[sustran] Sustainability/New Paradigm

Todd Litman litman at IslandNet.com
Wed Feb 11 23:49:30 JST 1998


Donald F. Padelford asked:
>Would someone like to give me a one sentence definition of sustainability?

The most often cited definition of sustainabile development, from the 1987
Brundtland Commission, is, "development that meets the needs of the present
without compromizing the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs." This implies that economic and ecological resources be managed to
avoid long-term degradation.

Considering the needs of future generations addresses "intergenerational
equity." But, some experts have pointed out, it makes little sense to
consider intergenerational equity without also considering other types of
equity. So, sustainability planning involves consideration of a broad range
of equity issues.

A one-sentence definition does little justice to the Brundtland Commission
report, or the many other sustainabile planning efforts. As David Burwell
points out in the recent TRB Special Report TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE,
"...sustainability is not about threat analysis; sustainability is about
systems analysis. Specifically, it is about how environmental, economic, and
social systems interact to their mutual advantage or disadvantage at various
space-based scales of operation."

The paradigm shift implied by sustainabile transportation planning relates
not just to the outcome, but to the planning process used. It requires that
any possible impacts and options be considered, that issues such as equity
and long-term impacts be consisered, that decision making be explicit and
deliberate, and that the public be involved in determining how questions are
framed and alternatives are evaluated. Those are principles of good
planning, and they are particularly necessary for sustainability planning.

What does this mean for sustainable transport planning? Marty Bernard once
again [see below] argues that:

1) The world faces one sustainability problem (excess energy consumption and
resulting CO2 emissions).

2) There is only one feasible response (efficiency improvements based on
technological improvements).

3) We must accept experts' conclusions of this because public participation,
though desirable in theory, is a luxury that society cannot afford due to
the urgency of the crisis. 


By continuing to frame the question as simply a choice between investments
in technolgoical improvements to transportation or
end-of-life-as-we-know-it, Bernard misses the point of a paradigm shift. In
fact, he illustrates the need for such a shift. Even if the outcome were the
same, sustainability planning requires a more deliberate process then
Bernard offers in his rush to a conclusion.


Let me respond to a few specific points raised by Bernard.

1. Are energy consumption/CO2 emissions the only sustainability problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global warming may be a major problem, but there are a number of other
economic, social and ecological threats associated with our current
transportation system. If other problems are individually or in total of
comparable risk as energy/CO2 emission threats then they should also be
considered in sustainability analysis. To do otherwise may result in the
wrong policies.

Using Bernard's reductionist paradigm, we would rank "solutions" to the
energy/CO2 problem according to cost effectiveness and choose the one that
works best. But what if the highest ranking solution only reduces energy/CO2
emission problems, but the second ranking solution also addresses other
economic, social and environmental problems? In other words, it is slighly
less effective at one objective, but addresses a broader range of
objectives. To evaluate based on only one objective would overlook these
other potential benefits. An opportunity for chosing the true optimal policy
would be missed, simply because the analysis is too narrow.


2. Are there really only two possible responses? Are pricing strateges
really infeasible? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

To justify ignoring travel demand management options Bernard writes:

>...the probability of getting 
>most people to voluntarily live in relatively confined urban 
>apartments, with little or no personal green space, hearing their 
>neighbor yelling at his wife, and taking mass transit to shop whenever 
>they are tired of the corner store, is very small and probably zero 
>(without a severe crisis). 

This shows how little Bernard understands travel demand management. The
Win-Win strategies we promote (cashing out free parking, distance based
insurance, transportation management associations, least-cost transportation
planning, traffic calming, livable communities, car sharing) have nothing to
do with the negative impacts Bernard describes. They have everything to do
with giving people more choices, eliminating distortions in the the market,
and improving our quality of life. That Bernard presents non-technical
alternatives in such a negative light indicates that he is deliberatly
framing the question to reach his desired conclusion.


3. Have technological efficiency improvements really succeeded in the past?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although technological innovation have reduced some problems, they have not
"solved" any, and have exacerbated others. For example, one result of the
CAFE standards is that people drive more, a predictable 'take back' effect,
that increases congestion, accident costs, urban sprawl and some forms of
air pollution (for discussion see Nivola and Crandall's THE EXTRA MILE,
Brookings Institute, Washington DC, 1995.) 

Technological innovation may certainly have an important role in helping to
achieve sustainabile transportation, but we can only know that after we
evaluate all options. I suspect that we will find that the best approach is
to establish public policies that create an incentive for consumers to
implement technology improvements where appropriate, such as emission charges.


4. Is public participation really a luxury we cannot afford?
------------------------------------------------------------
Save us from self-serving "experts" who structure public policy decision
making to support their own interests! 

Our current paradigm assumes that major problems are best broken down into
components, which can be solved by experts. This may be effective when basic
goals and values involved are clear (such as a business trying to maximize
its profits), but is the wrong way to approach public policy decisions. In
such cases we need to consider a wide range of issues, some of which
"experts" may be entirely unaware of.

I would argue that one of the most important paradim shifts we need to make
is to recognize that careful deliberation, public participation, and fair
negotiation are not luxuries, they are essential to addressing public policy
problems. 

One of the great archtypes of North American society is the "doer", who
rushes into action while others are bogged down with ineffective talking.
But for every John Wayne leading a calvery charge to the rescue, there is a
General Custer who would have benefited from a little more deliberation.
Calvery charges lead by great-man-of-action to prevent the
end-of-life-as-we-know-it indicate a failure of negotiation, and leave in
their wake more unresolved conflict. Perhaps John Wayne should have raised
questions such as whether the settlers really had a right to take over First
Nations lands, whether there might be a more mutually beneficial
relationship between settlers and tribes, and whether, after a sufficient
number of calvery and Indians are killed, the aren't perhaps some terms that
might prevent such conflicts in the future.

Transportation engineers often justify their roadway improvements in order
to avoid projected traffic gridlock (their version of the
end-of-life-as-we-know-it threat). Great if that is really the only problem
and solution. But, few transportation engineers are experienced dealing with
a wider range of issues, such as equity, land use impacts, ecological
damages, etc. Before a community gives transportation engineers a mandate to
do whatever is needed to increase road capacity it is in everybody's
interest to carefully examine values, goals, options, and impacts. The same
applies to addressing other transport problems, such as global warming
emissions.


Sincerely,
  
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: (250) 360-1560
E-mail:     litman at islandnet.com
Website:    http://www.islandnet.com/~litman


=========================================================================
Marty Bernard wrote:

>You need a little background to understand where I am coming from.  
>When I was a younger professional, I thought the types of planning and 
>market-based solutions Todd Litman and many others are advocating were 
>effective ways to create change.  Like most of us, I had learned them 
>in school.  I had actually taught them for a short time, and I tried 
>for a time to develop and implement them while a member of 
>organizations that was supposed to do that stuff..  After a while I 
>realized that they don't work--they cause little, if any, change.  
>
>I started my professional transportation career during the first oil 
>shock.  Only then did we realize we had an energy problem.  In the 25 
>years since then we really have done little to solve the problem.  We 
>knew we had an urban air problem, and we have made great progress 
>there.  I don't remember us talking not talk much about the results of 
>urban sprawl, which was in full swing then.  Global warming and ozone 
>holes were not even on the radar screen.  Though in 1973 we thought we 
>had a really big problems.  They were nothing like the magnitude of the 
>problems we have now.  If planning and market-based solutions couldn't 
>solve the 1973 problems, we have no hope they will solve today's.
>
>Why don't planning and market-based solutions work for transportation?  
>Why haven't they worked for transportation, at least in recent decades? 
> Why won't they work for transportation in the future?  The answer is 
>so obvious I wonder why it took me so long to figure it out.  I guess I 
>was too idealistic.  These solutions are politically infeasible in a 
>democratic society.  The world is getting more democratic.  There is 
>always one or more powerful groups which will be negatively impacted by 
>the change these solutions portend.  Even if you can get them 
>implemented in a limited area (like Berkeley or Victoria), you can't 
>get them implemented globally.  And global solutions are what we need 
>to solve the issues we have been discussing in these threads.
>
>Change usually occurs through evolution, which is some what random. But 
>consider three US transportation polices of the last couple of decades 
>that have accomplished something.  All represent "guided" evolutionary 
>change instead of random evolutionary change or revolutionary change 
>(the latter is what we are discussing).
>
>The first is CAFE.  For about 10 years, these standards allowed fuel 
>efficiency to evolve in the proper direction.  The resulting change was 
>significant in cars, but North America's appetite for, probably driven 
>by Detroit's advertising, and by perceived safety of pickups and sport 
>utes, has diluted the overall effect as has great increases in vmt.
>
>Next I point to the Clean Air Act and it's Amendments.  They gave us a 
>significant reduction in criteria pollutants.  Air in cities became 
>safer to breathe, but the important very small particulates escaped 
>reduction due to a gap in heath-effects knowledge, and, of course, CO2 
>is not a criteria pollutant.
>
>The third is to increase connectivity and reduce congestion through 
>building more and increasing capacity of streets and roads.  While this 
>was/is an incremental process, it certainly resulted in significant 
>change and the most of problems we see with our transportation system.
>
>So how is significant, and relatively rapid, change accomplished in 
>society, or large portions of society?  History has taught us that 
>there are only three ways:
>
>1.  By a strong visionary leader, e.g., Ghandi, maybe King or JFK if 
>either had lived longer.  It's been a long time since we have had one, 
>so I'm not willing to bet society's future on one appearing.  Some of 
>the options Todd talks about may well work if we had a leader to 
>convince society to implement them.
>
>2.  Major crisis that affects much of society, e.g., the German 
>military in 1940.  Most of us don't even see the global crisis we face, 
>and those that do have no good method or even reason to respond.  Life 
>for most of us is good or getting better.  I think all us who are 
>rational want to avoid the impending crisis, so this is not an option 
>to implement change.
>
>3.  Major technological break-through, e.g., the internal combustion 
>engine or television.  Since I can do nothing about the first, I don't 
>want the second to occur, here is where I hang my hat.
>
>Getting to what Todd Litton wrote:
>
>>A paradigm refers to how people approach a problem, not the technology 
>that
>>is used (read Thomas Kahn's book for more details). ....The 
>>current transportation paradigm assumes that "better" means "newer,"
>>"faster," and "more." A paradigm shift in transport planning, for 
>example,
>>could conclude that lower technologies are better in many situations. 
>For
>>example, increased emphasis on livable communities (which include 
>traffic
>>calming, pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, mixed land use,
>>transit oriented development, and urban reinvestment) is likely to 
>reduce
>>per household automobile ownership and use. 
>
>I accept that definition of paradigm.  I agree that if you could get 
>the majority (say 90%) of people on this earth to give up the dream of 
>instant mobility, lots of personal freedom, and physical and mental 
>space, you could get to a new paradigm.  But the probability of getting 
>most people to voluntarily live in relatively confined urban 
>apartments, with little or no personal green space, hearing their 
>neighbor yelling at his wife, and taking mass transit to shop whenever 
>they are tired of the corner store, is very small and probably zero 
>(without a severe crisis).  The momentum is very too strong in the 
>other direction.
>
>Todd again:
>
>>Bernard's comments are really about continuing the existing paradigm. 
>He
>>justifies relying only on technological solutions to transportation 
>problems
>>because he concludes that TDM options are unacceptable in North 
>America.
>>This, I believe, is an inappropriate conclusion because most TDM 
>strategies
>>(cashing out parking, distance based vehicle insurance and 
>registration
>>fees, parking management, least-cost planning) have never been 
>properly
>>tested here. 
>
>First, I agree the TDM measures Todd mentions have not been properly 
>tested, nor, I add, will they ever, for the reasons I gave above.  
>Second, I have no interest in continuing the existing paradigm.  Lewis 
>and Clark coul
>d never have seen the existing paradigm as they made their way from St. 
>Louis to the mouth of the Columbia River and back.  The tremendous 
>resources they started with, and acquired and spent along the way, 
>including one d
>eath, and the months it took, when compared to today's simple round 
>trip jet ride of eight hours without any physical exertion where they 
>give you drinks and meals for a few hundred dollars could not envision 
>by them.  So
> neither can we envision future paradigms.  But we can work towards it. 
> We can invent, develop, and implement technology that might be part of 
>it.
>
>Todd writes:
>
>>Bernard continues to assume that sustainable transportation is simply 
>about
>>reducing resource flows, and that the only possible options for 
>addressing
>>transport problems are pricing strategies or new technology.
>
>I never said anything about resource flows and pricing as an options.  
>In terms of resources, what if the next paradigm allows us to tap the 
>abundant resources of the solar system?  Or what if the next paradigm 
>allows us to use only renewable energy sources, to recycle everything, 
>to increase farm land productivity significantly while controlling the 
>nitrates (fertilizer) required for plant growth that is killing our 
>oceans?   I did say you can't get the prices right.
>
>Todd repeats:
>
>>... our research indicates that
>>automobile use would decline significantly in response to simple 
>pricing and
>>investment reforms ...
>
>John DeCicco and I are not questioning Todd's research findings but 
>rather the implementability of these and other similar options.  We 
>need something that has a chance of having global impact--something 
>that results in the sustainability of our society.  I'm working on it 
>in my own way.  And it's not raining and the sun is out!
>
>-- 
>Marty Bernard
>Oakland, California
>
>To find out about a new form of personal urban transportation
>please visit the Information Pages of the National Station Car
>Association at http://www.stncar.com which are updated periodically.
>
>
>



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list