1. Overview of Draft Snapshot Report on Sustainability October 2007

2. http://www.nipc.org1 Purpose Make staff recommendations to CMAP Board and committees: –To conceptualize sustainability so that it can be applied to CMAP’s planning and programming activities, chiefly to the Regional Comprehensive Plan; –To develop indicators to determine how well the scenarios developed for the Plan meet sustainability goals.

3. October 2007http://www.nipc.org2 Outline Definition Application to Regional Comprehensive Plan –Indicators Cross-Cutting Issues

4. October 2007http://www.nipc.org3 Three Kinds of Definitions Brundtland Commission –To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 3E –Seeking to achieve economic, environmental, and social equity goals simultaneously.

5. October 2007http://www.nipc.org4 Three Kinds of Definitions (con’t) Capital-based –Preserving or increasing stock of: Natural capital Financial capital Manufactured capital Human capital

6. October 2007http://www.nipc.org5 Recommended Principles Future Conditions (F)Present Conditions (P) 1. Protect environment and improve natural resources for future generations. 1. Improve economic performance and quality of life for individuals. 2. Preserve the value of human and man-made capital for future generations. 2. Ensure a fair distribution of life-quality.

7. October 2007http://www.nipc.org6 Outline Definition Application to Regional Comprehensive Plan –Indicators Cross-Cutting Issues

8. October 2007http://www.nipc.org7 Scenario Evaluation A scenario is “an internally consistent view of what the future might turn out to be” – not predictive, but plausible

9. October 2007http://www.nipc.org8 Sample Template for CMAP Scenario Evaluation Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4Scenario 5 Indicator 1 (mode share) Indicator 2 (hours of delay) Indicator 3 (greenfield development) Indicator 4 (stormwater quality) Indicator 5 (public health) Local government and partner preferences Public preferences

10. October 2007http://www.nipc.org9 Indicator Selection for Sustainability CriterionExplanation ProjectabilityReliable data and acceptable projection methodology must be available UnderstandabilityShould be comprehensible to lay stakeholders Policy relevanceShould reflect Regional Comprehensive Plan’s core areas of influence ResponsivenessShould be a potential regional model output and responsive to scenario changes

11. October 2007http://www.nipc.org10 Types of Indicators Relative Comparison with no standard of achievement Threshold Absolute measure above/below which effect occurs/does not occur Target Standard of achievement set with regard to practical considerations

12. October 2007http://www.nipc.org11 F1 — Protect environment and improve natural resources for future generations. Carrying capacity: Concept is attractive, but not readily employed for the Plan. Use a global measure of environmental footprint instead. Water quality should be addressed in the Plan through evaluation of changes in impervious surface. Make air quality improvements beyond those required under the transportation conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. Describe natural resource damage by including effects of land development induced by infrastructure investment. Principle F1 requires overall improvement to the natural resource base, likely through restoration offsets. Habitat fragmentation is the chief threat to biodiversity. The Plan should utilize a measure of habitat fragmentation.

13. October 2007http://www.nipc.org12 F1 — Indicators MeasureUnitsTypeDirection Ground surface hardeningPercent impervious by watershedThresholdDown Natural resource damageGroup of several measuresRelativeDown [Habitat fragmentation TBD][TBD] Greenhouse gas emissionsMMTCO 2 eTargetDown Environmental FootprintAcres per personRelativeDown Petroleum consumptionMillions of gallons per yearRelativeDown [Air quality TBD][TBD] Total energy useTrillions of British Thermal UnitsRelativeDown Water useUse/yield ratio; millions of gallons /day ThresholdOptimized

14. October 2007http://www.nipc.org13 P1 — Improve economic performance and quality of life for individuals. Plan should address economic development, i.e., increasing employment and raising income. Target infrastructure investments partly on the basis of the economic development potential of the industries they would support. Plan should include economic development strategies that directly assist firms or individuals or both. Productivity is both a measure of regional competitiveness and a (crude) measure of economic sustainability. Maximize aggregate tax capacity, the total equalized assessed value and taxable sales in the region. Include a scenario in which tax revenues from commercial and industrial development are distributed to municipalities more evenly. Quality of life measures are limited to transportation: overall hours of delay, trip length, and accessibility of jobs and transit, or similar.

15. October 2007http://www.nipc.org14 P1 — Indicators MeasureUnitsTypeDirection Total factor productivityPercent change from baselineRelativeUp Wage growthPercent change from baselineRelativeUp Employment growthPercent change from baselineRelativeUp Aggregate fiscal capacityEqualized assessed value + taxable sales ($) RelativeUp Trip lengthMiles, minutesRelativeDown Hours of delayHours per yearRelativeDown Availability of transportation modes Percent of total tripsRelativeUp

16. October 2007http://www.nipc.org15 F2 — Preserve the value of human and man-made capital for future generations. Give future generations the opportunity to benefit from the existing transportation system — current decisions must contribute to the system’s future usability. Maintenance of a system that may not contribute to the well-being of future generations presents a dilemma for current spending. –Develop a scenario prioritizing reinvestment in elements of the transportation system expected to be of highest benefit to future generations. The long run solution to the dilemma is a commitment to efficient urban form. The Plan should utilize life cycle costing to assess potential major capital investments. Preservation of human capital should be addressed as part of long- term tracking, as quality of life indicators would be.

17. October 2007http://www.nipc.org16 F2 — Indicators MeasureUnitsTypeDirection Roadway in disrepairMilesRelativeDown Bridges in disrepairNumberRelativeDown Condition of transit assetsFHWA rating indexRelativeUp

18. October 2007http://www.nipc.org17 P2 — Ensure a fair distribution of life- quality. The most appropriate position from which to judge the distribution of the goods of society is that of the most disadvantaged stratum of society (vertical equity). Previous transportation planning has stratified level of service improvements by minority and income status. This is appropriate and should be continued. Plan should address non-transportation equity outcomes: –Households: income distribution –Taxing districts: tax base distribution

19. October 2007http://www.nipc.org18 F2 — Indicators MeasureUnitsTypeDirection Gini for income distribution0 to 1 scale, no unitsRelativeDown Gini for municipal tax base0 to 1 scale, no unitsRelativeDown Access to transitPercent of total tripsRelativeUp Access to jobsPercent jobs within given commute distance RelativeUp Trip lengthMiles, minutesRelativeDown

20. October 2007http://www.nipc.org19 Scenario Planning Overall Decision rule to guide tradeoffs: –A more sustainable scenario will have more of the sustainability indicators pointed in the correct direction Longer-term tracking –Use much larger set of indicators –Think of tracking as monitoring the outcome of plan implementation (achieving regional vision)

21. October 2007http://www.nipc.org20 Outline Definition Application to Regional Comprehensive Plan –Indicators Cross-Cutting Issues

22. October 2007http://www.nipc.org21 Cross-Cutting Issues Climate change Mitigation Resources and energy Reducing use of non-renewable resources Governance Ensuring flexibility in the face of change

23. October 2007http://www.nipc.org22 Climate Change The Plan should apply strategies to mitigate climate change, i.e., techniques that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. –Minimalist approach: tabulate the GHG emissions reductions from strategies, including those focused on land use, that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). –In comparison with ambitious (but typical) targets developed by other organizations, the VMT-only approach comes up short. A variety of technology-based mitigation strategies would also need to be employed. –Targets for GHG emission reductions should be prepared as part of Plan development.

24. October 2007http://www.nipc.org23 Resources and Energy The Plan should address energy use, reliance on fossil fuels, and water supply. –Alternative fuels and similar technologies should be featured in at least one scenario. –The plan should seek energy efficiency gains through land use strategies, but also through policies to improve construction standards or to increase the region’s commitment to green building. –The Plan should utilize available thresholds for water availability from groundwater and from Lake Michigan to develop policies that would concentrate population growth in areas with relatively higher water availability.

25. October 2007http://www.nipc.org24 Adaptive Governance Adaptive governance is a name for ensuring that local capacity exists to respond to future threats (such as climate change) and to learn from the experiences of other localities. –CMAP should take a lead role in technical assistance of this kind.

26. October 2007http://www.nipc.org25 Questions? Jesse Elam jelam@cmap.illinois.gov 312.386.8688