Sustainability and Autodependency Norman W. Garrick Lecture 9 CE 4710/5710

Mobility, Freedom and Sustainability “Personal mobility is a freedom bestowed by modernity.   But this freedom and flexibility can be illusory if the opportunity cost of providing unending mobility is never considered. We need to protect the real benefits of mobility, and contain and allocate the costs properly” - Nicholas Low

Benefits From Sustainable Thinking Low implies that the concept of ‘sustainability’ is a framework for clarifying and evaluating the real benefits of mobility and to account for the costs

Environment, Social and Economical Sustainability Low uses the common model of sustainability, made up of a triad of environmental, social, and economic sustainability This triad has gained wide acceptance, although some groups use other terms to describe these three concepts For example, The California DOT uses planet, people and prosperity

The Three-Legged Stool Model Sustainability Environment Society Economy So what is the relationship between this triad of concerns? In many cases a ‘three-legged stool’model is used This model suggests that for sustainability three simultaneous goals must be achieved: economic profitability, social responsibility and environmental conservation

Sustainability Environment Economy Society Low calls this model the ‘triple bottom line’ perspective and states that this model might be a good accounting tool, but is not an effective or realistic way of characterizing sustainability

The Paradox of The Three-Legged Stool Model The problem is that the three-legged stool model implies that to achieve sustainability we don’t need to change how the economy is structured But in reality we have systems that are out of balance – economic considerations often outweigh all other issues. Low points out that to achieve environmental sustainability we need changes in both the society and the economy.

The Need to Curb Consumption to Achieve Sustainability “The paradox we face is that we need to find ways to Curb consumption while spreading the capacity to consume” - Nicholas Low

Talking the Talk In Jamaica Politicians in developing countries, like Jamaica, are well aware of the need to ‘talk’ sustainability. But the policies don’t add up to changes that support environmental sustainability. Environment and health concerns are often traded away in the interest of economic growth.

Talking the Talk In the USA In the USA, we have some of the same posturing as in Jamaica But an additional factor is that in the USA there is more focus on a technological fix as the solution that will cause us to achieve environmental sustainability The faulty idea is that we can bring about environmental sustainability without ever changing any of the related economic or social issues

Can we have Sustainable Development? “We cannot trade-off environmentally unsustainable growth against environmental sustainability. Growth is either sustainable or it is not” - Nicholas Low In other words what we need to do is to foster sustainable development (not growth!)

Starting Place for Thinking About Sustainability Source: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg

From the movie “Chasing Ice” with photographer James Balog

Thinking about the Biosphere The starting point in thinking about sustainability is the recognition that the action of humankind is causing catastrophic changes to the environment This fact supports the need for change in both society and the environment The environment in question is the global biosphere with one energy input and no output for waste This biosphere consists of natural ecosystems at different scales

Change a Light Bulb, Save the Biosphere Low points out that one of the dilemmas we face in trying to move towards an environmentally sustainable existence is the scale of these ecosystems, which dwarf a single human actor One problem is that a single human cannot directly act to influence the biosphere What is needed is the collective action of society through its institutions and market economy

The Role of Society in Affecting the Biosphere “The example is of a single driver making a single trip That driver perceives correctly that his individual action has minimal impact. However, when that trip is multiplied by millions we begin to see a noticeable effect on the biosphere. However, this one trip by a given driver and the millions of other trips by her peers are only possible because they are facilitated by society” - Nicholas Low

Transportation and Our Patterns of Living Low points out that transportation patterns feed into socially created patterns including land use, distribution of goods, distribution of social opportunities, health and diseases And some of these patterns - including the production of goods and services and the distribution of land use – feed back into transportation pattern. Based on these relationships, billions of trips are made in fossil fuel burning vehicles each day, leading to changes in the biosphere and affecting the fate of all species on the planet

The Key to Changing Society “The key to understanding sustainability is twofold: Individuals can only have a significant effect on the biosphere through social institutions and mechanisms Individuals are capable of changing society and it institutions” Nicholas Low This is really a description of changes we have discussed in class in places like San Francisco and Amsterdam

Rejecting The Three-Legged Stool Sustainability Environment Society Economy

The Problem with the Three-Legged Stool Low argues that the triad model of sustainability is flawed since it does not explicitly recognize that environmental sustainability requires changes to social and economic institutions However, he also points out that the idea of considering sustainability in terms of the three dimensions - environment, social and economic – is a useful and valid way of understanding the concept. But the order in which they are considered is important

The Nested Box Model of Sustainability Environment Society Economy Economy is a creation of society because it is the people within a society that assign value to things. all parts of the economy require the interaction between and among people economy is the innermost figure in the nested model because it is framed by the social context in which it occurs. Society is a creator of the economy Society is a creation of the environment Society exists entirely within the limits of the natural environment and the ability of the biosphere to supply the food, water, land and air needed for survival Society, then, is located in the middle of the nested figures, demonstrating that it is both a creator of the economy and a creation of the environment. In both models, the environment is the outermost figure because it is the facet of sustainability on which all others depend. These nested models clarify sustainability priorities, which is essential to our ability to better measure and compare the sustainability of different places (LOW AND GLEESON 2003, HART 2006)

The Limits to Growth The important shift is to recognize that the economy is the creation of society, and not the other way around The economy is framed by the social context in which it occurs. Further, both society and the environment operate within the context of a natural environment of limited capacity

The Need for Long Term Economic Thinking Conventional economic analysis does not account for the fact that there are limits to the capacity of the natural environment For example, there is no economic mechanism in place to put a value on the fact that oil is a finite resource Market price reacts to short term scarcity of oil but does not take into account the fact that oil is a finite resource

Social Sustainability and Social Equity Low defines ‘social sustainability’ as “progress of a society towards prosperity, freedom and justice for all (and not just the entrenchment of class privilege)” He adds that environmental sustainability should not necessarily be conditional on social sustainability. But the question I would ask is, can we get environmental sustainability without social sustainability?

Win-Win-Win Many people, including Low, have pointed out that environmentally sustainable solutions are often consistent with social improvement and long term economic security In other words, fostering environmental sustainability can be a win-win-win situation

Haughton’s Five Equity Principles of Sustainability One more way of conceptualizing sustainability is based on Graham Haughton’s five interconnected equity principles.   Haughton’s Five Equity Principles are Intragenerational equity Procedural equity Intergenerational equity Transfrontier equity Interspecies equity

Haughton’s Equity Principles Intragenerational Equity addresses the need for all urban dwellers to have healthy and safe living and working conditions and the corresponding infrastructure and services. Procedural Equity addresses the legal rights for all persons to have a safe and healthy living and working environment, that they are treated fairly and that they can engage in a democratic decision making process about the management of the urban centers in which they live. Intergenerational Equity promotes the idea that urban development should not draw on finite resource bases and degrade ecological systems in ways that compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Transfrontier Equity prevents urban consumers and producers from transferring environmental costs to other people and ecosystems. Interspecies Equity recognizes the rights of all species on the planet

Sustainability And Autodependency Lewis Mumford in his book “The City and the Highway” points out that the car was so good that many people thought that we did not need any other mode of transportation. The inevitable endgame of this thinking is the development of what Mumford refers to as a ‘monochromatic’ transportation system and what Cervero calls ‘autodependency’.

What is Auto-dependency? Auto-dependency implies an over-reliance on the automobile for almost all our transportation needs.

Defining Auto-dependency Peter Newman writes that the guiding question for urban development is whether or not we are making the city more autodependent. His definition of autodependency is interesting. He considers a city autodependent if a thirty minute average journey to work is attainable only by car. Why thirty minutes? The thirty minutes is derived from the idea that there is a travel time budget for travel to work that has remained essentially constant throughout the course of history. This constant travel time budget is about 30 minutes and is sometimes referred to as the Marchette Constant. Ref: Low and Gleeson, Making Urban Transportation Sustainable, Palgrave MacMillan, pg. 25 - 41.

Mississippi Gulf Coast 2006 Auto-dependent Transportation Planning and Sustainability

Erath, Louisiana after Hurricane Rita

254 miles $1.4 Billion 2025 Transportation Plan 254 miles of new roads For total cost of $1.4 Billion

Biloxi 2004 Biloxi c2004 Roads Slated for Expansion

Biloxi 2025 8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes Biloxi 2025 With Road Expansion 8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes

Gulfport 2004 Gulfport c2004 Roads Slated for Expansion

Gulfport 2025 8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes Gulfport 2025 With Road Expansion 8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes

Is Transportation Planning in MS Gulf Successful? How do we measure success? The ultimate measure of success should be: Does the transportation system foster a safer, more prosperous and healthier society?

Growth in VMT per Person

Traffic Fatality in Mississippi Mississippi – 3 million people 550 fatalities in 1970 700 fatalities in 2010 Netherlands – 17 million people 3200 fatalities in 1970 600 fatalities in 2010

Traffic Fatalities per 100,000 1970 versus 2010

Auto Dependency in Mississippi Highest proportion driving to work: 2nd Lowest transit use: 3rd Lowest biking to work: 1st Lowest walking to work: 4th

Assessing Transportation Using A Sustainability Lens

The UConn Model for Assessing the Sustainability of the Transportation System Level 1 3 Domains Environment Society Economy Level 2 12 Elements (Goals) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 09 10 11 12 *** * ** ** * * Level 3 19 Indicators Level 4 22 Variables Each indicator is measured by one or more variables

Environmental Elements Minimize consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources for transportation Design transportation and place making systems to maximize land use efficiency Minimize transportation and placemaking system’s impact on ecological systems Limit transportation related wastes and pollution Environmental elements are for: Resource consumption for vehicles, infrastructure, and land Minimizing waste and impact on ecological systems

Social Elements Transportation system meets access needs in a way that is consistent with human health and safety Planning and management of transportation system incorporates different levels of government and community input Transportation and placemaking system facilitates social interaction and social equity Transportation and placemaking system meets basic access needs of all individuals Environmental elements are for: Resource consumption for vehicles, infrastructure, and land Minimizing waste and impact on ecological systems

Economic Elements Transportation is affordable for individuals Transportation is efficient for movement of people and goods Transportation is locally self-sufficient Transportation does not contribute to economic vulnerability of society Environmental elements are for: Resource consumption for vehicles, infrastructure, and land Minimizing waste and impact on ecological systems

Economic Element Transportation is Affordable for Individuals Total Transportation Cost per Household (as % of HH income) Cost of Operating and Owning Automobiles + Transit Cost Best Dist. of Columbia 17.4% Alaska 22.1% New York 22.6% Connecticut 22.7% Massachusetts 22.8% Worst Mississippi 44.2% Wyoming 38.2% Alabama 38.1% Montana 38.0% Kentucky 37.7%

Efficient Movement of People and Goods Growth in GDP to Growth in VMT over a 10 years period Best Oregon 6.7 Indiana 4.7 Dist. of Columbia 3.9 Massachusetts 3.8 South Dakota 3.4 Worst Michigan 0.3 Mississippi 0.4 Alaska 0.5 Louisiana 0.7 Hawaii Connecticut: Ranked 19th, 23 % Growth in GDP, 12% Growth in VMT

Transportation System is Locally Self-Sufficient % of Funding for Highways and Transit that is from Federal Sources Best New York 12.5% Washington 13.4% Massachusetts 14.1% Virginia California 15.1% Worst Mississippi 45.4% Montana 40.8% Rhode Island 40.3% North Dakota 37.3% South Carolina 37.1% Connecticut: Ranked 40th, 32.9 % Federal Sources

Transportation System Does not Contribute to Economic Vulnerability Percentage of State GDP Spent on Petroleum for Transportation Best Dist. of Columbia 0.2% New York 1.1% Connecticut 1.4% Delaware Rhode Island 1.5% Worst Alaska 6.0% Mississippi 4.5% Montana 4.0% Wyoming 3.9% North Dakota 3.8% Percentage spent on transportation petroleum shown

Connecticut: Ranked 16th, Score 55 Putting It Together Scorecard for Transportation Economic Sustainability Best Dist. of Columbia 90 New York 75 Massachusetts 73 Oregon 65 Washington Worst Mississippi 7 Montana 21 Arkansas 28 Wyoming 29 South Carolina Connecticut: Ranked 16th, Score 55

Based on the economic components only for now… Developed the CITS, to measure broad outcomes of transportation sustainability, not necessarily specific strategies, because they can differ from place to place. Doing so, lets us see patterns and trends across the country, indicating perhaps regional differences in policy. These trends may not have been visible before. It appears that best performing are on west coast and north east. Worse performing in southeast and northern midwest.