, level of service applies only to motor vehicles. It is important to indicate which users are considered when level of service values are reported. Biased Terms Objective Terms Traffic Motor vehicle traffic, pedestrian/bike traffic Trips Motor vehicle trips, person trips Improve Change, modify, expand, widen Enhance Change, increase traffic speeds Deteriorate Change, reduce traffic speeds Upgrade Change, expand, widen, replace Efficient Faster, increased vehicle capacity Level of service Level of service for...