National Academies Press: OpenBook

Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making (2002)

Chapter: 4 The Decision-Support Process

« Previous: 3 Measurement and Analysis of Livability
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"4 The Decision-Support Process." National Research Council. 2002. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10262.
×
Page 130

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 The Decision-Support Process INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on the decision-support process for transporta- tion, beginning with a look back to the antecedents of current practices in transportation planning and decision making. It then reviews the current process and concludes with recommendations on the “who, what, and why” of informed transportation decision making for livable communities. An improved decision-support process—including both data and tools—will help focus attention on the real consequences of transporta- tion investments within communities. Improved data will aid broader consideration of often narrowly defined transportation consequences— for example, better transit access to major attractions, enhanced goods movement, shorter travel times—and foster more insightful consideration of the socioeconomic, land use, and environmental factors that help shape a community’s livability. These factors include mobility and equity conse- quences across locations within a region and across stakeholder groups; impacts on land use and development patterns and the consequences of those development patterns; the interaction of transportation operations with the natural and built environments, and impacts on sustainability; distribution of economic benefits and costs spatially and demographically; and consequences for community cohesiveness and character. As communities, transportation planners, and decision makers have sharpened their understanding of the links between transportation and livability, the list of questions to be considered in making transportation 103

104 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE choices has grown in length and complexity. These questions extend from the most basic (e.g., should we consider transportation improvements?), to highly detailed consideration of the interactions between transporta- tion improvements and other valued community features, to the final decision on whether action is warranted based on the projected benefits, costs, and impacts. Such decisions impact the livability of communities and require large bodies of data, many of them crosscutting in nature, to adequately answer the questions and provide informed choices to deci- sion makers. CONTEXT OF CURRENT PRACTICES Good transportation has long been recognized as an important ele- ment of a successful society—from the Roman roads, which helped unite an empire, to farm roads, which help bring products to market. More- over, the physical development of a community has been shaped by the transportation technology that existed during each growth period, whether it was canoes, horsecars, or freeways. The importance of transportation to the economy and society has given transportation decisions great significance and those who make them great power. The importance of the central government in transpor- tation decisions was debated during the formative years of the United States, and transportation continues to be an important function of fed- eral, state, and local governments. The transcontinental railroad was seen as an important factor in unifying the United States after the Civil War, and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System in the 1950s reshaped population patterns and goods distribution to both a domestic and a world market. This history would suggest the evolution of a highly sophisticated practice, beginning with the transportation studies of the 1950s in Detroit, Chicago, and other metropolitan areas, and concurrent with the early development of computers. For example, the algorithm needed to calcu- late the shortest path through a network or to estimate traffic flows was borrowed from early research on telephone networks. Once transporta- tion planning moved beyond understanding current travel patterns (which could be estimated though travel surveys) into projections, data needs escalated quickly. In his review of the history of transportation planning, Weiner points out that “through its evolutionary development, the urban transportation planning process has been called upon to address a continuous stream of new issues and concerns, methodological developments, advances in tech- nology, and changing attitudes. The list of issues included safety, citizen

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 105 involvement, preservation of parkland and natural areas, equal opportu- nity for disadvantaged persons, environmental concerns (particularly air quality), transportation for the elderly and handicapped, energy conser- vation, and the revitalization of urban centers” (Weiner, 1992). This history also suggests the need for a highly responsive, collabora- tive decision-making process that is well attuned to livability factors. Such a process would reach beyond a confined view of transportation facility choices and embrace the ways in which these choices interact with valued community assets and impact livability. Instead, transportation planners and providers are often criticized as being impediments to the creation of more livable places and failing to look at transportation choices through the lens of livability. Much planning continues to be narrowly focused on transportation alone, particularly on highways, while concerns such as alternative ways to meet mobility needs, land use interactions, and envi- ronmental impacts are given less attention. For several decades, urban planners have recognized that public investment projects in metropolitan regions must be considered within the regional context, not just with reference to the immediate project site. Public parklands, water supply, and sewer systems are several early examples of such metropolitan issues. In the transportation arena, park- way systems in cities such as Boston are early examples. In most of these cases, the metropolitan perspective derives significantly from the fact that sponsor agencies and decision makers have been municipal or regional entities. In contrast, state departments of transportation have sponsored much of the major new public investment in transportation, predominantly highways, funded through the interstate highway system and other fed- eral funding programs. One of the unintended consequences of this well- funded, highly focused, largely single-purpose effort has been a dis- connect in planning these investments between the projects and the local and regional contexts within which they set. They have been designed and implemented with little sense of the surrounding place and little focus on how they affect the livability of the host community beyond a narrowly defined transportation function. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated regu- lations from federal transportation agencies sought to require consider- ation of the environmental interactions and impacts of such federally funded public investments. More recently, the Intermodal Surface Trans- portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) focused on the need to explicitly con- sider and analyze major transportation investments in a metropolitan region context, based on sound planning principles.

106 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE Current Transportation Planning Process The traditional transportation planning process has four steps and is carried out at local, regional, and statewide levels. First, goals and objec- tives are developed. These often are in the form of level of service standards or other desirable operating conditions for the transportation system. These goals and objectives should be based on community values and cover such topics as structural condition, congestion levels, safety, alternative modes, and other transportation outcomes. The second step is determining system deficiencies based on the goals and objectives. Often, transportation demand models are used to deter- mine where current and future congestion deficiencies exist. Traditional models assume current and future land use patterns as a given from local comprehensive plans, and forecast traffic conditions given those patterns of growth. Land use can also be a variable, since land use patterns affect modal travel and travel patterns, and since transportation facilities have a feedback effect on land use. The third step is alternatives analysis, in which different approaches to fixing deficiencies are examined. Increasingly, alternatives analysis examines multiple modes of transportation (e.g., simultaneous access to highways, bicycle paths, and mass transit) as possible solutions. Travel demand models are also used to evaluate how alternatives perform on a system level. The final step is selection of a preferred alternative. This preferred alternative is usually a result of compromise among competing interests and often includes a mix of modal components that work together to address the deficiency. Transportation models have been developed to predict the likely origins and destinations of trips and the likely use of different modes, based on projections of where people would live, work, and play. Just like livability, assessing travel requires data on both people and places. Such information was generally not available in the 1960s (and frequently is not available today), so transportation planners often had to create the data for themselves. As a result, decision-support tools were not designed for the diverse stakeholders involved in livability planning. They were instead developed as inputs to transportation models at different geo- graphic scales than were common for public planning data. Long-Range Planning Planning for transportation is typically large scale and long term, whether at the statewide or local level, and it requires project develop- ment (i.e., project-specific planning). Long-term plans are developed by

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 107 state departments of transportation or, for major metropolitan areas, by metropolitan planning organization (MPOs). Project planning can occur at the local scale or, with very large projects, for large corridors or sectors of a region; and they can be sponsored by a state department of transpor- tation, the MPO, or a local unit of government—a municipality or county—depending on the project. Long-range plans typically have a 20- or 30-year time horizon and build on the area’s long-term vision, as well as long-term projections of population, economic development, and transportation needs. They also include a short-term element, in which specific transportation improve- ments are programmed for each of the coming years—either a statewide transportation improvement program or the MPO’s transportation improve- ment program, including specific projects. Project Planning Project planning is the process by which a proposal for a specific transportation improvement is assessed. In the process of planning a fed- erally funded project, major decisions focus around these questions: • Is the solution a project (such as building a trolley line) or non- project solution (such as changing the timing of signals to improve traffic flows and give buses and emergency vehicles priority at intersections)? • Will the project be likely to have any significant impacts? The answer to these questions determines the types of analyses that will be required to comply with NEPA requirements. If the answers are uncertain, an assessment is performed to determine whether there will be significant impacts. If so, draft and final environmental impact statements are required, followed by a record of decision. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have issued regulations to guide transportation agencies on complying with NEPA in assessing transportation improvements. Changes in the Transportation Planning Process Meyer (1999) suggests that two issues in particular will strongly char- acterize the next period of planning: the first is technology applications in the broadest sense (such as Geographic Information Systems [GISs]), and the second is growing awareness of sustainable development. GIS and visualization are just beginning to be used widely; technical engineering standards, design standards, and mathematical models are more com-

108 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE monly used. Benchmark measures typically focus on the physical infra- structure. An excellent example of a different approach is the Aurora Partnership, a public-private collaboration to stimulate the development of decision-support tools, services, and systems and the application of spatial data for natural resource and environmental management (http:// aurorapartnership.org). It seeks to address the needs of policy makers, land and resource managers, and county and community leaders. The four principles of the Aurora Partnership, formed in 1998, are the following: 1. Support existing and new partnerships at local, regional, and national levels. 2. Adopt a perspective of place-based management incorporating other user needs in addition to those associated with natural resources and the environment. 3. Focus on decision processes and stakeholder involvement as well as technology and software. 4. Provide a national forum for the exchange of decision-support knowledge. Although the practice of transportation planning is technically sophisticated, it tends to be focused on travel and traffic outputs and does not pay much attention to sustainability and livability indicators. Most of the standard tools are not easy to use and require special training and experience available only to the most technically sophisticated agencies. Since the 1980s, decision makers, planners, and community members have stressed the importance of a multimodal and intermodal perspective on transportation. Multimodal refers to the inclusion of many modes— highway, transit, railroad, walking, bicycle, and so forth—in deciding how best to meet mobility and access needs. Intermodal refers to the links between modes—a bus-rail station or cargo carried on a ship and then a truck—and the nature of most trips, whether by people or goods. Decisions based on such modal considerations require integrated databases, which capture both the functional aspects of the modes and how they relate to one another and the relationship between the choice of modes and impacts of transportation investment and service decisions on livability. Indeed, many of the arguments related to the choice of one mode over another are tied directly to crosscutting considerations of liv- ability. For instance, the choice of a highway for a corridor instead of public transit will entail much more fuel consumption and associated environmental impacts, and the highway may well contribute to exurbanization and sprawl. However, the highway choice will provide better service for goods movement, along with associated economic ben-

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 109 efits, and may well enhance personal choice and mobility for door-to- door auto trips. By way of an intermodal example, the decision on whether to invest in a new intermodal ship-truck-rail terminal will include consideration of environmental, economic, land use, and other impacts on the immediate and surrounding areas, in addition to more narrow considerations of transportation functions and economies of different movement patterns between the modes. Thus, it is impossible to take a broad perspective across and among transportation modes without considering livability impacts and options. Transportation plans are best made in the broad context of the long- term goals of the community, state, or region. This long-term vision must include thinking about factors such as projected population growth, eco- nomic change, transportation needs and maintenance requirements, and potential impacts of alternatives on natural and human environments. Transportation decisions involve a great breadth of issues. Major transportation projects are undertaken for a variety of purposes, includ- ing safety improvement, reduction in congestion, and promotion of eco- nomic development. Other reasons include national defense and counter- cyclical investments to jump-start a slow economy. However, with sufficient support at the federal level, livability could be introduced as one of the specific items to be addressed in federally funded transporta- tion planning. It is important to change the attitudes of participants to make livability an important goal. Such a change may be occurring already. A movement known as “context-sensitive design” aspires to lessen the negative effects of routing streets and highways through living areas and to foster the reestablish- ment of a community sense of place. According to Thomas Warne, past president of the American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials, “. . . highway projects can be designed with imagination, creativity, and collaboration to preserve and enhance the character and quality of community without sacrificing transportation mobility and safety.” Five “lead states” (Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and Utah) are pressing this initiative with support from the FHWA (Gavin, 2000). As part of the 1991 ISTEA, all metropolitan planning in the United States was required to address a set of 15 factors, grouped under three categories: (1) mobility and access, (2) system performance and pres- ervation, and (3) environment and quality of life. (See Box 4.1, which includes examples of data that should be used to assess livability.) Despite the fact that this mandate was dropped in the 1997 transportation legisla- tion (known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA- 21]), these factors represent important considerations in metropolitan

110 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE BOX 4.1 Metropolitan Planning Factors Assessing Impacts on Livability Mobility and Access for People and Goods Factor 1. Effects of all transportation projects (e.g., cumulative impact of the system on land use and development patterns, open space and natural area degradation, sprawl, housing affordability, and access of people in different economic strata to jobs) Factor 2. International border crossings and the promotion of access to critical areas and activities (e.g., extent to which links with border crossings enhance regional and national economic competitiveness, distribution of economic benefits by industry and job sector, and impacts on employ- ment and job creation by industry sector and location) Factor 3. Road connectivity from inside to outside metropolitan areas (e.g., impacts of connectivity on local and regional growth and development plans, improved access to jobs by population and income sectors, impacts on traditionally underserved segment of the population, and impacts of con- nectivity on increased pressure for development in environmentally sen- sitive areas) Factor 4. Enhancement of efficient freight movement (e.g., impacts on location and distribution of freight-related industries, contribution to employment and job creation for underemployed sectors of the population, and noise and other impacts on sensitive environmental resources) Factor 5. Expansion and enhancement of transit services and use (e.g., improved access to education and jobs for low-income, female-headed, and auto- less households; increased mode share by geographic area for transit; and level of reduction in environmental impacts resulting from shifts to transit from auto and single-occupant vehicle trips [for peak and off- peak periods]) System Performance and Preservation Factor 6. Congestion relief and prevention (e.g., extent to which congestion relief measures promote efficient energy use and energy savings; impacts of congestion relief and prevention on economic productivity in the move- ment of people and goods) Factor 7. Preservation and efficient use of existing transportation facilities (e.g., economic impacts, by sector, from transportation to asset protection, potential shift of resources from capital to maintenance expenditures, and impacts on business sectors and job classifications) transportation planning, and they should be incorporated in the planning process at an early stage. The relevance of each factor will of course vary depending on local circumstances, as will the manner in which transpor- tation planners consider and analyze these factors. However, it is impor- tant that the factors be given explicit and appropriate consideration. The

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 111 Factor 8. Transportation needs identified through the implementation of manage- ment systems (e.g., needs by demographic and economic sector, by location and transportation mode; extent to which meeting needs will promote more equitable distribution of transportation benefits and costs by population sector) Factor 9. Preservation of rights-of-way (e.g., extent to which preservation of rights- of-way reduces the impacts of development and exurbanization; impacts of preserved rights-of-way on movement patterns of wildlife and preser- vation of plant communities) Factor 10. Use of life cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges (e.g., extent to which life cycle costing presents a more full accounting of the total costs of the investment, including the distribution of costs over time, by location, and by economic sector) Environment and Quality of Life Factor 11. Overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transpor- tation decisions (e.g., crosscutting impacts of the transportation program; extent to which transportation investments stimulate positive economic development, protect environmental resources, and are consistent with regional land use and development goals; also, trade-offs between eco- nomic benefits and costs and land use or development and environ- mental benefits and costs) Factor 12. Consistency of planning with energy conservation measures (e.g., changes in transportation energy consumption by household income, including progressive or regressive impacts of transportation energy taxes by income level and impacts of changes in energy consumption on air quality) Factor 13. Relationships between transportation and short- and long-term land use planning (e.g., impacts on short-term housing costs, by income group according to race and location, and impacts on long-term housing and development patterns, particularly in terms of development concentra- tion and transit-supportive development) Factor 14. Programming of expenditures on transportation enhancement activities (e.g., distribution of enhancement activities by location, measured by socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods surrounding the location) Factor 15. Capital investments that increase transit system security (e.g., impacts of increased security and lower crime on perceived community livability) FHWA and the FTA recognize the complexities involved in the consider- ation and analysis of some of these factors, and have established general guidelines with respect to consideration and analysis of the 15 factors. Their consideration may also be a part of the public involvement process, a major investment study (MIS), or adjustments to management systems

112 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE implementation, all of which are required in the metropolitan planning process. Nonetheless, these agencies have established general guidelines with respect to the consideration and analysis of the 15 factors. Decision Process Framework Although analysts may be uncomfortable dealing with conflicting goals, they are a fact of life. People prefer not to choose between, say, a good economy and a healthy environment or a suburban environment and free-flowing roads. They want both livability and affordability. These conflicting desires create a potential dilemma for those making transpor- tation decisions. For example, at what point does mobility degrade rather than enhance livability? More importantly, how will that decision be made and by whom? At some point, these questions must be addressed. The decision-making process includes all stages of the decision from problem definition, to alternative selection, to implementation and evalu- ation. Key components are identification and definition of the problem; formulation and evaluation of alternative courses of action; and selection, implementation, and evaluation of the solution. Stakeholders include those who might be affected or served by the decision, as well as those advising decision makers of their viewpoints. Meyer and Miller (2001) stress the complexity of the transportation planning process resulting, in part, from the varied perspectives and pur- poses of the people involved in the process (see Box 4.2 for discussion). In addition, transportation decisions must take a future perspective on out- comes and stakeholder needs. Boulding (1974) suggested these important considerations: Transportation planning must be seen as an integral part of a much wider process of decision making. Too often in the past transportation solutions have been seen as the only way to resolve transportation prob- lems . . . transportation must be seen as part of the land-use planning and development process which requires an integrated approach to analysis and a clear vision of the type of city and society in which we wish to live. A decision-oriented approach to urban transportation planning should focus on the information needs of interested decision makers and should recognize the often limited capability of individuals unfamiliar with technical analysis to interpret the information produced. Planning should provide not only the information desired by decision makers, but also the information needed to provide a more complete understanding of the problem and of the implications of different solutions.

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 113 BOX 4.2 Decision Considerations The world moves into the future as a result of decisions (or lack of decisions), not as a result of careful planning. However, planning can be effective if it provides useful information to those who must make decisions. In this case, it must provide not only information that is desired by decision makers, but also information that illuminates the short- and long-term consequences of alternative choices. Decision making involves two major elements: (1) an agenda consisting of alter- native images of the future, along with some concept of the relationship between present action and future societal directions, and (2) a valuation scheme that outlines preferences for the characteristics of likely decision outcomes. In the case of urban transportation, this valuation scheme is often intricately tied to societal values and goals, expressed in the political decision-making process. Evaluations and decisions are influenced by the degree of uncertainty associated with expected consequences. Decisions regarding future actions are based on implicit and explicit assumptions about the likely consequences of alternative decisions and the future state of the urban area in which the decisions will be implemented. Thus, the greater the degree of uncertainty associated with these assumptions, the higher is the value that should be placed on decisions that leave future options open. The value of an option—a fundamental concept from modern economic and financial theory—is relevant here. In addition to the obvious applications in the theory of financial options, the value of an option has also been the subject of extensive liter- ature on “real options” in business investment (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994; Copeland and Antikarov, 2001) and on the importance of recognizing irreversibilities in evalu- ating the costs and benefits of development that threatens ecological resources (Fisher et al., 1972). The products of planning should be designed to increase the chance of making better decisions. Planning should examine a wide range of agendas, the values and objectives underlying the current decision, past decisions that were not considered to be effective, failures of past predictions, and early warnings that the assumed state of the future is changing. The result of planning involves some form of communication with decision makers. The products of planning are only a small part of the information input. To increase the usefulness of this planning information, planning products and processes should reflect the substantive and information-understanding requirements of the individuals who will use these products, including information about livability. SOURCE: Meyer and Miller (2001). Decisions Resolve Conflicting Ideas Tension between technical and political decisions often contributes to transportation-related conflict. One contributing factor is that the locus of decision-making control is often not the same as the area of impact. Much of the funding for transportation projects, for example, especially high-

114 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE way spending, is controlled by state transportation agencies, while im- pacts, both positive and negative, fall on local jurisdictions who often have little practical say in the decisions. Transit and airport operations tend to be more solidly grounded in local issues because such planning involves greater elements of local control. At the other end of the spec- trum, decisions involving real estate development, which affect future travel needs, are local, with state transportation agencies having little influence. Major transportation facilities have a long life span, justifying the care and planning invested in such projects; however, elected officials and citizens often have a much shorter time perspective. Economic consider- ations may accelerate the transportation decision-making process in order to serve the changing needs of business and public facilities. However, quick decisions often impede important plans and procedures. Long- range planning requires extensive and time-consuming dialogue among politicians, professionals, and the public. Many players have a role to play in the process. In many urban areas, the MPO is designated to sort out any conflicts. Lacking formal authority over local governments however, this organiza- tion generally serves as a clearinghouse, with most of the key decisions made elsewhere. However, many agencies and groups are involved in decision making at the metropolitan level, so a regional perspective is helpful in seeing how these many actors and activities interact. Regional Basis for Decision Making It is the regional nature of transportation demand that dictates a broad view of services. Local officials generally shape the spatial form of the region; transportation and utility providers build the infrastructure; and developers build the real estate needed to accommodate or anticipate growth. (Developers include a wide variety of corporate and institutional property owners and users.) An important challenge is to develop a vision so compelling and a consensus so strong that it carries across political agendas. Business locations and the movement of goods are often scattered across a market area, drawing on the need for regional roads, transit, water, and utility networks. Still, effective and continuing regional coop- eration remains uncommon. Local governments often compete for new businesses to help the tax base or, as it is sometimes called, the “ratables race.” They may also strive for the best schools or the most state revenues. Clearly, families and businesses try to select locations where services meet their needs. Enabling such choice is important. This idea is expressed in the famous Tiebout Model showing the interaction between household

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 115 and business location, on the one hand, and local governmental decision making, on the other (Tiebout, 1956). This model has inspired an enor- mous amount of literature. It is controversial not only as a description of the real-world tax and service competition by local governments, but also in its implications that real-world processes produce “optimal” results. Nevertheless, the basic concept of competition among these factors clearly has a substantial measure of truth. (For extensive discussions, see Atkinson and Stiglitz, 1980, Ch. 17, and various essays in Zodrow, 1983.) Although it is difficult to gain consensus about a region, it is essential for addressing regional issues such as transportation. Some regional agen- cies, as well as private citizens’ organizations, have been influential in establishing a regional vision, which always has a spatial dimension and broad-based perspective. This vision includes a mix of urban and rural, high-density and low-density, and contiguous and noncontiguous devel- opment, which can help residents and businesses develop a place-based vision. While a regional vision is eventually needed, it must be built up from community-level images. In Charlottesville, Virginia, for example, a clear description of potential development patterns (moderate-density housing or town centers, for example) is translated into the types of projects that builders will build and lenders will finance (see Box 1.4). The case study of the planning of I-69 in Box 4.3 provides an example of integrated planning on a regional basis. It describes the planning for a highway incorporating environmental concerns, from the start rather than at the end, in the form of an environmental impact statement. Actors in Transportation Decision Making In many decisions, the most important question is, Who’s in charge? There are many major groups involved in transportation-related deci- sions—for example, transportation providers, local officials, and develop- ers. Another important stakeholder group is citizens, who have the power to stop most controversial projects. The key is to engage all groups, up front, in a vision that they can all support. Those who make decisions on transportation investments include both elected and appointed public officials and boards, along with staff members of transportation agencies. While much of the focus is on major decisions that come at the end of the planning process—for example, by the chief executive of a state department of transportation to construct a new highway or by the public transportation agency to expand a bus terminal—many important decisions are made in the course of the trans- portation planning and analysis process. Although often perceived as routine or as part of the day-to-day prac- tice of transportation planners and engineers, such decisions can have a

116 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE BOX 4.3 The Mississippi Delta: An Ecological Framework: U.S. EPA—Planning and Analysis Branch, Spring 2001 In August 2000, the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) agreed to be the lead agencies in a cooperative information-gathering effort regarding the natural resources of the Mississippi Delta region. This effort was intended to serve a variety of resource protection programs in the delta area, but was to be applied specifically to the pre- planning phases of a new highway slated to run through the Mississippi Delta: I-69. The I-69 project was designated by Congress in 1991 as a high-priority corridor in ISTEA, connecting border crossings with Canada and Mexico and linking to the highway networks of these North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trading partners. The corridor has been referred to as a “North American trade route,” filling a significant gap in the transportation system, serving increased traffic resulting from NAFTA, and supporting economic competitiveness. Although the broad corridor for the project is defined, the specific location has not been determined. The analyses now under way will assess alternative locations, their impacts, and mitigation measures before a final decision is made on the location of the highway. This process is exemplary as a transportation planning effort in that environmental issues were addressed from the beginning, rather than after the fact with an environ- mental impact statement or a postdevelopment remediation. All available ecological data were collected from public and private agencies throughout the delta, in order to develop a model known as the “ecological framework,” which was used as a pre- planning decision-support model for environmental mitigation and protection. Recognizing that successful protection of natural resources requires more than “spot” conservation of isolated areas, this framework attempts to identify not only highly valuable and sensitive ecological areas, but also the links between them. One of the greatest threats to the environment is the loss of ecosystem function due to fragmentation of protected areas. Roads, agriculture, and other development often lead to the cutting up of natural systems into smaller and smaller segments. Large, contiguous tracts of natural land are required not only for species habitat range, such as migratory birds or black bears, but also for healthy ecosystem function. Many ecological processes, such as water filtration and functional evolution require large areas of land, often spanning multiple land cover types. Viable landscape linkages are needed to connect these areas so that ecological processes and healthy function- ing of the land are preserved. These linkages are also helpful in adding to the legibility of the regional-scale landscape (as discussed in Chapter 2). The Mississippi Delta Ecological Framework is being developed to identify areas of high ecological value and their best potential linkages. In addition, the model will identify potential mitigation and restoration sites. Identifying these areas early on may greatly expedite permit, mitigation, and funding procedures. Ecological Framework Methodology Common goals and objectives were set, and roles were determined through cross- agency and organization partnerships. The objective was to compile a common data- continued

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 117 (A) Delta Initiative; Lower Mississippi Delta study area; potential I-69 corridor swath representation. SOURCE: LANDSAT 7 land cover imagery, 1992-1993. Image com- piled by U.S. EPA Region IV. continued

118 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE BOX 4.3 Continued base and model to highlight priority ecological areas of the delta. The land areas were divided into several categories, including priority ecological areas, secondary ecological areas, potential ecological restoration areas, and links. Priority ecological areas were used in the analysis to create hubs, analyzed by size, contiguousness, proximity to roads or urban areas, and compatible land cover. Data included urban areas, black bear habitat in known or potential occupied ranges of 10,000 acres or more, road-free areas of more than 5,000 acres, bird conservation areas, publicly managed lands, wetland reserve areas, reforestation areas, and habitat diversity areas. Secondary ecological areas were determined using data from potential bird conservation areas, potential black bear habitats, significant riparian areas, and road-free areas. Potential ecological restoration areas were determined by measuring areas with high potential for reforestation, secondary ecological areas near or surrounded by agriculture, and smaller secondary ecological areas that could be linked to form larger units. The links of least ecological cost—natural land cover areas—run between the priority ecological areas and function as ecological corridors. The understanding of these ecologically important areas and the linkages between them allows the appro- priate staff at EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, TEA-21, and the FWHA to integrate these findings into their mitigation and transportation planning processes. SOURCE: Stacy Fehlenberg, EPA, personal communication, 2001. profound impact on the livability of communities. Deciding what data to include and exclude in long-range planning, assumptions made in the modeling of travel demand and population projections of the need for a project and the definition of its purpose, decisions on corridors and modal alternatives necessary to meet perceived mobility needs, what criteria and performance measures are selected for screening and analysis, and the inclusiveness and extent of meaningful community interaction in public participation programs—these are all “in-process” decisions that clearly shape the outcomes of planning and the range of choices made available to decision makers. Better data related to livability would help to inform these in-process decisions and make the planning process more reflective of the real impact of transportation investments on communities. Further, an improved planning process provides the potential for improved decision making, not only because it yields a more complete body of information for deci-

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 119 sion makers, but also because this body of information will be available to individuals, stakeholder organizations, and public officials from commu- nities potentially impacted by such decisions. Individuals and groups may be excluded from the decision-making process by agenda setting that expressly or inadvertently makes the impacts of decision making a foregone conclusion prior to the process of discussing and agreeing upon data sources and information needs (Innes, 1996). Judith Innes (1996) discusses “communicative planning” and prac- tices that draw on the work of Jurgen Habermas (Habermas, 1984, 1987). She makes three main points: 1. Communicative practice must be embedded in institutions and practices rather than being applied in a particular case by a scien- tist or planner interested in involving the public in the decision- making process. 2. The process by which information is produced and useful or neces- sary data for the decision are chosen (agreed upon) is crucial. 3. Many types of information may count, not just objective or formal information. The third point refers to the choice of indicators that will be used to measure the effects of a decision or the success or failure of an interven- tion. Both qualitative and quantitative measures are important in the over- all decision process. Role of Public Involvement in the Decision Process Strong public involvement is essential for sound transportation deci- sion making. Just as definitions of what livability means in real communi- ties derive from the perceptions and aspirations of their members, so must good decisions on transportation investments build on the wants and needs of the community and its perceptions of the desirability of investment options, including the no-build alternative. Clearly, this is a great challenge for transportation planners and decision makers, because various stakeholder groups in a community may have competing inter- ests and different perceptions of the benefits and costs of a plan, espe- cially if the distribution of benefits and costs leads to a disproportionate impact on one segment of the community or region. In fact, recent atten- tion to environmental justice in transportation stems from concern over the potentially inequitable distribution of the benefits, impacts, and costs of transportation across population groups within the community. In addition to the technical assessment of these distributional effects, it is

120 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE important to seek out and involve traditionally underserved members of the community as transportation services and facilities are planned. The following are some of the key principles for strong public involve- ment of all stakeholders: • Participation extends from the very start of planning through all decision points. • Participants are involved in determining the involvement program that best fits their community, including its style and members’ needs. • A full range of interested and affected stakeholders is involved, including traditionally underinvolved and underserved segments. • Programs are accessible in various locations, languages, and alter- nate viewpoints in order to allow participation by all community members. • There is a mix of written, verbal, visual, graphic, and in-person techniques for community information, education, and involve- ment. • Information is timely, complete, unbiased, and understandable to laypeople. • Participants understand the process, timing, and people involved in decision making; and public involvement and inclusion efforts are particularly extensive around major decision points. • The community is informed of major decisions, such as how its input was used (or not) and what will happen next. When public involvement programs are developed with these prin- ciples in mind, both participants and decision makers benefit from a structured process for collaborative decision making that fosters open consideration of the trade-offs and consequences of decision choices. Within such a process, decision-support tools can further clarify and aid decision making. Role of Decision-Support Tools Nyerges (2001) identified eight types of systems for decision support (see Box 4.4). Nyerges argues that all eight system types make significant contributions to sound decision making by individual groups. Items e, f, and h (i.e., choice models, structured-group process techniques, analyti- cal reasoning methods) are especially useful in comparing different solu- tions and achieving consensus across various groups. Software has been developed to support each of these eight functions, although no single product is capable of addressing all of these tasks. Sound software exists

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 121 BOX 4.4 Role of Tools in Decision Support Level 1: Basic Information Handling Support (a) Data management and access (e.g., storage, retrieval, and organization of spatial data and information using stand-alone or distributed database management system support) (b) Visual aids (e.g., shared displays of charts, tables, maps, diagrams, matrix and/or other representational formats) (c) Group collaboration support (e.g., idea generation, collection, and compilation; anonymous input of ideas, along with the pooling and display of textual ideas; electronic voting; electronic white boards; computer conferencing; and large- screen displays) Level 2: Decision Analysis Support (d) Phenomenon models (e.g., interlinkage indicator models, site suitability models, location-allocation optimization models, and dynamic simulation models) (e) Choice models (e.g., option preference ranking lists based on pairwise compari- son, multiple-criteria decision models, preference sensitivity modeling, and Bayesian decision models) (f) Structured-group process techniques (e.g., brainstorming, Delphi, modified Delphi, and technology of participation) Level 3: Group Reasoning Support (g) Judgment refinement amplification techniques (e.g., the specific contribution of criteria to project options, sensitivity analysis, and social judgment analysis) (h) Analytical reasoning methods (e.g., using mathematical programming or expert systems guided by automatic mediation, parliamentary procedure, or Robert’s Rules of Order) that identify patterns in a reasoning process SOURCE: Nyerges (2001). for addressing a and b (i.e., data management and access, and visual aids), but the question remains whether any of these computer-based decision-support tools are adequate for comparative purposes. Table 4.1 presents a summary of what Nyerges terms “Micro, Decision Strategy Activities”—the basic steps that are undertaken in any decision process—in the first column, and “Macro, Decision Strategy Phases” in the next three columns. The cells highlight helpful decision-support tools when carrying out different activities within different phases of the decision-making process.

122 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE TABLE 4.1 Micro, Decision Strategy Activities Micro, Decision Macro, Decision Strategy Phases Strategy Activities Intelligencea Designb Choicec Gather Participant input Data using Values, criteria, and feasible on values, goal, information decision options using and objectives management and group collaboration support using information phenomenon methods and structured- models to group process. generate options Organize Goals and An approach to Values, criteria, and feasible objectives using decision option decision options using visual aids, group generation using choice models and collaboration structured-group structured-group process support, and process techniques techniques structured-group and models process Select Criteria to be used Decision options Goal and consensus in decision process from outcomes achieving decision options using group generated by using choice models and collaboration structured-group structured-group process support methods process techniques techniques and models Review- Criteria, resources, Decision options Recommendations of approve constraints, and and identification decision options using standards using of feasible options judgment refinement group collaboration using information techniques support methods management and choice models aAbout values, objectives, and criteria. bOf a feasible option set. cAbout decision options. SOURCE: Nyerges (2001). Information Needs of Decision Makers To make responsive, responsible decisions on potential transporta- tion investments, decision makers need information such as that outlined in the 15 metropolitan planning factors in Box 4.1. This information can then be used to answer questions such as those that follow, for long-range plans and projects. These questions are not new. Rather, they are answered

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 123 using more inclusive, crosscutting information that results from posing the questions within the context of decision making for livability, and then conducting the planning analyses with that broader information. These questions reflect the types of analyses that should be performed during the course of planning, and also correspond broadly to various stages in the planning and decision-making process. In addition to such analyses, close consultation with the public is an essential part of a sound planning and decision-making process. For long-range plans, the follow- ing questions are applicable: • What is the geographic and temporal scope of the plan? • Who was involved in developing the plan? In particular, was there significant, extensive, inclusive public involvement, and to what extent does the plan reflect the input of community participants, from individuals to interest groups, to elected and appointed offi- cials, and including traditionally underrepresented and under- served members of the community? • What is the region’s vision for its future, and to what extent does this plan incorporate the goals and desired outcomes of the plan? • What are projected demographic, economic, and other significant regional trends (including multiple states when this broader regional scale is relevant), and how realistic are the projections? • Are all the relevant components and features of the community included in the plan (e.g., land use and development, open space and other environmental assets, housing, education, major com- munity facilities)? • To what extent does the long-range transportation plan relate coherently to other major plans, goals, community components, and features of the area? • Are alternative ways of achieving the goals of the plan assessed? • Are potential costs, benefits, impacts, and mitigation measures included in the plan, at a level of detail appropriate to long-range planning (versus project development)? • Is livability explicitly addressed in the plan, including the follow- ing: a community-based definition, a discussion of the relationship of the transportation plan to community livability, and the use of crosscutting indicators expressing the impacts of the plan on livability? For project planning, decision makers should document the following: • the purpose of and need for the project; • the goals of the project and relevant evaluation criteria;

124 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE • the project area, including relevant surrounding areas in the region and transportation system; • comments from stakeholders about the desirability and impacts of the project (both positive and negative); documentation of the public participation program—its extent, components, and assessment of efforts to include the full range of project stakeholders, including traditionally underrepresented and underserved constituencies; • alternatives that have been considered, those maintained and dismissed, and the rationale behind them; • a statement about the trade-offs between different alternative ways to meet the need versus the likely impacts: Is a “no build” decision better than any build-implement choices? • analyses performed and the results; • a full accounting of the costs, benefits, and impacts of the project, including how impacts will be mitigated; • the distribution of impacts, both positive and negative, spatially and among different subsets of the population: What primary and secondary impacts will result? Are there ripple effects through the transportation system that bring about other consequences? Are there similar ripple effects economically, socially, and environ- mentally? • explicit consideration of the impacts of the project on the livability of the community, as defined by its members, and the extent to which crosscutting indicators of livability are included in the assessment of project consequences; • relevant legislative and regulatory requirements and how they have been addressed in developing and evaluating the project; and • the final conclusions—on balance, across these many interacting factors, what is the best choice, and what are the implications of that choice in the short and long term? Information for decision makers, indeed, for all process participants, must be accurate, complete, timely, and expressed in terms that are under- standable to laypeople. The information also has to be meaningful; that is, it must be sufficiently comprehensive to capture the range of interactions involved in the proposed plan or project with the surrounding commu- nity and the transportation system of which it is a part; and it must shed light on noteworthy differences between decision alternatives. These interactions and the resulting impacts must include the kinds of data and crosscutting indicators that help explain what the conse- quences of the project or plan are in terms of community livability. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement 34 in 1999, which includes new accounting standards on the presentation of all

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 125 assets and liabilities (including infrastructure) on the public balance sheet. In the short run, implementation of GASB 34 is putting a strain on public agencies, but in the long run it will produce new information about the magnitude and cost of transportation and infrastructure investments for all public entities. Implementation of GASB 34 reporting requirements will be easier for public agencies that have already documented their infrastructure using Geographic Information Systems. CONCLUSIONS Transportation decision making must be part of an integrated approach that reflects broad consideration of the relationship of transportation to achieving a community’s vision of livability. The overall decision process is complex, involving a variety of decision-support tools, a potentially large and wide-ranging body of relevant information, and diverse partici- pants. A decision-oriented approach to transportation planning should focus on the information needs of decision makers. As discussed through- out this report, the information needed for decision making that leads to livable communities often includes what we consider spatial data: for example, data about the location of resources such as hospitals or data about the relationship between one place and another, including the public transportation links between a city and its suburbs. The needed information is comprised of multidimensional social or economic data (e.g., children under age 5, per household, environmental or historical data such as location of toxic waste sites). Accordingly, it is important to recognize the limited experience of many decision makers with the kind of synthetic and technical analyses required to interpret and use the exist- ing data. The regional context of transportation decisions is important because of links between transportation, land use, and economic development at the regional scale. The history of transportation planning suggests the need for a highly responsive decision-making process, well attuned to recent interest in livability. Various tools contribute to sound decision making through supporting the basic handling of information, decision analysis, and group reasoning (Nyerges, 2001) and helping people to over- come their lack of familiarity with data and data analysis. Geographic information tools and visualization can also support the decision process. In particular, the following can improve the transportation decision- support process: • working actively and collaboratively with the community from the very start of transportation planning, incorporating the commu-

126 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE nity’s definitions of livability in framing the issues and needs to be addressed in planning; • conducting transportation planning—whether for a regional sys- tem or facility or a local project—within the regional context and relating issues, needs, and choices to that larger regional context; • developing transportation plans within the context of long-term community and regional goals, including consideration of popula- tion and economic growth, land use and development, transporta- tion access and mobility needs, and potential impacts on the natural and built environments; • following the principles of context-sensitive design in developing transportation plans, particularly through collaboration with com- munity members, consideration of the fit between facilities and services in the local context, and use of design principles that meet both community and technical standards for sound, responsible practice; • collaborating with other units of government within a region to better integrate transportation considerations across responsible agencies, jurisdictions, and modes; • planning transportation in cooperation with land use, natural resources, economic development, and other agencies responsible for these community assets; • including livability as an important goal in transportation plan- ning and measuring the consequences of transportation choices with reference to livability, among the host of factors that go into planning; • actively using data and crosscutting measures that show the rela- tionships of transportation choices to land use, economic develop- ment, and the environment and the potential impacts of these choices on livability; • using GIS and other tools to support analysis and decision making, emphasizing interrelationships, and making the content and implications of planning information clear to analysts, community members, and decision makers; • using the 15 metropolitan planning factors, with appropriate sup- porting information, to develop and assess transportation plans and their impacts; • implementing active, inclusive community involvement programs as an integral part of the planning and decision-making process, including diverse stakeholders from public officials to users, resi- dents, businesses, civic and special interest groups, and those traditionally underinvolved and underserved; • incorporating community perspectives and needs via the partici-

THE DECISION-SUPPORT PROCESS 127 patory process; tailoring potential improvements to community goals, and seeking the support and consensus of a broad range of community stakeholders on desirable courses of action; • using information display and management tools, along with deci- sion-support processes and tools, to better inform all participants in planning (transportation analysts, community participants, and decision makers) and to highlight relevant conflicts and choices that are legitimate parts of analysis and deliberation; • presenting information so it is clear and useful, both for those with technical expertise and for laypeople, as well as using multiple media, particularly visual displays, to make the meaning of the information clear and unambiguous; and • making the decision process itself transparent; identifying those important decision points that occur midstream in planning and at key milestones; and specifying who makes the decisions, with what information and input from others, and with what authority and expertise. REFERENCES Atkinson, A., and J. Stiglitz. 1980. Lectures on Public Economics. New York: McGraw Hill. Banister, D. J. 1994. Transportation Planning. Spon, London. Boulding, K. E. 1974. Reflections of planning: The value of uncertainty. Technology Review 77(1):8. Copeland, T. E., and V. Antikarov. 2001. Real Options: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Texere. Dixit, A., and R. Pindyck. 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Fisher, A., J. Krutilla, and C. Cicchetti. 1972. The economics of environmental preservation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. American Economic Review 62:605-619. Forester, J., ed. 1985. Critical Theory and Public Life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Forester, J. 1969. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gavin, Jennifer. 2000. Building livable highways. AASHTO Quarterly (Fall):23-25. Habermas, J. 1984. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Volume 1 of The Theory of Communicative Action, Thomas McCarthy, transl. Boston: Beacon Press [originally published in German in 1981]. Habermas, J. 1987. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Volume 2 of The Theory of Communicative Action, Thomas McCarthy, transl. Boston: Beacon Press [originally published in German in 1981]. Innes, Judith. 1996. Information in Communicative Planning. Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper 679 (October). University of California at Berkeley. Meyer, Michael D. 1999. Refocusing transportation planning for the 21st century. Presented at Conference on Refocusing Transportation Planning for the 21st Century, February, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Meyer, Michael D., and Eric J. Miller. 2001. Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision Oriented Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

128 COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE Nyerges, Timothy. 2001. Panel 4: Data and technology: Tools, access, and decision-making. Data process and tools for transportation decision-making. Presented at National Research Council Workshop on Transportation Decision-Making: Place, Community, and Quality of Life Irvine, Calif., January 29. Tiebout, C. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64:416-424. Weiner, Edward. 1992. Urban Transportation Planning in the U.S.—A Historical Overview. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Zodrow, G., ed. 1983. Local Provision of Public Services: The Tiebout Model After Twenty- Five Years. New York: Academic Press.

If Only Traffic Would Match the Car, 1952, by Art Bimrose. Courtesy of The Oregonian magazine.

Next: 5 Data and Analysis Tools »
Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

"Quality of life"..."livability"..."sense of place." Communities across America are striving to define these terms and to bring them to life, as they make decisions about transportation systems and other aspects of planning and development.

Community and Quality of Life discusses important concepts that undergird community life and offers recommendations for collaborative planning across space and time. The book explores:

  • Livability as an ensemble concept, embracing notions such as quality of place and sustainability. It discusses how to measure the "three legs" of livability (social, economic, ecological) while accounting for politics and personal values. And the book examines how to translate broad ideas about livability into guidelines for policymaking
  • Place as more than location, including the natural, human-built, and social environments. The book discusses the impact of population changes over time, the links between regional and local identity, and other issues
  • Tools for decision making in transportation and community planning. It reviews a variety of decision models and tools such as geographic information systems (GIS)—as well as public and private sources of relevant data.

Including several case examples, this book will be important to planners, planning decision makers, planning educators and students, social scientists, community activists, and interested individuals.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!