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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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!)

12. Starting Place for Thinking About Sustainability
Source:

13. From the movie “Chasing Ice” with photographer James Balog

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Rejecting The Three-Legged Stool
Sustainability
Environment
Society
Economy

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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’.

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

30. 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

31. Mississippi Gulf Coast 2006 Auto-dependent Transportation Planning and Sustainability

33. Erath, Louisiana
after Hurricane Rita

36. 254 miles $1.4 Billion 2025 Transportation Plan 254 miles of new roads
For total cost of
$1.4 Billion

37. Biloxi 2004
Biloxi c2004 Roads Slated for Expansion

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

39. Gulfport 2004
Gulfport c2004 Roads Slated for Expansion

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

41. 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?

42. Growth in VMT per Person

43. 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

44. Traffic Fatalities per 100,000 1970 versus 2010

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

46. Assessing Transportation Using A Sustainability Lens

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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%

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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.