Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-Term Strategy -- Special Report 268 (2002)

Concerns about the community impacts of transportation projects have been voiced since the 1950s and 1960s, when community leaders first challenged proposals to build freeways through inner-city, minority neighborhoods and commercial districts.¹ Citizens opposed to freeways in the 1960s and 1970s used a variety of methods—from demonstrations, to political action, to litigation—to slow or stop freeway construction through urban neighborhoods (Lupo et al. 1971; Colcord 1974; Dittmar 1996). Following passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, the anticipated environmental effects of government-funded projects had to be documented and mitigation measures proposed. Citizen groups questioned many of these reports, in particular for their adequacy in documenting community impacts. NEPA and civil rights statutes were both used to challenge transportation projects that appeared to have disproportionate negative consequences for the poor, people of color, and the politically disenfranchised (National Commission on Urban Problems 1969; Baldassare 1997).

In successive highway bills in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress responded to community concerns regarding transportation impacts by expanding citizen participation and requiring increasingly detailed analyses of social, economic, and environmental effects. Reflecting legislative mandates, a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project in 1975 set forth basic approaches for “highway agencies that were … evolving into transportation agencies … [and] asked to consider a broader range of possible direct and indirect social, environmental, and economic effects in all aspects of their decision-making” (Manheim et al. 1975). Three key findings of this research informed the proposed approaches: (a) “social, economic, and environmental considerations” in transportation planning are important because “inevitable conflicts among competing interests” must be resolved; (b) “social equity must be explicitly recognized and taken into account in transportation decision-making”; and (c) “different groups of people can be expected to have different interests and different priorities.” The report presents a proposed new approach to transportation planning and decision making that relies on ongoing community involvement; considers a wide range of alternatives; and produces information on social, economic, and environmental impacts in ways that clarify their magnitude and incidence.

Almost two decades later, Congress renewed the call for consideration of social, economic, and environmental effects in transportation planning and decision making for both highways and transit with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),² a call that was reiterated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Today, earlier recommendations regarding social equity and environment are being revisited not only by transportation professionals, researchers, and policymakers, but also by the affected population groups. Their common task is to establish a more equitable transportation system characterized by choice in mode, high-quality access, and equity in spending for operations and infrastructure.

The concept of “community impact” has broadened during the past 30 years. In the 1960s and 1970s, impact studies focused primarily on the direct effects of highways and transit investments on economic development and community vitality, on regional levels of transportation system–generated air pollution, and on corridor noise levels. Today, attention is equally devoted to such issues as the effects of transportation investments on metropolitan patterns of growth and decline, neighborhood quality, the comparative accessibility of jobs and other important activities, the impacts of transportation noise and air pollution on different population groups, and differentials in per capita spending for transit. Increasingly recognized as well are the varying transportation needs and interests of men and women, children and adults, the elderly, and those with differing physical or mental abilities.

Civil rights have become a prominent consideration in transportation,³ as has the related notion of environmental justice.⁴ Though first used in connec-

tion with toxic waste sites, the term “environmental justice” commonly refers today to the equitable distribution of both negative and positive impacts across racial, ethnic, and income groups (with environment being broadly defined to include social, economic, and ecological effects). Environmental justice advocates, along with others supporting community reinvestment, have focused their attention on the distribution of transportation benefits and costs and have begun to seek transportation investments that will increase social equity, improve access and mobility among disadvantaged populations, and help improve the quality of life in low-income and minority neighborhoods.

This increased emphasis on the incidence and distribution of costs and benefits is generating new demands on the transportation planning process. Methods that can be used to disaggregate impact information and display effects on different communities and socioeconomic groups are increasingly needed in place of, or as complements to, existing methods and measures. Both metropolitan planning organizations and community groups have been trying out new techniques of data collection and analysis that provide information by neighborhood and city, race and ethnicity, sex and age. At the same time, community members not only are seeking additional information about transportation investments and their impacts, but also want to bring about substantive changes in transportation policies, programs, and projects. In some cases, recognizing the value of transportation research and analysis in achieving these objectives, they have sought to reproduce and test current transportation models and evaluation measures on their own, and have conducted original research that has resulted in important findings (see, e.g., Almanza and Alvarez 1995; Grimshaw 1995; Mann and the Planning Strategy Center 1996).

In this chapter some of the key findings emerging from studies of transportation equity and the distribution of transportation impacts are reviewed,

and recommendations for an initial program of research in this area are presented. In keeping with the dual charge of the Advisory Board, both environmental and planning issues are examined. Throughout this chapter, people of color are often referred to, as is typical in the literature, as belonging to “minority communities.” The terms “lower-income” and “economically disadvantaged” are used interchangeably to describe those in the bottom one-quarter of the U.S. income scale. Demographic data show that people of color typically account for more than 50 percent of this income group, and many are also women, children, or elderly (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1999). A high percentage of this group lives in poverty; indeed, despite economic gains in the 1990s among much of the U.S. population, reports of deprivation and inability to purchase food, health care, and clothing are as widespread now as in past decades (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 1991).

The natural and built environments and the quality of life in a community are inextricably linked to the distribution of transportation system impacts and the social equity of transportation policies and programs. Research carried out during the last decade has only begun to reveal the varied travel needs of different population groups, and to identify planning processes and substantive solutions that can address long-standing concerns about transportation equity and disparate impacts. A decade after the passage of ISTEA, there remains a compelling need for better methods of planning, evaluation, community involvement, and decision making to ensure that environmental and social justice goals are achieved. Some of the fundamental research questions related to transportation, environmental justice, and social equity that must be addressed if those goals are to be met are explored in the remainder of this chapter.

A growing body of research conducted at the national level or for particular regions has identified significant differences in mobility, access, and travel behavior across racial and ethnic groups (Myers 1997; Zmud and Arce 2001; Polzin et al. 1999), across age groups (Myers 1997; Burkhardt and McGavock 1999), and by sex (McGuckin and Murakami 1999; Mallett and McGuckin 2000; Spain 1997). The research suggests, among other things, that minorities are more likely than whites to use transit (Polzin et al. 1999); that women drive more than men, mainly because they shoulder greater responsibilities for home work and children’s transportation (Rosenbloom and Burns 1993);

and that older people are driving more at more advanced ages than they did in the past, resulting in an increased number of accidents among this age group despite the widespread adoption of coping mechanisms (Rosenbloom 1988.)

While this research has provided important evidence on the differing travel behavior and transportation needs of specific population groups, it has done so in a very limited way. In particular, the available studies have not always controlled for other possible explanatory factors, most notably income. Nor has most of the research examined changes in travel behavior over time or accounted for likely changes in behavior under varying conditions of transportation supply and cost. In addition, very little work has examined the policy implications of observed differences in behavior, especially with regard to variations among racial and ethnic groups. There is a large body of work on the transportation needs of the disabled (e.g., Rosenbloom 1981; Rosenbloom 1994); a modest but growing body of work on the needs and concerns of the able-bodied elderly (e.g., Rosenbloom 2001); and a growing but very recent body of work on the travel concerns of current and former welfare clients (e.g., Blumenberg et al. 1998; Chapple 2000). But relatively little work to date has focused on how well various transportation strategies address the observed needs of children, of women versus men, of poor people who have not received public assistance, or of different racial and ethnic groups.

Alternative policy instruments and their differential consequences for costs and affordability have also been explored only briefly. Compared with other important consumer goods such as food, housing, and public utilities, relatively little work has been done relative to transportation to set standards for affordability or to examine how affordability is affected by different policy instruments. Thus while it is understood that low-income households pay a higher share of their income for transportation (and most other necessities) than do more affluent households, there is no equivalent in transportation policy to Section 8 housing subsidies or food stamps.⁵

A limited amount of research has been conducted on the impact of transit fares on low-income groups (e.g., Cervero 1984). Very little work has been done on whether and how a lack of income constrains travel and activity

choices for travelers of either sex or any age or ethnic group. There has been some research on the socioeconomic effects of alternative taxation methods (e.g., Cameron 1994; Wachs 2001) and pricing strategies (e.g., Deakin et al. 1996), but relatively little work on how broader investment choices, such as highway versus transit investments, affect different racial, ethnic, or income groups or how such choices affect women versus men.

Civil rights and environmental justice have been the impetus for a number of challenges to transportation programs and projects in recent years, including cases concerning the provision of transit service and the siting of highways. Some of these conflicts have resulted in litigation.⁶ Underlying these controversies are concerns not only about the adverse effects of transportation projects on different population groups, but also about the fairness of the decision-making processes involved. While a recent court decision may reduce litigation over alleged disparate impacts of transportation projects,⁷ transportation professionals and community leaders continue to seek ways of ensuring the fairness of the planning process and the equity of the resulting plans and investment programs. Research on equity, or justice, is particularly relevant to today’s and tomorrow’s transportation planning and decision-making processes.

According to one definition, justice means having a basis in fact and following established rules and procedures to produce an impartial result. Impartiality, or the absence of prejudice or favoritism, was Cardozo’s definition of fairness and justice under the law (Cardozo 1948). Yet long-standing tradition

supports the idea that justice does not always mean treating everyone in the same way. For example, the law considers context, evaluating the circumstances in interpreting the facts. In addition, in Anglo-American jurisprudence, equity developed as a formal body of doctrines and rules of procedure designed to supplement, and if necessary override, common law and statutes to protect substantive, fundamental rights of individuals. The law of equity addresses those circumstances in which the “ordinary” rules, applied in a blind or narrowly rigid fashion, would produce a result that violates the notion of justice in another sense: that a just result is a good one. Today both the law of equity and the rules of administrative procedure directing how government should operate recognize that due process may require varying rules and approaches to reflect acknowledged differences in circumstances (Deakin 1999).

Rawlsian conceptions of justice offer a still broader notion of equity. Rawls based his theory of justice as fairness on two principles: the first dictates equality in the assignment of rights and duties; the second holds that social and economic inequalities are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least-advantaged members of society (Rawls 1971). The idea that justice necessitates an examination of the distribution of gains and losses and sometimes requires compensatory action has been a powerful one for planners (Davidoff 1975; Krumholz and Forester 1990), and work on the distributional consequences of public policies has provided an important factual basis for reforms.

Research and policy studies have demonstrated that discrimination has occurred in the provision of public services, from the paving of streets and installation of sewers to the delivery of quality education (see, e.g., Ratner 1968; Inman and Rubenfeld 1979; Haar and Fessler 1986; Gillette 1987). Researchers have also sought to address unfairness in the allocation of public burdens, from the routing of highways through inner-city neighborhoods to the siting of landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste disposal sites (Lazarus 1993; Been 1993). The latter studies have consistently shown that neighborhoods having these locally undesirable but regionally necessary facilities tend to be poorer and to house a higher percentage of minorities than other neighborhoods. It is less clear, however, whether this result is due to discriminatory siting practices or to other forces that lead minorities and the poor to settle in impacted areas—such as racial and ethnic discrimination; a shortage of affordable housing; and constraints on the availability of jobs, transportation, and services (Been 1993). Because appropriate remedies depend on the causes of a problem, research is needed to better understand infrastructure siting

processes, household location decisions, and other factors that lead to disproportionate impacts (Bowen 2001; Foreman 1998; Dobson 1998; Gelobter 1992). Research is needed not only for new projects, but also for situations in which adverse community impacts already exist (Bowen 2001). This research could augment current studies that use available data on demographics, travel patterns, ridership, and impacts to show the incidence of impacts (see, e.g., Camacho 1998; Faber 1998).

Box 4-1 describes a number of environmental justice actions taken by transportation advocacy groups in lower-income and minority communities. While in some instances the advocacy groups opposed particular government programs or projects, in each case the groups proposed other approaches that in their view involved preferable social, economic, and environmental consequences. Many of the advocacy groups specifically linked transportation improvements with additional measures that would produce a cleaner environment and expanded economic opportunities (e.g., investments in revitalization of community retail areas, park cleanup).

A review of these and other community actions leads to the following conclusions:

• Transportation is a major issue for low-income and minority communities, tied to the quality of daily life and economic well-being.

• Despite federal legislation during the last decade mandating public input into transportation planning and development in low-income and minority communities, many are dissatisfied with the processes used for this purpose.

• Low-income populations and communities of color are increasingly challenging the equity of transportation agency policies for the funding and operation of public transportation systems.

• Organizations representing low-income groups and communities of color increasingly are carrying out their own analyses of transportation issues. They are developing research techniques, models, and data collection methodologies that can be used to develop alternative transportation policies and spending scenarios for comparison with those promulgated by local transportation agencies.

As the cases in Box 4-1 illustrate, during the past few years community members in several large U.S. metropolitan areas have taken action to address inequities

in transportation costs (particularly fares), services, and funding. Transportation investment disparities have also been identified in rural and suburban areas where low-income populations reside (Dittmar and Chen 1995). Case studies of funding disparities have shown, for example, that heavily used bus services in low-income communities and communities of color were cut back or had to rely on old, poorly maintained equipment, while new investments with high levels of amenity were provided in wealthier suburban areas (Wypijewski 2000; Mann and the Planning Strategy Center 1996). A few cases also documented the community coalitions that successfully changed these conditions (Grimshaw 1995).

While these cases expose the problems and sometimes describe successful remedies, few of the available studies document how the disparities came to exist—whether they were exceptions or commonplace, the result of policy decisions or unintentional. Nor do the studies document how corrective

actions were developed or explain whether the actions taken addressed only the particular situation or led to more general and permanent policy reforms. In short, the available cases rarely provide enough detail to allow generalizations to be made about their causes, effects, and cures. And for the most part, the cases lack sufficient specificity for their solutions to be easily adopted by others who may be facing similar situations.

As noted earlier, transportation research has shown that minorities and low-income households are more dependent on public transport than is the U.S. population as a whole, although this effect declines with income and, for immigrants, with length of time in the United States (Polzin et al. 1999; Myers 1997). Because so many people of color and minority and low-income individuals are transit users, the relatively low level of funding available for transit can have significant mobility implications, as well as environmental and social justice consequences. Research on alternative methods for financing transit and for improving service to make it more attractive to a wide range of users should address these issues by including an explicit analysis of the distribution of benefits and costs according to income, race, and ethnicity.

Many low-income workers are dependent on automobiles for much of their transport, in many cases using older vehicles.⁸ The costs of automobile ownership and operation are affected by public policies in myriad ways, many of which are devised to meet environmental objectives. These policies in turn have impacts that vary with household income, but for the most part, the distributional consequences are not well understood. Studies have examined the equity effects of parking pricing policies, safety and emission standards, vehicle scrappage programs, and insurance costs, among other factors (see, e.g., Deakin et al. 1996; Cameron 1994; Dill 1998). But most of the studies are for a single state or region, often California, and in many instances the researchers were able to investigate only a few broad income levels and not the full range of socioeconomic issues of interest. A wider range of investigation is warranted.

Policies regarding street maintenance and traffic operations also are issues in many economically disadvantaged communities. Maintenance disparities have been documented by some researchers along with policies that tend to produce or exacerbate these disparities (Bullard et al. 2000a; Bullard et al. 2000b; Wilner 2000). Adverse consequences of these disparities can include neighborhood exposure to higher levels of noise, as well as reduced safety and more wear and tear on vehicles traversing poorly maintained roads.

The high traffic levels often present in low-income and minority communities also can be detrimental to the quality of the community environment, resulting in increased noise and congestion, reduced comfort and convenience for pedestrians, and reduced levels of neighborhood and community cohesion (Appleyard 1980). Here, too, policies on traffic management, especially those that call for resident finance of data collection or remediation, can result in disparate availability of remedial actions (see, e.g., Weinstein and Deakin 1999). While there is general agreement that funding mechanisms (e.g., reliance on abutter assessments and property taxes for local transportation improvements) often produce such disparities, generally by reflecting or magnifying underlying income differences, little work has been done to identify alternative methods of transportation finance that would be more equitable.

Intelligent transportation systems and other technological advances are becoming important strategies for many state and local transportation officials. Transportation technology can result in cleaner, safer, more reliable, more convenient, and more efficient transportation (see also Chapter 5). An important equity issue is that many of these new technologies are or will be available only to those who can afford to invest in them and can learn to use them. For example, those who have a home computer and know how to use it can obtain traffic advisories and route information; those not so equipped find it much more difficult to obtain such information. A “digital divide” will exacerbate existing disparities in access and mobility (Mack 2001).

Studies of how different technology implementation pathways might affect various racial, ethnic, and income groups differentially are warranted. Research in this area could involve examining access to and use of such new transportation technologies as smart cards, electronic toll tags, and onboard and hand-held route guidance systems.

It is important to note that new technologies may offer ways to overcome or offset disparities associated with transportation. Work is already proceeding on determining how technological advances could be used to increase the equity and accessibility of transportation systems for disadvantaged populations, for example by making distance-based fees and fares practical or by providing an “invisible” discount to qualified low-income travelers (see, e.g., Bushnell 1995; Fleishman et al. 1996). More work of this sort is clearly needed.

For years transportation planners have used models for forecasting travel demand and evaluating system improvements. Most of these models produce aggregate estimates of travel choices and traffic flow without regard to cultural and racial differences in opportunity and preference. Neither the sex nor the age of the traveler is considered, unless the traveler is too young to have a driver’s license. Likewise, racial and ethnic differences are typically omitted from the model specification. While income enters into most standard models in relation to time (and value of time) and cost variables, the typical models use aggregate data (often zonal averages) that mask disparities in income and ability to pay (Harvey and Deakin 1993). When air quality and noise models are used, they typically are applied at the level of the corridor or region without regard to recipients’ characteristics. Thus, both in specification and in application, standard models provide little information on social and economic differences.

Disaggregate travel demand models and methods such as sample enumeration and microsimulation offer significant opportunities for greatly improving transportation-related forecasts. These approaches can allow forecasts to be made for any subgroup of interest as long as the underlying data are adequate to support the analysis. To date, however, these methods have been applied in only a handful of metropolitan areas. Furthermore, the complexity of the models suggests that the level of effort required to understand and apply them may be quite high. Thus there is a need for both more testing and dissemination of models capable of disaggregate analyses, and the development of simplified sketch planning models and heuristics for evaluating the effects of transportation projects on different demographic and socioeconomic groups. These latter models and heuristics would be used as a first-cut alternative to the more complex models.

Improvements also are needed in cost/benefit analysis methods. Most of the existing methods (often based on available software) share with travel forecasting models the tendency to aggregate data in a way that masks rather than displays the incidence of impacts on various groups and interests. In addition, most cost/benefit methods omit measures that cannot easily be quantified, such as quality of life (Forkenbrock and Schweitzer 1999). While alternative approaches, including impact tableaux, cost-effectiveness analysis, and community-based rating and ranking schemes, have been available for many years, they are not frequently applied at present.

A promising method for both analyzing and displaying impact information involves using geographic information system (GIS) tools to create maps showing the location and intensity of various transportation-related effects. By using overlays of socioeconomic and demographic data, jurisdiction and neighborhood boundaries, and the like, relationships between transportation projects and their community effects can be visualized. Both beneficial aspects, such as access and mobility measures, and negative impacts, such as pollution concentrations, can be mapped. Increasingly, GIS-based methods of impact display are being used both by public agencies and community activists to examine transportation project effects. Indeed, those who represent low-income populations in transportation delivery and planning have begun to develop their own GIS tools for evaluating the next generation of transportation services (Almanza and Alvarez 1995; Rothman et al. 1998). Some researchers also have experimented with user-friendly, community-focused information systems and models that assist communities in matching their transportation needs with the best alternatives for meeting those needs. These models are designed to be used independently or in cooperation with transportation agency staff and policymakers (Zimmerman et al. 1997). Research is needed to examine these emerging planning methods and evaluate their efficacy.

The role of transportation in shaping land use and patterns of development (urban, suburban, and rural) has emerged as a significant research topic during the last decade (see Chapter 6). From an environmental justice perspective, sprawling suburbs compete for jobs, housing, and other resources with the inner city and older suburbs, which together are home to the majority

of low-income and minority households. In turn, few suburbs are developed in a pattern that can be served successfully by transit. As the share of a metropolitan region that is transit-oriented declines, those who depend on transit for their basic mobility become vulnerable to service cuts and accessibility losses. Further, as more people depend on automobiles to meet their travel needs, costs for highway infrastructure rise and traffic impacts increase; these costs and impacts fall heavily on low-income and minority households.

Demographic analyses conducted during the last four decades indicate that a majority of the nation’s metropolitan areas are divided spatially by race, ethnicity, and income (Massey and Denton 1993; Bullard 1997; Benfield et al. 1999). Research also suggests that this segregation is not solely the result of market choices or discrimination in the housing market, but also a consequence of public policies, including investments in suburban highways, preferential tax policies for home ownership, infrastructure policies favoring new construction over maintenance and rehabilitation, and government and private redlining⁹ in inner-city neighborhoods (Burrington and Heart 1999; Powell 1999; Richmond 1995). The consequences of such policies warrant more research to identify their relative contributions to these urban segregation patterns.

Today, policies intended to slow or reverse the decline of inner cities and older suburbs are being tested, as discussed in detail in Chapter 6. Just as further study of sprawl is warranted, it is important for research to address the possible unintended consequences of antisprawl policies on minorities and low-income communities. One such consequence of increasing concern is “gentrification” and its possible effects on existing residents (ranging from rising costs to outright displacement) (Beauregard 1985; Anderson 1990; Smith 1996; Kennedy and Leonard 2001). The factors underlying gentrification are highly contested, and there is little certainty about the efficacy of policies being proposed to protect lower-income households (transit-oriented design, job development, affordable housing development). Policy research on suburbanization and community revitalization thus could have both transportation and environmental justice aspects.

Federal statutes mandate that state and regional planning agencies ensure public input on transportation investment and spending decisions. Most states have similar requirements. Yet many community groups are dissatisfied with the current planning processes. Public agencies hold hearings and workshops, run focus groups, conduct surveys, and respond to comments on environmental impact statements. As Arnstein (1969) notes, however, actual participation in the development, evaluation, and selection of alternatives is unusual. Innes and Booher (1999) believe the biggest obstacles to change are two institutionally entrenched models of planning: the technical bureaucratic model, which focuses on analyses and relegates citizen involvement to minor feedback, and the political influence model, which operates with the powerful players and does not welcome direct citizen involvement at all.

Certainly citizens are concerned about discrepancies between the comments and suggestions made by community members during the planning process and the way public funds are ultimately spent. Public agencies are concerned about the legitimacy of their decision processes and whether the participants in the planning process are representative of the larger public. Given the importance of outcomes as well as processes, research on public involvement and its effects on funding decisions, project design, impact assessment, and outcomes is an essential element in making transportation planning and decision making more effective.

In addition, there has been growing recognition that the sheer diversity of views requires a new approach to decision making (Schlosberg 1999). Many researchers have concluded that social justice requires a democratization of the planning and decision processes, and that this objective can often be attained through cooperative approaches (Ostrom 1990). The success of such approaches depends, however, on building individual and group capacity to participate in the process and to identify and communicate one’s interests. Success also depends on developing sufficient mutual trust and other forms of social capital (including leadership) to keep the process going. The increased use of capacity-building and consensus processes in a variety of planning applications (Innes 1992; Innes 1998) is an important step toward broader participation and democracy, and hence greater social equity, in planning. Innes and Booher (1999) report that newly emerging collaborative planning processes, implemented as a loose network of communicating citizens and public and private entities, enable citizens to learn how to deliberate effec-

tively. They note that people involved in such processes come to prefer them to confrontation. A recent handbook by Susskind et al. (1999) provides examples and guidance, but specific applications for transportation need further development.

Emerging citizen coalitions in low-income and minority communities have advocated a basic theme of “back to local control,” reflecting the policies of ISTEA and TEA-21. This participatory activism is particularly apparent in communities of color, where transportation is regarded as a civil right. The roles and limitations of local control are appropriate topics for study, especially because there are both supporters and critics of localism as a strategy. Innes and Gruber (2001), for example, caution that devolution can make it difficult to address regional issues and concerns.

Research also is needed to evaluate alternative models of decision making and the role of social justice coalitions. Questions to be addressed include how various groups frame the debate on environmental and social justice issues, what process is used by people and communities to interpret and express their transportation needs, and why some disengaged communities have developed the ability to organize and resolve transportation problems while others are still not empowered.

The following recommendations are organized into seven areas: (a) differences in mobility, access, and travel behavior across demographic groups; (b) definitions of social equity and understanding of environmental justice problems and issues; (c) effects of costs, funding, and finance methods; (d) new technologies and their impacts; (e) methods and processes for the evaluation of impacts and their distribution; (f ) effects of sprawl on social equity; and (g) approaches to public involvement.

While currently available studies offer some insights into differences in travel options and behaviors for various social, economic, and demographic groups,

much more work is needed to explore choices, constraints, and preferences more thoroughly and to understand their consequences. Research needs include, for example, documentation of changes (or stability) in various groups’ behavior over time; consideration of the effects of experience, changing income, aging, and other life-cycle changes; and examination of changes in the transportation options available. The social and environmental impacts of identified differences in transportation preferences and choices should be explored as well. Cross-sectional as well as longitudinal research designs are needed, as are case studies that provide depth and richness of understanding.

Working definitions and indicators of environmental justice and social equity that are widely understood and accepted remain to be developed. The process of definition will need to occur through a collaborative effort involving a range of stakeholders in meaningful discussions, and it may need to be revisited and updated from time to time. Similarly, the development of indicators for use in measuring environmental justice is likely to require research conducted through collaborative processes.

Research is needed to identify and document how current investment policies affect different groups and interests, with particular attention to minorities and the economically disadvantaged. Both detailed case studies and cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are appropriate. Findings from this research should, over the longer run, support investigations into alternative methods of finance and their comparative equity and impacts.

Policy analyses and empirical research that illuminate the causes of disparities in transportation investment are needed. Such research could examine decision-making processes, including models of decision making and “world views,” that result in greater or smaller disparities, and could help identify ways to improve transportation equity and avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Research on new technologies should be expanded to include evaluation of their accessibility to low-income and minority communities, the young, the elderly, and the disabled. Research should also address how new technologies might be used to overcome existing gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged groups and to enable communities to become better integrated into the transportation decision-making process.

Current evaluation methods are often too aggregate to reveal social, economic, demographic, and community-based differences in the impacts of transportation programs and projects. Low-income and minority communities have been shown to suffer disproportionate negative impacts from transportation projects. If such consequences are to be avoided in the future, better methods are needed for performing transportation forecasting and analysis, as well as for carrying out and communicating the results of program and project evaluations. The role of the public in such evaluations is an appropriate topic for research, as discussed in recommendation 3-7 below.

Research aimed at identifying performance measures that adequately reflect the distribution of transportation impacts also should be carried out. Research should be conducted as well to develop new strategies for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts and disparate burdens associated with transportation programs and projects.

Innovative data analysis procedures, utilizing qualitative as well as quantitative criteria, should be further developed and refined. Methods that use GIS

and other new impact analysis and display methods should be given particular priority, since work to date indicates that these methods have considerable potential for effectively communicating analysis results to decision makers and the general public. Methods that draw on community-based knowledge and resources, such as communities’ own assessments of their assets and concerns, also should be given research attention.

Research is beginning to identify the connections among sprawl, inner-city decline, lengthy commutes, congestion, and damage to the urban and natural environments. While the work to date is revealing, it is neither comprehensive nor definitive, and more research is warranted. Research should be carried out to evaluate “smart growth” alternatives and their efficacy, as well as their effects on housing prices, environmental quality, regional and local economic development, and the well-being and satisfaction of various social and economic groups.

New approaches to public involvement that focus on collaboration and mutual learning, rather than on mere comment and feedback, show significant promise. Research should help elucidate the conditions under which these methods are effective, and evaluate their effectiveness in transportation planning and environmental assessment. The role of social justice organizations in transportation and environmental decision making also needs to be examined. The participatory activism displayed by social justice organizations has challenged traditional notions of transportation planning and research. Social justice coalitions are introducing their own data, analyses, cost/benefit calculations, and alternatives into transportation planning processes, creating new political dynamics and issues for transportation agencies and decision makers that are only beginning to be examined. Research is needed on planning frameworks that can accommodate

a broader spectrum of data and perspectives, as well as on improved ways to include the public in transportation analyses and evaluations.

GAO General Accounting Office

TRB Transportation Research Board

Almanza, S. R., and R. Alvarez. 1995. Transportation Facilities in Low-Income Communities and Communities of Color. Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall, pp. 15–17.

Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban Community. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

Appleyard, D. 1980. Livable Streets. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216–224.

Baldassare, M. 1997. Impacts of the Highway Transportation System on Delivery of Health Services and Social Services. In The Future Highway Transportation System and Society: Suggested Research on Impacts and Interactions, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 164–177.

Beauregard, R. A. 1985. Politics, Ideology and Theories of Gentrification. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 4.

Been, V. 1993. What’s Fairness Got to Do with It? Environmental Justice and the Siting of Locally Undesirable Land Uses. Cornell Law Review, Vol. 78, Sept., pp. 1001–1085.

Benfield, K. F., M. D. Raimi, and D. D. T. Chen. 1999. Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl Is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy and Social Fabric. National Resources Defense Council, Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Blumenberg, E., T. Moza, and P. Ong. 1998. Getting Welfare Recipients to Work. UCTC Working Paper 389. University of California at Los Angeles.

Bowen, W. 2001. Environmental Justice Through Research-Based Decision-Making. Garland, New York.

Bullard, R. D. 1997. Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility. New Society Press, British Columbia, Canada.

Bullard, R. D., G. S. Johnson, and A. O. Torres. 2000a. The Routes of American Apartheid. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall, pp. 66–74.

Bullard, R. D., G. S. Johnson, and A. O. Torres. 2000b. Dismantling Transportation Apartheid: The Quest for Equity. In Sprawl City: Race, Politics, and Planning in Atlanta (R. D. Bullard, G. S. Johnson, and A. O. Torres, eds.), Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Burkhardt, J. E., and A. T. McGavock. 1999. Tomorrow’s Older Drivers: Who? How Many? What Impacts? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1693, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 62–70.

Burrington, S. H., and B. Heart. 1999. City Routes, City Rights: Building Livable Neighborhoods and Environmental Justice by Fixing Transportation. ww.tlcnetwork.org/city_routes.htm.

Bushnell, W. R. 1995. Smart Cards for Transit: Multi-Use Remotely Interrogated Stored-Data Cards for Fare and Toll Payment. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.

Camacho, D. 1998. Environmental Injustices, Political Struggles: Race, Class and the Environment. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.

Cameron, M. 1994. Efficiency and Fairness on the Road: Strategies for Unsnarling Traffic in Southern California. Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, Calif.

Cardozo, B. 1948. The Growth of the Law. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

Cervero, R. 1984. Cost and Performance Impacts of Transit Subsidies. Transportation Research A, Vol. 18, No. 5/6.

Chapple, K. 2000. Paths to Employment. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Colcord, F. 1974. Urban Transportation Decision Making. Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Davidoff, P. 1975. A Study of Growth and Segregation. Suburban Action Institute, New York.

Deakin, E. 1999. Social Equity in Planning. Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol. 13.

Deakin, E., G. Harvey, R. Pozdena, and G. Yarema. 1996. Transportation Pricing Strategies for California, Final Report to the California Air Resources Board. University of California Transportation Center Paper, Nov. www.uctc.net.

Dill, J. 1998. California Vehicle License Fees: Incidence and Equity. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 2, No. 8.

Dittmar, H. 1996. Interest-Based Convening: Toward Participatory Decision Making in Transportation Investment. Presented at International Conference on Prioritization

of Multimodal Transport Infrastructure, Noordwijk ann Zee, Netherlands, May 12–15.

Dittmar, H., and D. Chen. 1995. Equity in Transportation Investments. In Transportation: Environmental Justice and Social Equity Conference Proceedings (Report FTA-DC-26-6025-95-1), Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C., and Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, Ill.

Dobson, A. 1998. Justice and the Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. Feb. 11.

Faber, D. (ed.). 1998. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. Guilford Press, New York.

Fleishman, D., N. Shaw, A. Joshi, R. Freeze, and R. Oram. 1996. TCRP Report 10: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Foreman, C. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Forkenbrock, D. J., and L. A. Schweitzer. 1999. Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 65, No. 1, Winter, pp. 96–111.

GAO. 1998. Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving from Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.

Garcia, R. 2000. Mean Streets. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Vol. 15,No. 3, Fall, pp. 75–81.

Gelobter, M. 1992. Toward a Model of Environmental Discrimination. In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse (B. Bryant and P. Mohai, eds.), Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Gillette, C. 1987. Equality and Variety in the Delivery of Urban Services. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 100, p. 946.

Grimshaw, J. 1995. Public Facilities Siting and Transportation Access. Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall.

Haar, C., and D. Fessler. 1986. The Wrong Side of the Tracks. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Harvey, G., and E. Deakin. 1993. A Manual of Regional Transportation Modeling Practice for Air Quality Analysis. National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C., July.

Inman, R. P., and D. L. Rubenfeld. 1979. The Judicial Pursuit of Local Fiscal Equity. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 92, p. 1662.

Innes, J. 1992. Group Processes and the Social Construction of Growth Management. Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn.

Innes, J. 1998. Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter.

Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 9–26.

Innes, J., and J. Gruber. 2001. Bay Area Transportation Decision Making in the Wake of ISTEA: Planning Styles in Conflict at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Working Paper 514. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley.

Kennedy, M., and P. Leonard. 2001. Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices. Brookings, Washington, D.C.

Krumholz, N., and J. Forester. 1990. Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sector. Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.

Lazarus, R. J. 1993. Pursuing “Environmental Justice”: The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 787–857.

Lupo, A., F. Colcord, and E. P. Fowler. 1971. Rites of Way: The Politics of Transportation in Boston and the U.S. City. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Mass.

Mack, R. L. 2001. The Digital Divide: Standing at the Intersection of Race and Technology. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, N.C.

Mallett, W. J., and N. McGuckin. 2000. Driving to Distractions: Recreational Trips in Private Vehicles. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1719, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 267–272.

Manheim, M. L., J. H. Suhrbier, E. D. Bennett, L. A. Neumann, F. C. Colcord, Jr., and A. T. Reno, Jr. 1975. NCHRP Report 156: Transportation Decision-Making: A Guide to Social and Environmental Considerations. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Mann, E., and the Planning Strategy Center. 1996. A New Vision for Urban Times. Labor/Community Publications, Los Angeles, Calif.

Massey, D. S., and N. A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

McGuckin, N., and E. Murakami. 1999. Examining Trip-Chaining Behavior: Comparison of Travel by Men and Women. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1693, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 79–85.

Myers, D. 1997. Changes over Time in Transportation Mode for Journey to Work: Effects of Aging and Immigration. In Conference Proceedings 13: Decennial Census Data for Transportation Planning: Case Studies and Strategies for 2000, Vol. 2: Case Studies, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 84–99.

National Commission on Urban Problems. 1969. Building the American City. Praeger, New York.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 1991. The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. Oct. 27, Washington, D.C.

Polzin, S. E., X. Chu, and J. Rey. 1999. Mobility and Mode Choice of People of Color for Non-Work Travel: Finding from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Surveys. Center for Urban Transportation Research, New Brunswick, N.J.

Powell, J. A. 1999. Achieving Racial Justice: What’s Sprawl Got to Do with It? Poverty and Race, Vol. 8, No. 5, Sept.–Oct.

Principles of Environmental Justice. 1991. Proceedings of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Oct. 24–27, Washington, D.C.

Ratner, G. M. 1968. Inter-Neighborhood Denials of Equal Protection in the Provision of Municipal Services. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, Fall.

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Richmond, H. 1995. Linked Housing and Transit Development for America’s Cities and Suburbs: A Joint Strategy for Social Justice and Environmental Quality. Urban Habitat Program, Earth Island Institute, San Francisco, Calif.

Rosenbloom, S. 1981. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 83: Bus Transit Accessibility for the Handicapped in Urban Areas. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Rosenbloom, S. 1988. The Mobility Needs of the Elderly. In Special Report 218: Transportation in an Aging Society: Improving Mobility and Safety for Older Persons, Vol. 2, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 21–71.

Rosenbloom, S. 1994. The Impact of the ADA on Special Services Provided by Urban Transit Systems. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Rosenbloom, S. 2001. Sustainability and Automobility Among the Elderly: An International Assessment. Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 4, Nov., pp. 375–408.

Rosenbloom, S., and E. Burns. 1993. Do Environmental Measures and Travel Reduction Programs Hurt Working Women? Drachman Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Rothman, I., D. Beckwith, and R. Stolz. 1998. Getting to Work: An Organizer’s Guide to Transportation Equity. Center for Community Change, Washington, D.C.

Schlosberg, D. 1999. Environmental Justice and the New Pluralism. Oxford University Press, New York.

Smith, N. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routledge, London.

Spain, D. 1997. Societal Trends: The Aging Baby Boom and Women’s Increased Independence. No. DTFH61-97-P-00314. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Susskind, L., S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer (eds.). 1999. The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1999. Poverty in the U.S., 1999, Highlights. www.census.gov/hhes/poverty99.html.

Wachs, M. 2001. Regional Transportation Infrastructure Finance in the U.S. UCTC Final Report, Fall. www.uctc.net.

Weinstein, A., and E. Deakin. 1999. How Local Governments Finance Traffic Calming. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3, Summer.

Wilner, F. N. 2000. Environmental Justice. Traffic World, Vol. 261, No. 2, Jan. 10, p. 12.

Wypijewski, J. 2000. Back to the Back of the Bus. The Nation, Dec. 22.

Zimmerman, C. A., C. Cluett, J. H. Heerwagen, and C. J. Hostick. 1997. Communication and Information Technologies and Their Effect on Transportation Supply and Demand. In The Future Highway Transportation System and Society: Suggested Research on Impacts and Interactions, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 108–126.

Zmud, J. P., and C. H. Arce. 2001. Influence of Consumer Culture and Race on Travel Behavior. In Transportation Research Circular E-C026: Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 379–389. trb/org/trb/publications/ec026/ec026.pdf.