Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division Working Paper Series

ESD-WP-2004-02

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION—A STRATEGY FOR SYSTEM CHANGE

Hall, R.P. and Sussman, J.M.

October, 2004

1

ABSTRACT: This paper identifies what are believed to be the core issues of the sustainable transportation debate. Of particular interest are the sustainability of the transportation sector itself, the relative sustainability of all sectors, and the connection between sustainable transportation and sustainable development in a global context. A key argument put forward in this paper is that the current understanding of sustainable transportation is deficient and lacks a wider recognition of the sector’s influential role in achieving the goals of sustainable development. It also raises the question of the transportation sector’s responsibility for sustainability. Is it the responsibility of the transportation sector to pursue the goals of sustainable development, or should the sector confine its efforts to the provision of a sustainable transportation system? The paper concludes by identifying a series of actions that the authors believe are likely to align the development of the transportation sector with the goals of sustainable development.

KEY WORDS:

Sustainable Transportation, Sustainable Development, Consumption, Social Responsibility, System Change, Technological Innovation

IS THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR UNSUSTAINABLE?

Today the transport sector accounts for about 25 percent of the total commercial energy consumed worldwide and approximately 50 percent of the total oil consumed (UNDESA, 2001). In addition, 96 percent of the fuel used by the transportation sector is petroleum-based, e.g., gasoline, diesel, residual fuel oil, and jet fuel (EIA, 2002). Between now and 2020, the energy demand for transport is expected to grow by approximately 1.5 per cent per year in industrialized countries and by a substantial 3.6 per cent per year in developing countries (UNDESA, 2001). When compared with similar trends in other sectors, it becomes clear that

1

the global transportation sector is likely to become the leading user of non-renewable energy resources over the next 20 years.

The growth in transportation energy demand is closely linked to economic development. Research undertaken by Schafer and Victor (1997) shows that as GDP per capita increases so too does the distance that people are able to travel, since they use their additional income to transition from slower to faster and more expensive modes of transportation. As economic growth occurs in developing countries, demand for petroleum is likely to increase as people retire their bicycles (and their shoe leather) in favor of motorbikes and automobiles. In developed countries, the gradual saturation of automobile markets means that travelers are likely to transition from automobiles to high-speed rail (HSR) and aircraft. Each of these developments will increase the total energy demand for transportation, since the faster modes of transport require increasing amounts of energy to reach the higher speeds. The transition to faster modes of transportation is also likely to impact the level of urban sprawl around cities, since the commuting distance can increase without a proportional increase in a person’s travel time. However, this statement assumes that traffic congestion is not a problem, which is rarely the case in major cities around the world. Indeed, congestion is a major and growing problem.

The utilization of non-renewable energy supplies to cope with the predicted growth in energy demand for transportation is both unsustainable, since these energy supplies are finite [1], and harmful to public health and the environment at the local/regional/global level, through emissions of particulate matter (PM), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). While technology plays a significant role in reducing the levels of pollution at the source, the benefits that technological improvements can offer are likely to be over-shadowed by the predicted worldwide growth in transportation (WBCSD, 2001). In addition, the increasing noise and land use impacts of transportation combined with growing numbers of accidents and congestion represent a significant burden on society and adversely affect sustainable development.

2

Conclusions of this type prompted the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Declaration on sustainable development, and subsequently Agenda 21, to call for global responsibility by each sector (such as the transportation, energy, industrial, and water supply and sanitation sectors) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

THE LINK BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is vital for economic development and for social welfare. Without transportation people would not be able to physically access jobs, health resources, education and other important necessities and amenities; consequently their quality of life would be negatively affected. In addition, without access to resources and markets, economic growth is limited and poverty reduction cannot be accomplished.

The growing desire of developing nations to reach the industrialized status of the North is creating a worrying resource utilization trend. Durning, (1994) provides a valuable discussion of the issues surrounding the predicted increase in levels of consumption by industrialized and more importantly industrializing nations. Specific attention is given to the impact of the ‘consumer class’ and how the soaring consumption rates that “track the rise of the consumer society are, from another perspective, surging indicators of environmental harm” (Durning, 1994, p. 43).

Research undertaken by Meadows et al. (1972; 1992), highlighted the notion that increasing consumption rates, following the prevailing consumption patterns, might eventually lead to severe environmental problems. An important concept discussed by Meadows in 1992, was that of overshoot – i.e. to go beyond limits inadvertently. A crucial element in this work was that the important limits to growth were not physical limits, e.g. limits to population growth or the

3

number of automobiles on the road. They were limits to throughput, i.e. limits to the flows of energy and materials required to keep people alive or to build more automobiles for example. Hence, the limits to growth are not only limits to the ability of the earth to provide the resource streams of energy and materials necessary to meet predicted consumption levels, but also limits to the ability of the earth to absorb the pollution and waste streams in natural sinks such as forests and oceans. Therefore, it is clear that when considering the concept of sustainable transportation our attention must not only focus on assessing the impact of the modes of transportation, but also on the wider implications that enhanced mobility brings.

A Conceptual Framework for Discussions about Sustainable Transportation

Before advancing the above discussion further, it is helpful to present a conceptual framework from which discussions about sustainable transportation can be constructed. Four distinct characteristics of the transportation sector can be identified.

First is the transportation planning and decision-making process, which has a significant impact on the physical layout of a transportation system. For example, decisions such as whether a city, state, or nation should invest in additional road capacity, a new bus or rail transit system, expand their air infrastructure, re-develop urban centers, or initiate planning boundaries to limit expansion, will shape the future of land use and the transportation system. Without redesigning the transportation planning process, the automobile and truck, for example, are likely to remain the dominant transport modes in many developed countries, supporting economic growth while increasing congestion, pollution, and the total number of vehicle related accidents [2]. Although transportation planning and transport modes are intimately linked, it is useful to recognize the planning process separately since its macro approach can have significant benefits when formulating transportation policy.

Second is the operation of the existing transportation system. The supply of an effective transportation service can be improved dramatically by enhancing the operation of the existing transportation modes and infrastructure. For example, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

4

present significant potential to improve the efficiency and safety of transportation systems and reduce both congestion and harm to the environment. However, ITS is also likely to increase the total volume of traffic, which may offset any environmental improvements it provides.

Third are the transportation modes. The physical mediums by which transportation can occur (e.g. a bike, car, bus, train, airplane, etc.) have a dramatic impact on the environment, not only because of the resources used to construct the medium, but also in the by-products that result from its use (e.g. emissions) and eventual disposal (e.g. physical waste such as heavy metals, synthetic materials, etc.). The pollution caused as a result of emissions from transportation vehicles or power plants supplying electricity to transportation modes can be reduced through the introduction of new cleaner technology. Examples of such technology might be the use of fuel cells in automobiles, hybrid cars or solar powered vehicles. In addition to this, by altering the materials from which a transportation medium is constructed, employing renewable and reusable sources, significant improvements can be made towards sustainability.

Fourth is the use of the transportation system by customers. This can cover a wide range of uses such as accessing work or recreational activities, and the transport of freight and consumer goods. The concept of altering the manner in which we use the system can be controversial, but nevertheless will play an important, if not vital, role in reaching the end goal of sustainable development.

Further examination of the fourth characteristic, which describes the use of the transportation system, reveals a critical point. If the transportation sector itself becomes completely sustainable in every aspect [3] and the throughput of global consumption continues to increase without a significant change in current manufacturing processes, global growth and development will be unsustainable, possibly leading to the eventual overshoot of the capacity of natural systems to assimilate waste in sinks (such as oceans, forests, land fill sites, etc.).

5

Ashford (2002) provides us with a useful framework from which it is possible to explain the above statement in the context of sustainability, trade, and the environment. Ashford describes how the demand and supply drivers behind the global economy are moving us towards an unsustainable outcome. Figure 1 provides a visualization of these drivers, which is combined with Kasser’s (2002) description of human needs. In addition, the figure provides a list of the problems and areas where action is required to halt the trends of over-consumption.

[Insert Figure 1: Drivers, Problems & Solutions to Globalization]

At its most basic level a need is something that is necessary for humans to survive, grow, and function. Kasser (2002), building upon the work of humanistic thinkers such as Abraham Maslow (1954), describes four sets of needs that can be used to assess the basic motivation, functioning, and well-being of all humans (p. 24-25):



Safety, security, and sustenance: “These are the needs we have for food on our tables, a roof over our heads, and clothing to protect us from weather – the essentials of life.”



Competence, efficacy, and self-esteem: To satisfy these needs we must “be capable of doing what we set out to do and of obtaining the things we value.”



Connectedness: Humans have a strong desire to be intimate and close to others. “We need to feel that we belong and are connected with others’ lives, be it as parents, friends, neighbors, or coworkers.”



Autonomy and authenticity: It is human nature to “constantly strive for increased freedom and more opportunities to experience life in a self-directed manner.”

Human well-being and quality of life increase when these needs are fulfilled and decrease when they are not. “[N]eeds motivate behavior and require fulfillment for psychological growth to occur” (Kasser, 2002, p. 24). Thus, it can be argued that the first two sets of needs are the

6

drivers behind consumption (and freight transportation) and the last two sets are the drivers behind a person’s desire for mobility. Information communication technology is also likely to satisfy the need for connectedness.

It can be seen in Figure 1, that the transportation sector is one of the elements located on the supply side of the equation. On the demand side there are three categories of consumption; consumer – the items purchased by society, commercial – the consumption of products by industry, and government – the consumption of military hardware and the purchase of materials and equipment for infrastructure and public services. In this framework, the transportation sector can be described as being an enabling mechanism through which our consumption and mobility needs are met.

Having framed transportation in this context, it can be argued that even if the transportation sector’s (consumer, commercial, and governmental) consumption levels were sustainable, unsustainable consumption rates in other sectors may result in the overshoot of earth’s capacity to assimilate waste/pollution and regenerate new resources. Hence, this argument rests upon the notion that the rate and manner in which resources are extracted, transformed, used, and disposed of is critical to the question of whether we are likely to achieve a sustainable future. It also becomes clear that the transportation sector’s role as an enabling mechanism to transport produce, products, and raw materials, is a critical element in addressing over-consumption. This argument increases the importance of the fourth area of the conceptual framework – the use of the transportation system by customers.

Figure 1 identifies four areas where solutions to problems such as over-consumption, toxic pollution, environmental injustice, economic inequality, etc. may arise, these are industry initiatives, government regulation, stakeholder involvement, and financing for sustainable development. Decisive actions in each of these areas to signal new sustainable pathways for growth and development are likely to be the most effective means of addressing the problems

7

identified. In addition, it is vital that there is a national desire to achieve the goals of sustainable development (e.g., the UK’s Strategy for Sustainable Development [UK Government, 1999], or the Dutch Fourth Environmental Policy Program [Dutch Kabinet, 2001]); otherwise action within each of the four areas is likely to face political and economic difficulties.

Emphasizing the need for national leadership towards the goals of sustainable development raises the importance of understanding the interactions between the various sectors within a nation. In addition, one could also raise a question concerning the level of responsibility that each sector should adopt. For example, should a sector take less difficult steps towards achieving the goals of sustainability if that sector performs a critical task for society - such as providing mobility?

The above discussion raises more questions than it answers; of course, this was the intention. It shows that the concept of sustainable transportation cannot be considered in isolation from other sectors and that decision-making must transcend the balkanization of governmental structures.

DEFINING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) developed what has since become the most widely accepted general definition of sustainable development.

“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987: p8 – also known as the Brundtland definition).

8

Brundtland definition).

The wide acceptance of the Brundtland definition is partly due to its simplicity. People of all nations are able to understand the definition since it is easy to relate to their current needs and the future needs of their children, grandchildren, and generations beyond. Unfortunately, when considering the concept of sustainable transportation, the simplicity of the Brundtland definition does not provide decision-makers with a robust set of objectives that can guide the effective and consistent development of policy, legislation, and transportation plans and programs. Hence, the practical application of the Brundtland definition has spawned much discussion centered on the concept of sustainable transportation.

A literature review which focused on the principles of sustainable transportation revealed a significant volume of research on the topic. Virtually all the major international organizations [4] have invested significant resources into the question of how the transport sector could be made more sustainable. Table 1 provides a summary of the (titles of the) key principles identified during the review. The principles were categorized under - what is commonly known as - the “Three E’s” [5] (Environment, Economy, and Equity) of sustainable transportation and a fourth category was created to house those principles directed towards transportation institutions.

[Insert Table 1: Principles of Sustainable Transportation]

The role of government/institutions in facilitating “system innovation/change” is highlighted since it is believed that without the visionary leadership of government, it is unlikely that the transportation sector will undergo the change necessary to counteract the negative impacts associated with the predicted growth in transportation demand [6].

9

A parallel literature review which focused on the definitions of sustainable transportation highlighted the fact that the international community has reached a consensus that the concept can be defined under the Three E’s of sustainable transportation. An example of a useful definition of sustainable transportation put forward by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as part of their Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) project is as follows:

“A sustainable transport system is one that: 

provides for safe, economically viable, and socially acceptable access to people, places, goods, and services;



meets generally accepted objectives for health and environmental quality (e.g. those concerning air pollutants and noise put forward by the World Health Organization (WHO));



[in the context of the transportation sector] protects ecosystems by not exceeding critical loads and levels for ecosystem integrity; for example those adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) for acidification, eutrophication, and groundlevel ozone; [and]



[in the context of the transportation sector] does not aggravate adverse phenomena such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and the spread of persistent organic pollutants” (Caid et al., 2002, p. 220).

The EST definition supports the Three E’s of sustainable transportation; however, the definition is transportation-centric. It stops short of connecting the transportation sector to the problems that occur as a result of its “use,” such as overconsumption and the rapid global use of natural resources. One reason to exclude the stocks and flows of freight and people from the definition is that these factors are controlled mainly by the (global) market. One can argue, therefore, that it is not the transportation sector’s responsibility. This suggests that a system boundary is drawn at the very point where the problem becomes too difficult to be addressed by the transportation

10

community. The system boundary is constructed by the structures/institutions developed to manage our physical [7] and social [8] systems. Hence, excluding important concepts of sustainable development from sector specific definitions as a result of ‘enforced’ system boundaries may result in a series of solutions which - while robust within the boundary - may undermine the overarching goal of sustainable development [9].

It is interesting to note that the principles of sustainable transportation are sufficiently general to enable the above measures to be incorporated or linked to the definition of sustainable transportation. However, if we consider the EST definition and look deeper into the text supporting the definition, it can be argued that this has not occurred in practice. To address this problem, an additional element is presented that could be added to the EST definition to state, explicitly, the importance of the link between transportation and other sectors. It also provides an avenue through which institutional principles - such as integration of decision-making, longterm planning, transparency and accountability etc. - can be considered in a direct and legitimate way.

Additional element: 

supports, reinforces, and facilitates national policies that aim to reduce the throughput of natural and manmade resources to rates within the carrying capacity of the environment.

The new element changes the focus of transportation system development to incorporate the wider implications of enhanced mobility. Therefore, it follows that a well founded sustainable transportation policy would form part of a much larger national policy architecture directed towards the ultimate objective of sustainable development.

Coordinating the development of the transportation sector with other sectors will play a major role in making sustainable development a reality. Hence, the creation of a national policy

11

architecture that facilitates the intra- and multi-sector development of sustainable strategies and programs is likely to (1) begin to separate a sector’s economic growth from the negative impacts associated with that growth, and (2) enable additional benefits to be achieved by the sectors working together - as opposed to following their (historically) non-integrated institutional missions.

WHAT IS THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR’S LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

A significant challenge raised by the sustainability “in use” concept is that the problems it highlights - such as over consumption - lie partly within and partly outside the control of the transportation sector. Thus, the system changes that would be required to address these issues cut across problem areas, sectors, and government departments and missions (Ashford et al., 2002). Therefore, by themselves, new transportation legislation, management and operation improvements, and new tools that advance transportation planning and programming are likely to be insufficient to transition transportation sectors (within nations) towards a more sustainable state.

To achieve the objectives outlined in the definitions of sustainable transportation, there needs to be a radical improvement in both the social and environmental spheres without penalizing the economy - i.e., a system innovation is required (Berchicci, 2002). In a similar context, Ashford et al. (2002) describe a sustainable development agenda as being, almost inevitably, one of systems change. Table 2 has been included to help explain the concept of systems change by highlighting the difference between the current and a sustainable planning agenda.

[Insert Table 2: Current Planning Agenda vs. Sustainable Planning Agenda]

12

It is at this point where we face an important question about the level of leadership and responsibility that the transportation sector should take in achieving the goals of sustainable development. Is it the responsibility of the transportation sector (or any other sector) to pursue the goals of sustainable development, or should the sector confine its efforts to the provision of a sustainable transportation system?

If we consider the discussion presented in the preceding sections, it can be argued that excluding the use of the transportation sector from the policy arena, would mean that while the transportation sector itself might eventually become sustainable, the goal of achieving sustainable development in a global context might not be reached due to increasing rates of resource throughput. An implicit assumption in this position is that the transportation sector like the financial or manufacturing sector - should not act without assessing the moral dimensions and social implications of its actions. To be more specific, the role that the transportation sector plays in facilitating the movement of goods and people, has the potential for enormous social and economic benefit but at the same time it can lead to environmental degradation, a loss of biodiversity (Wilson, 2002), and social and economic inequalities on a global scale. Hence, “[i]t could be argued that the most important single act to improve the health of the planet and the quality of urban life would be to lessen the volume of international and long-distance transport” (IFG, 2002, p.165). However, such an act is not likely to be achieved unless it has the full support of national governments and all the sectors within nations.

Imagine that you are responsible for the design and implementation of the next generation of transportation infrastructure to transport freight between and within nations in a more efficient and effective manner. Under this design paradigm, it is clear that the volume and rates at which goods are transported should be maximized – i.e. more should be transported, more quickly, using less energy and at a lower cost. Hence, your policies/strategies are likely to focus on improving vehicle, aircraft, train, and ship technology, and on improving network operations to

13

reduce transportation energy requirements and the total amount of mobile emissions. In effect, your approach is likely to focus on system and societal efficiency. The former aims to reduce the overall cost of transportation and the latter aims to link the benefits/costs of transportation to the economy, the environment, and to society.

Two fundamental problems arise from this hypothetical solution. First, there is currently no incentive for you (as a transportation professional) to consider the implications that enhanced mobility brings, since managing the rates at which goods are transported is likely to be outside of your authority and is, in general, left to the market. Second, a reliance on the market is likely to result in over-consumption due to inadequate consumer information. The problem with poor consumer information is addressed by Manno (2002), who states that the present industrial capitalist system of incentives and disincentives - what we consider progress - is invariably directed toward increasing levels of consumption, which in turn increases the level of freight transportation. The environmental problems associated with increasing freight transportation are further compounded by the fact that as commodity chains grow in length, become more complex, and more international, the spatial and social distance between production and consumption is widened (Princen, 2002; Conca 2002). The result of this distancing effect is that consumers lack the information and incentives to behave in a more sustainable manner even if they wished to do so.

Therefore, if made aware of the potential implications that your new conveyance system might have on the sustainability of natural and physical systems, how then would you address these issues under the current governmental structure? Is there any way you could have resolved these potential problems in the design of the transportation system? A more fundamental question might be whether you believe it to be your responsibility to address these issues in the first place.

14

The matter of social responsibility – as opposed to an institutional mission [10] – unleashes a flood of interesting arguments. Designers of artillery do not question whether their product will be used in an unsustainable manner, since it is their responsibility to create weapons which deliver the highest explosive capability at the point of detonation. Likewise, in the above scenario, you are not likely to question whether the new transportation system will be used in a manner that reinforces unsustainable growth, since you have a responsibility to deliver a highly efficient and effective freight conveyance system - which does in of itself contribute to sustainability. It might be argued that these two examples are similar; the rationale is that it is not the designer’s responsibility to control or manage how his/her product is used. It is the authors’ belief, however, that these two examples are fundamentally different. Designers of artillery undertake their work with a full appreciation of the consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions, and it is this fact which delineates the two examples. Before exploring this position further, it is important to state that the moral and ethical standards of artillery and transportation system designers are not being brought into question. Therefore, if the moral standards of the individual are not the core issue, where should the social responsibility lie?

To help answer this somewhat abstract question, we can turn to the U.S. legal profession. In 1983, Caldart highlighted the need for a recognition of moral obligations within the legal profession by reviewing the lawyer’s duty and the client’s interest. Caldart states, that under the adversarial system there is no reason why the attorney cannot serve the moral interest of the client. However, evidence is subsequently presented in his paper which shows how this does not always occur in practice. The judicial language on the topic of moral standards is almost entirely directed at the attorney’s obligation to deal fairly and honestly with the client and the client’s money, and not to help the client fulfill his or her moral obligations to society. Hence, the legal system actually discourages the attorney from serving the client’s moral interests. Caldart promulgates that the interests to be served by the attorney are the client’s lawful

15

objectives. And under the American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawful objective need not be a moral one.

The main reason for using the U.S. legal profession to illustrate the question of moral standards is to highlight how the system itself might potentially be at fault. In the case of the legal system, Caldart shows how an attorney who follows the Code of Professional Responsibility to the letter, without consideration of moral standards, may obtain a lawful, but immoral result for the client. To solve this dilemma either the legal system itself must be changed or moral inquiry must be integrated into the foundation of legal education. Caldart calls for the latter. The analogy to our case is the decisions taken by transportation planners and officials, though moral and ethical within their sector’s professional codes of practice, may not be so when set in a context of worldwide sustainable development.

Only by raising the conscious awareness of how a person’s actions might affect world events and issues, can that person begin to appreciate their impact on issues such as social equality or environmental harm (Stapleton, 1999). The present segregation of governmental departments and a growing confidence in the market economy means that in the case of the transportation sector, the transportation community is, in effect, shielded from the implications of their decisions. For example, relying on the market to dictate how transportation systems are used means that the transportation sector is acting as a facilitating mechanism and does not need to question whether its actions might be either socially objectionable or good for society.

Ashford (1999) offers a parallel discussion to Caldart, about the positive, moral and ethical dimensions of socio-economics [11] and how it provides an alternative systematic approach to understanding important connections between economic behavior and law. Ashford (1999) describes how a lawyer’s ethics can be categorized under the “five c’s:” competence, candor, confidence, conflicts, and conscience. For this discussion the characteristic of conscience is of

16

particular interest, since it provides an avenue by which change can occur without relying on a system’s process or set of procedures to obtain the socially responsible outcome.

“Conscience is the broadest category of all. It raises the distinction between professional and personal ethics. In situations where lawyers may, but are not … required to act, discretion must be exercised; and discretion is to be guided by conscience. … [C]onscience imposes a duty to improve the law and the legal system, not only for the benefit of clients, but for the general welfare and the public good” (Ashford, 1999, p618).

Hence, lawyers are connected to clients in a manner which means they must act according to behavioral standards above those applicable in the market.

The above discussion suggests a fundamental problem with existing definitions of sustainable transportation. Without introducing the requirement that the transportation sector should support, reinforce, and facilitate national policies that aim to reduce unsustainable activities (such as over-consumption), there is little incentive for the sector to consider the deeper implications of efficiency gains.

Consequently, it is argued that the transportation sector has similar obligations to the legal profession to act in a socially responsibly manner. Transportation systems should be developed to promote economic and social well-being, without putting worldwide development on a path which leads towards unsustainability.

In the case of the design assignment, it should become clear that if you were consciously aware of the impacts of enhancing the rates of resource throughput, and had the opportunity to address the issue, you might seek a radically different type of solution. For example, instead of only designing faster and more efficient modes of transportation, you might decide to support and

17

encourage product innovations which create recyclable products (both technically and biologically; McDonough and Braungart, 1998), and which result in lighter and fewer cargo shipments. In parallel with this, it is also interesting to identify the clients of the transportation sector. In the U.S. legal profession the client is well defined; however in the case of the transportation sector the definition is not so clear. In general, clients can be described as the paying customers and these can be categorized into groups such as the general public, the industrial sector, government, etc. If the analogies with the U.S. legal profession are considered more closely, an interesting question can be raised about the client’s interests. That is, should the transportation sector serve the moral interest of the client? As far as the authors are aware this question has not been addressed by the transportation community.

The above discussion takes an alternative look at the traditional way of thinking about the transportation sector and sustainable development. While the effects of progress in areas such as product and process innovation are likely to have a significant positive affect on social and on natural and manmade systems, this alone will not be sufficient to reach the goals of sustainable development. Hence, we need to nurture the development of effective sustainable transportation strategies which enable transportation professionals to consider the wider implications of the conveyance systems they develop.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

An underlying question which runs throughout this paper is how should governments enable economic growth to occur without increasing the environmental and social harm that accrues as a result of growth? By highlighting the perceived problems with the existing definitions and principles of sustainable transportation, it has been possible to discuss potential ways in which the transportation sector might attempt do this. This section pulls together the various recommendations made through this paper using the conceptual framework presented earlier as a guide.

18

The transportation planning and decision-making process

Creating a transportation policy and regulatory environment which aligns with, and supports, a national drive for sustainable development is likely to be the main driver of real substantive change within the transportation sector. In addition, decision-making processes for formulating national policies and environmental standards will need to be integrated with transportation planning, and boundaries between traditionally segregated government administrations will need to be removed. For example, national/regional departments of transportation should establish principles and definitions that will enable the transportation sector to work effectively with other sectors, opening the door for the cooperative - as opposed to single purpose - design of government regulations. However, reciprocal action will need to occur in government departments responsible for other sectors for this approach to be effective.

Governmental transportation institutions should also consider ways to initiate and guide system innovation/change within the sector. A major element of this change will be the creation and deployment of new technology. However, the process through which the technology is developed and deployed is likely to be just as important as the final technology. Therefore, it can be argued that the process of technological innovation will play an important role in transitioning the transportation sector towards a sustainable future.

The concept of transition management or system innovation has recently been identified as an important area for future research in the area of sustainable development (Elzen, 2003). Kemp (2002) defines transition management as a “deliberate attempt to bring about structural change in a stepwise manner” (Kemp, 2002, p. 9). The concept is based upon the philosophy of modulation, i.e., it attempts to utilize existing dynamics and orient these dynamics to transition goals that are chosen by society. An example of a technique which could be used to stimulate a system transition is strategic niche management.

19

Strategic niche management (SNM) is the “creation and management of a niche for an innovation with the aim of promoting processes of co-evolution” (Kemp, 2002, p. 10). The idea is that a new product or process will be used by real users (i.e., society) and will promote interactive learning and build product constituencies. SNM also enables institutions and organizations to adjust the technological development and deployment process to stimulate the adoption and diffusion of a new product or service.

The SNM technique is highlighted since it raises an important concept; that of the co-evolution of government, organizations (including firms), society, and technology towards a new system state. The key point is that it is not only government that needs to change; there must also be a combination of technological, organizational, and social/behavioral change if we are to achieve the goals of sustainable development. However, it should be noted that without intelligent and creative government policy, it is unlikely that any radical system innovation/change will occur. For example, relying on the market place and existing industries to lead sustainable transformations ignores evidence that it is not only the willingness and opportunity that is required for such change, but moreover the capacity of firms to change is essential (Ashford, 2004). In addition, existing dominant industries have little incentive to support system innovations/changes which may lead to their exit from the market place (Christensen, 1997). Such displacement might occur through the introduction of new technologies (or modes of transportation) that present a new value proposition to society and are inherently more sustainable. Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation where we need governments (as trustees) to lead and guide change, while changing themselves in the process. We hope that with dynamic, visionary leadership, such system change is possible.

The operation of the existing transportation system

20

The short- to medium-term (5 to 15 years) supply of an effective transportation service can be improved dramatically by enhancing the operation of the existing transportation modes and physical infrastructure. This concept hinges upon the notion of system efficiency, and focuses on reducing the environmental impact of the transportation system, while improving its performance.

With regards to the existing transportation modes, it would be impractical and politically difficult to call for the post-production alteration of vehicle engines to improve their environmental performance. Therefore, we are likely to achieve more environmental benefit by focusing on the operational component of existing transportation systems. In this regard, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) become an attractive option to reduce congestion levels (reducing emissions) and enhance safety. Repologle (1995) describes how ITS could be the most important enabling technology driver in decades for reform and progress in American transportation, creating sustainable high-wage jobs, reducing traffic delay, establishing more livable communities, and creating a healthy environment.

ITS technology can provide the capability to create an “information-intensive transportation system” (ITE, 2000, p. 27-6). This concept has two main aspects. First, it presents an opportunity to replace new lanes, roads, and highways with information as a way of increasing the existing system capacity. For example, information communication technology (ICT) can be utilized to control and enhance the flow of traffic on the existing transportation system, replacing the need to build more physical infrastructure. Hence, capacity enhancements occur with a dramatic reduction in the use of material resources, less open space is used, and fewer communities are disrupted by new transportation infrastructure developments. Second, the transportation information can be used to enhance the performance of the transportation system in line with broad social, economic, and environmental goals.

21

However, caution should be used when discussing ITS, since from a sustainability perspective, ITS may in fact lead to induced travel (increasing emissions) and a greater volume of freight transportation (which is likely to reduce the cost of products, potentially raising consumption levels). Nevertheless, if we assume that mechanisms such as congestion (or value) pricing can be implemented effectively, it becomes difficult to find a robust argument against the deployment of ITS. Therefore, ITS technology should be deployed in the short- to mediumterm to help achieve the objectives of sustainability. However, great care must be taken to ensure that the correct incentives are built into the system to counteract the strong desire for rapid economic growth at any cost. Since ITS can be used to increase transportation supply and to control transportation demand, if it is deployed by a transport agency, an emphasis should be put on demand side solutions (such as congestion charging), with a caveat that revenue extracted from the charges is invested into public transportation services.

The transportation modes

The design philosophy and innovation strategy adopted by industry will play a vital role in delivering new and sustainable modes of transportation and mobility services. When discussing these concepts in relation to sustainability, the rate at which change occurs becomes an important factor. In particular, the concepts of incremental and radical product innovation take on an added importance.

Incremental innovation generally involves a step-by-step co-evolutionary process, whereas radical innovations are discontinuous and possibly involve the displacement of dominant firms and institutions, rather than evolutionary transformation (Partidario, 2003; Ashford et al., 2002; Luiten, 2001; Moors, 2000). Christensen (1997) distinguishes the former as sustaining innovation and the latter as disrupting innovation, and argues that both sustaining and disrupting innovation can be incremental or radical. Thus, a radical sustaining innovation will be a major technological change along the lines that technology has been developing

22

historically. One could argue that that the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an example of this type of innovation (Van den Hoed and Vergragt, 2002). A radical disruptive innovation can be of two types: one that combines two prior developments in a new way, such as the hybrid electricinternal combustion automobile, or one that results in the creation of a new market niche, eventually displacing dominant firms from a mature market that has been undermined by the new niche market. An example of a disruptive technology is Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone, which gradually undermined, and then supplanted, Western Union and its telegraph operators all together (Christensen, 2001). Christensen (1997, 2001) shows that a radical disruptive innovation is almost always developed by firms outside the prior market or business. In the realm of transportation, it could be argued that the automobile was a disruptive technology in that it displaced the U.S. railroad industry from its dominant market position.

Evidence from the transportation sector shows little desire to encourage the radical or disruptive system change necessary to offset the adverse impact of existing transportation modes. For example, the Transportation Research Board’s long-term strategy for surface transportation environmental research states that an “important challenge is to create a policy environment that will facilitate and encourage the proliferation of [existing] … environmentally beneficial technologies” (TRB, 2002, p. 5-1). Such a policy is only likely to encourage sustaining innovation along existing technology trajectories. While such innovation will lead to emission improvements, it will not encourage designers to develop mass produced vehicles that utilize renewable and non-toxic materials. Alternatively, if non-renewable and toxic materials are still used, then the policy environment must ensure that these materials are fully recovered by the manufacturer for reuse. In essence, the TRB long-term strategy is similar to the Kyoto Protocol in that its formulation will not be sufficient to solve the underlying problems it is designed to address.

In summary, we need to develop new modes of transportation that reverse unsustainable trends, putting us on a pathway towards a more sustainable future - i.e., the new forms of technology

23

should lean towards revolutionary, as opposed to evolutionary, system change (Ashford, 2000; Andersen and Massa, 2000; Reijenders, 1998). However, the ability of industry to influence government standard setting and regulations is likely to be a significant barrier to technological innovation, enabling incumbent firms to focus on maximizing the production of existing less environmentally sound technology (Wallace, 1995). Changing the dynamics between government and industry to prevent regulatory capture and encourage technological innovation will be extremely difficult, but not impossible. In addition, it is possible to envision a scenario in which important design techniques such as life cycle analysis are used to guide technological innovation, which is then combined with system change concepts such as strategic niche management or transition management. Such an alignment of methodologies and concepts is likely to facilitate the deployment of new modes of transportation that will have a greatly reduced environmental impact. Although, one could argue that if the new technology (or mode of transportation) is of a disruptive form, the market pull by itself will be sufficient to enable the rapid mass-adoption of the technology; reducing the need for system change concepts such as strategic niche management or transition management.

The use of the transportation sector by customers

Finally, it is believed that the manner in which society, industry, and government use the transportation sector will be a critical factor in whether we eventually achieve worldwide sustainable development. While the transportation sector will be responsible for creating a sustainable transportation system, achieving the final goal of sustainable development will require a multi-sector cooperative approach. Such an approach will be particularly important if we are to try to understand how the “in use” sustainability of the transportation sector might be evaluated, quantified, and operationalized.

It is hoped that having read to this point, the reader can begin to see how the concept of sustainable transportation is only likely to be achieved through the creation of a broad national

24

policy architecture that aims to realize the goals of sustainable development. Such an architecture would enable the “in use” sustainability of the transportation sector to be addressed through changes in the transportation planning and decision-making process; through improvements in the performance of the existing transportation system; through the development of new (environmentally sound) forms of mobility; through changes within society, government, and organizations; and through the creation of more sustainable consumer products and consumption patterns. Tools such as the creative use of government legislation/policy, backcasting [12], and strategic niche management could all be used to guide and educate the relevant actors about the importance of creating a truly sustainable transportation system. A key point which supports the holistic approach presented in this paper is that economic growth must continue to drive change. We argue that it is the environment (regulatory and political) within which economic activity occurs that must be changed to refocus markets towards the principles of sustainable development.

As transportation professionals, we need to redesign the way we think about the provision of mobility - we need to become consciously aware of whether our actions are having a positive or negative effect on the environment and society at large. By developing strategies that will operate within each of the four domains discussed above - legislation/policy, system operation, transportation modes, and the use of the system - it is believed that it will be possible to develop a comprehensive approach that will target problem areas at their source.

FINAL COMMENTS (BY RALPH HALL)

To help condense the rather detailed and sometimes abstract arguments presented in this paper, I present three critical points for the reader:

1. The establishment of a national drive to achieve the goals of sustainable development (focusing on goals, strategies, policies, and legislation) is essential if sectors - led by their

25

institutional missions - are to be able to take decisive steps towards sustainability. The importance of a national policy framework for sustainable urban travel was one of the major recommendations put forward in the ECMT (European Conference for Ministers of Transport) report on “Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies” (ECMT, 2001). 2. Sectors should focus on becoming sustainable using approaches that do not create unsustainable trends in other sectors (inadvertently or otherwise). The creation of long-term planning and decision-making frameworks which enable sectors to integrate and align their goals, strategies, policies, and legislation can be an effective way of achieving this. 3. Transportation professionals should widen their scope of analysis to understand how serving their customers’ demands might in fact run counter to the objectives guiding the process of sustainable development.

It is my hope that this paper will stimulate discussions around the topic of transportation system change and debates about what should be the transportation professional’s responsibility with regards to achieving the goals of sustainable development. To help stimulate such discussions, the final section presents a series of comments by the second author, Prof. Joseph Sussman, which highlight areas where our views on the topic of sustainable transportation begin to diverge.

FINAL COMMENTS (BY JOSEPH SUSSMAN)

The current definitions of sustainable transportation (such as the EST definition) might be called internal sustainability. This includes the usual aspects of sustainability: equitable access; reasonable use of resources (land, energy, materials, etc.); reasonable impact on the environment; cost-efficient; effective in providing transportation services that people and organizations want and need; creates opportunities for economic development with an equitable distribution of the gains; creates opportunities for improving quality of life; and so forth.

26

To this, the first author would add sustainability “in use” of the transportation system. He would say that if the capacity provided by the transportation system allows other sectors (say, manufacturing or agriculture) to be unsustainable, this means the transportation system is unsustainable itself. He argues that transportation professionals have a moral responsibility to design mobility systems in a manner which ensures that the overall system’s capacity is used to achieve the goals of national and global sustainable development.

I suggest the following thought experiment. Suppose, by some technological advancement the current and, let us assume for the sake of argument, sustainable transportation system, is able to double its capacity with zero additional resources and zero additional environmental impact i.e., transportation growth has been decoupled from its environmental impacts. Is it still sustainable? I would say “yes” – indeed, would say “obviously yes” – but the first author would ask first whether this additional and free capacity was going to create unsustainability in other sectors. For example, he would ask if this would permit excessive coal transportation, now that the costs of doing so are dramatically less. If so, he would reject this additional free capacity as being unsustainable.

I question the fundamental workability of such a world order. While morality may underlie this schema, in any practical sense, it is not achievable. Indeed, one could advance a moral counterargument. Do we really want to establish an environment within which all the sectors are required/or encouraged to work in unison towards the goals of sustainable development? Are we confident they would be able to operate effectively given such a mission? Would a multi-sector cooperative approach to planning actually slow progress and limit economic development, which is likely to run against the goals of sustainable development?

So what is the relationship of the sustainability of the global system and the sustainability of the individual sectors? We know that predictions are difficult indeed, but we can ask some conceptual questions. Is the sustainability of all the sectors a necessary condition for

27

sustainability of the global system? I say no – perhaps the unsustainability of one or more sectors can be balanced by especially sustainable sectors, in such fashion that the global system is sustainable.

Likewise, is the sustainability of all the sectors a sufficient condition for sustainability of the global system? Again, I say no, because the interactions among the sectors might cause the global system to be unsustainable. In this sense, the first author and I agree – cheap transportation capacity causes interactions among sectors that might cause the global system to be unsustainable.

So, whose responsibility is it to worry about the interactions among sectors? Can each sector worry about each of the others? That doesn’t sound practical. Can some central governmental authority coordinate or guide all the sectors and their interactions? Can we do it through market measures, such as emissions credits? It is certainly likely to be part of the answer. But the establishment of frameworks and processes that will enable continual progress to be made towards global sustainability – which both authors agree is the goal – is still a work in progress.

END NOTES

[1] The topic of oil supply was debated at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 82nd Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., January 2003. During the session entitled “Transportation Energy Use in the Long Term, Part 3: Oil Supply - How Limited Is the Resource Base?,” Roger Bentley, from the University of Reading (UK) stated that the world has used approximately 46% of all known oil reserves (estimated to be between 2000 - 3000 billion barrels of oil) and that oil use (or extraction) would peak around 2010. John Wood, from the U.S. Department of Energy, presented a somewhat more optimistic scenario with oil use peaking sometime between 2010 and 2020. Both scenarios confirm the finality of oil supplies

28

and that a rapid increase in the number of gasoline/diesel powered vehicles will ultimately be unsustainable in the long-term (i.e., in the next 50 years).

[2] The number of fatal road accidents in the U.S. has remained relatively constant over the past ten years (at around 42,000 deaths per year); while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has gradually increased. This indicates that automobiles and trucks have become safer, but this benefit has been offset by the increase in VMT. However, over the next 25 years it has been predicted that road fatalities are likely to increase due to more accidents among the growing aging population (Coughlin, 1999). In fact, during this period, road fatalities of people aged over 75 could reach 20,000, nearly three times that of today. This indicates that there is likely to be growing pressures on the U.S. government to take actions to reduce the number of accidents per year.

[3] “Completely” sustainable in the sense that it no longer pollutes the environment, natural and man-made resources used to create infrastructure and transportation mediums form technically and biologically closed loops (McDonough and Braungart, 1998), all members of society have equitable access to mobility, sustained economic growth can occur, etc. – these outcomes provide only an indication of what a sustainable transportation sector might be like and are not meant to be comprehensive.

[4] Such as the United Nations (UN), World Bank (1996), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)), and several nations (i.e. U.S., Canada, UK, and the European Community – a list that represents the nations reviewed and not therefore intended to be all inclusive.

[5] The term the “Three E’s” was first used in the mid 1970’s in discussions on the topics of the Economy, the Environment, and Energy. During the 1990s, Energy became an intrinsic part of

29

the Environment (as can be seen from the definition of sustainable transportation presented in the proceeding text), and was replaced by Ethics (or Equity) as society gradually became aware that a movement towards a sustainable future could not occur without a transformation of individual priorities and values (Kidder, R.M., 1990). The notion was that the environment and the economy depend on our ethics - our sense of right and wrong - and that incorporating ethics into decisions might begin to alter the past objectives of growth, accumulation, and excess towards new objectives of sustainability, sharing, and restraint. Therefore, a more accurate phrase for the 21st Century might be the “Four E’s” of Economy, Environment, Energy, and Equity.

[6] Ashford et al. (2002) argue that an evolutionary (or incremental) - as opposed to revolutionary (or radical) - pathway towards sustainable development is insufficient for achieving factor ten or greater improvement in a system’s performance. In addition, Ashford et al. state that changes in socio-technical systems (such as the transportation system) are difficult which suggests that the “creative use of government intervention is a more promising strategic approach for achieving sustainable industrial transformations, than the reliance on the more neo-liberal policies relying on firms’ more short-term economic self-interest” (Ashford et al., 2002, p. 10).

[7] Physical systems relate to both natural and man-made systems, and the mechanisms through which they interact. A stable natural system provides the resources that humans and all other species need for survival. A stable man-made system (such as the transportation system) – while it too might provide resources and access to resources for the survival of humans and other species – facilitates societal interactions.

[8] Bull (1977), describes how society provides people who have common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests, with the opportunity to come together to give support to and be supported by each other as a means of ensuring the continued existence of

30

their quality of life - such collective organization represents a social system. Humans have evolved to be highly dependent on their societies, and, therefore, it is important to assess the likely impact that decisions made by the transportation sector are likely to have on social systems.

[9] It should be noted, however, that the policies and strategies developed by the EST project, did list a series of measures in other sectors of the economy that would support a shift towards more environmentally sustainable transportation. For example, the regionalization of production was highlighted as a way of avoiding long-distance freight movement. However, regionalization of production facilities may limit the economies of scale that are often achieved by one large, instead of several smaller, production centers. It will therefore be necessary to develop instruments where such factors are balanced by financial or regulatory mechanisms (such as value pricing). Other positive measures discussed in the EST project included a greater use of telecommunications, changes in the form of human settlements, efficient electric power generation for transportation systems, and public education campaigns highlighting the problems of excessive travel and consumption.

[10] Institutional Mission refers specifically to the defined mission statement of an institution, which might not capture all aspects of social responsibility. For example, the institutional mission of the U.S. DOT is to “[s]erve the United States by ensuring a safe, fast, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future” (U.S. DOT, 2000, p.9). An interesting question to consider is whether it is possible to enhance the quality off life of the American people through both socially responsible and irresponsible ways.

[11] Socio Economics draws upon economics, sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology, biology, and other social and natural sciences, philosophy, history, law, management and other disciplines, and regards competitive behavior as a subset of human

31

behavior within a societal and natural context that both enables and constrains competition and cooperation (Ashford, R. 1999).

[12] The backcasting approach enables policy makers to look back from a desirable future to create strategies across sectors that would potentially enable the future visions to materialize (Vergragt, 2001). Such an approach is in contrast to the current transportation planning process, which develops strategies based upon demand forecasts. The difference between the approaches is subtle, but important. For a comprehensive discussion of how backcasting can be applied to the concept of sustainable mobility, refer to Banister et al. (2000). BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, M.S., and Massa, I. (2000) ‘Ecological Modernisation: Origins, Dilemmas, and Future Directions’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2(4), 337-345. Ashford, R. A. (1999) Socio-Economics: What is its Place in Law Practice? Association of American Law Schools, Section on Socio-Economics, Newsletter, November 1999, Number 9. Ashford, N.A. (2000) ‘An Innovation-Based Strategy for a Sustainable Environment’, in J. Hemmelskamp, K. Rennings, F. Leone (eds.), Innovation-Oriented Environmental Regulation: Theoretical Approach and Empirical Analysis, ZEW Economic Studies, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 67-107. Ashford, N. A. (2002) ‘Technology-Focused Regulatory Approaches for Encouraging Sustainable Industrial Transformations: Beyond Green, Beyond the Dinosaurs, and Beyond Evolutionary Theory’, paper presented at the 3rd Blueprint Workshop on Instruments for Integrating Environmental and Innovation Policy, 26-27th September 2002, Brussels. Ashford, N. A., Hafkamp, W., Prakke, F., & Vergragt, P. (2002) ‘Pathways to Sustainable Industrial Transformations: Cooptimising Competitiveness, Employment, and Environment, Final Report (30 June 2001)’, copyright © 2002 by Nicholas Ashford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Ashford, N.A. (2004) ‘Pathways to Sustainability: Evolution or Revolution?’, in M. Geenhuizen, D.V. Gibson, and M.V. Heitor (eds.), Regional Development and Conditions for Innovation in the Network Society (International Series on Technology Policy and Innovation), Purdue University Press, Ohio. Banister D., Stead, D., Steen, P., Akerman, J., Nijkamp, P., & Schleicher-Tappeser R. (2000) European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility, Spon Press, London. Berchicci, L., Silvester, S., & Knot, M. (2002) ‘Innovative artifacts for sustainable mobility systems - the example of the “Mitka”’, paper presented at the 10th International Conference on the Greening of Industry Network, June 23-26, 2002, Goteborg, Sweden. Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society, Macmillan, London.

32

Caid, N., Crist, P., Gilbert, R., & Wiederkehr, P. (2002) ‘Environmentally Sustainable Transport: Concept, Goal and Strategy - the OECD’s EST Project’, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Transport 153, Issue 4, pp. 219 - 226. Caldart, C. C. (1983) ‘Treating Lawyers and Clients as People: The Need for a Recognition of Moral Obligations within the Legal Profession’, copyright © 1983 by Charles C. Caldart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Christensen, C. M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge. Christensen, C. M. (2001) ‘The Great Disruption’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2001. Conca, K. (2002) ‘Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy’, Princen, T., Maniates, M., & Conca, K. (eds.), Confronting Consumption, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 133-153. Coughlin, J. F. (1999) ‘Technology Needs of Aging Boomers’, Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 1999, http://www.issues.org/issues/16.1/coughlin.htm (accessed on 04/05/04). Durning, A. T. (1994) The Conundrum of Consumption. Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population, Consumption and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, D.C. Dutch Kabinet (2001) The 4th National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP4), Dutch Kabinet, Sdu, Den Haag, 1998-2000, 2001. Elzen, B. (2003) ‘Transition to Sustainability through System Innovation: Summary report from workshop and follow-up activities’, paper posted on the Forum on Science and Technology for Sustainability, 28th February, 2003; http://sustsci.harvard.edu/events/twente02_transition_ws+followup.pdf (04/12/04). Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2002) International Energy Outlook 2002, Transportation Energy Use, EIA, Washington, D.C. European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) (2001) Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies: Final Report, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (2000) Intelligent Transportation Primer, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. International Forum on Globalization (IFG) (2002) Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World is Possible, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San Francisco. Kasser, T. (2002) The High Price of Materialism, The MIT Press, Cambridge. Kemp, R. (2002) ‘Integrating Environmental and Innovation Policies’, paper presented at the International workshop on Industrial Innovation and Environmental Regulation: Toward an Integrated Approach, INTECH, Maastricht, 6-7 September, 2002. Kidder, R.M. (1990) ‘Perspectives: The Three E’s of the 1990s’, The Christian Science Monitor, perspectives, 1990.

33

Luiten, E.E.M. (2001) Beyond energy efficiency: Actors, networks and government intervention in the development of industrial process technologies, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University. Manno, J. (2002) ‘Commiditization: Consumption Efficiency and an Economy of Care and Connection’, Princen, T., Maniates, M., & Conca, K. (eds.), Confronting Consumption, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 67-99. Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York. McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. (1998) ‘The NEXT Industrial Revolution’, The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 282, No. 4; pages 82 - 92. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972) The Limits to Growth, Potomac Associates, New York. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., and Randers, J. (1992) Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning A Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green Publishing co., Vermont. Moors, E.H.M. (2000) Metal Making in Motion: Technology Choices for Sustainable Metals Production, Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands. Partidario, P.J. (2003) “What-if” From path dependency to path creation in a coatings chain: a methodology for strategies towards sustainable innovation, Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands. Princen, T. (2002) ‘Distancing: Consumption and the Severing of Feedback’, Princen, T., Maniates, M., & Conca, K. (eds.), Confronting Consumption, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 103-131. Reijenders, L. (1998) ‘The Factor X Debate: Setting Targets for Eco-Efficiency’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(1): 13-22. Replogle, M. (1995) ‘Intelligent Transportation Systems for Sustainable Communities’, in Hennessey, T., and Horan, T., (eds.), National Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems and the Environmental: Conference Proceedings (June 6-7), The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, Virginia, pp. 53-59. Schafer, A., and Victor, D. (1997) ‘The Past and Future of Global Mobility’, Scientific American, October 1997. Stapleton, E. (1999) ‘Ethical Banking’, New View, Issue 11, April-June 1999, 16-17. Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2002) Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-Term Strategy, Special Report 269, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. UK Government (1999) A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Develop for the UK, Cm 4345, The Stationery Office, London. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2001) Energy & Transport, Report of the Secretary General. Report for the Commission on Sustainable Development, Ninth Session, E/CN.17/2001/PC/20. United Nations, New York. U.S. DOT (2000) Strategic Plan 2000 – 2005, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

34

Van den Hoed, R., & Vergragt, P. (2002) ‘Radical Technology Development by Incumbent Firms: Daimler’s efforts to develop Fuel Cell technology in historical perspective’, paper presented at the 10th International Conference on the Greening of Industry Network, June 2326, 2002, Goteborg, Sweden. Vergragt, P. (2001) ‘Back-casting for Environmental Sustainability: From STD and SusHouse towards Implementation’, paper for the International Conference: Towards Environmental Innovation Systems, 27-29 September, 2001, Garmisch-Partenkirchen. Wallace, D. (1995) Environmental policy and industrial innovation. Strategies in Europe, the U.S. and Japan, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. Wilson, E. O. (2002) The Future of Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. World Bank (1996) Sustainable Transport: Priorities for Policy Reform, World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2001) Mobility 2001 – World Mobility at the end of the Twentieth Century and its Sustainability, WBCSD, Geneva, Switzerland. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press.

35

Table 1: Principles of Sustainable Transportation Environment

Economy

Ability to Recycle; Assimilative Capacity; Avoidance of Irreversibility; Precautionary; Preventive; Regenerative; Stewardship; Substitutability; Use of Energy

Affordability; Cost-effectiveness; Cost Internalization; Economic Growth; Economic Wellbeing; Effective Use of Innovation; Quality of Life

E

Equity Access & Choice; Equitable Economic Growth (Share the Gains) Environmental Justice; Poverty Reduction; Social Well-being; Social Responsibility

E

E

The Three E’s of Sustainable Transportation

36

Institutional Appropriate Use of Land & Resources; Comprehensive & Long-term Planning; Goals, Performance, and Outcomes; Improvement in Efficiency; Integration; International Cooperation

Protection of Health & Safety; Participation & Education; Reduction of Automobile Dependency; Technological Innovation; Transparency & Accountability

“I/C” “I/C” for System Innovation/Change

Table 2: Current Planning Agenda vs. Sustainable Planning Agenda1 AGENDA Competitiveness Environment Employment Improve Performance/Cut Control pollution/make Ensure supply of Current Costs

Sustainable

1

Change nature of meeting market needs though radical or disrupting innovation (a systems change)

simple substitutions or changes; conserve energy and resources Prevent pollution through system changes; change resource and energy dependence

This table was extracted from Ashford et al. (2002).

37

adequately trained people Radical improvement in human-technology interface (a systems change)