• Mitigation
• Adaptation
• Sustainability
• Energy

• Ongoing & Current Research
• Resources & Publications
• Policy & Guidance
• Webinars
• Workshops & Peer Exchanges
• Newsletter
• Contacts

Summary Report: Workshops on Integrating Climate Change with Transportation Planning, October & November 2010

III. Summary of Workshop Proceedings and Outcomes

A. Introduction and Overview

This section provides a summary of the proceedings of each of the five workshops. It also provides highlights of the various key issues associated with the consideration of climate change in transportation planning raised by participants. Section IV of this report provides a distillation and assessment of these issues and their implications for future FHWA activities.

B. State Departments of Transportation (DOT) Workshops

1. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

Summary

Florida DOT helped convene the FHWA workshop to explore how best to address climate change adaption information sharing, coordinated planning and coordinated implementation actions. In Florida, the framework for working on climate adaptation via transportation planning at the State level is just being formed. With the lack of a transportation-climate change adaptation framework, the workshop posed many questions, identified obstacles, and highlighted areas for follow-up, but did not produce many conclusions between participants.

Overall, FDOT itself wishes to improve sharing of data and projected assumptions and impacts associated with sea level rise, storm surge, scour, and other key adaptation challenges that confront Florida. Participants that represented a variety of State, regional, and non-profit entities explored additional outcomes including avenues to improve multi-sector and multi-agency coordinated adaptation planning, including the identification of vulnerabilities. A key issue raised by workshop participants was that they believe the State needs to define an overarching process goal (e.g., data sharing only, data plus collaborative planning, etc.) as different governmental entities at various scales approach these issues together.

Themes of Participant Comments/Discussions

• Data may vary in different parts of the State and that is acceptable. Further, a range of assumptions should be considered, the burden of one defensible set of assumptions is an unnecessary hurdle to create.
• The State needs to better understand the multiple and synergistic effects of climate change impacts. (e.g., sea-level rise together with hurricanes.) Often they are considered in isolation from each other.
• Communication protocols on climate change need to be established between levels of government. Ultimately, adaptation planning needs to be integrated with day-to-day or ongoing planning processes.
• The impacts of climate change in Florida in some areas may be widespread and dramatic. At some point, land use patterns and associated decisions should be explored to reduce anticipated areas of impact. However, the participants acknowledged the political and procedural difficulties in addressing the location of development patterns.

2. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

Summary

WSDOT helped convene the FHWA workshop to help MPOs across the State explore scenario planning at the regional scale. The MPOs in Washington are working to implement Washington State Executive Order 09-05 (EO), which mandates that MPOs with urban counties "develop and adopt regional transportation plans that will, when implemented, provide people with additional transportation alternatives and choices, reduce greenhouse gases and achieve the statutory benchmarks to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled..."³ Washington State was in the very early stages of implementing this executive order at the time of the workshop; meetings to discuss the EO were being held in the same week as the FHWA workshop, which reduced attendance from some invited MPOs. Presentations generated conversation on modeling topics, communication techniques that address climate change and regional land use and transportation characteristics, and techniques to establish a vision once a series of scenarios have been developed.

Themes of Participant Comments/Discussions

• Modeling Future Behavior Appropriately for a Scenario: The most extensive discussion focused on the fallibility of calibrating modeling tools based on past behavior for use in a wide-ranging scenario planning process. If the region's past and current urban forms do not bear a reasonable relationship to what is being contemplated in a long-range scenario, the travel patterns that the model would predict may also not be reasonable. Therefore, for the purposes of scenario planning, it may be appropriate to relax the assumption that past behavior should solely inform predictions of future behavior. Participants discussed the delicacy of using this approach and that it must be balanced with an effort to maintain the credibility and defensibility of the tools and the overall scenario planning process. Modifying the model from calibration based on historic travel behavior should be made clear and expectations should be appropriately managed. Furthermore, a modified model should not be used for conformity analyses or NEPA. One idea that emerged from the workshop on this topic was to have FHWA sponsor a pilot project to demonstrate the appropriate use of alternative modeling techniques within a scenario planning effort.
• Effectively Communicating Climate Change: Participants had great interest in communication techniques to engage people with various attitudes toward human-caused climate change. Discussion also focused on values-based or 'laddering' communication techniques that relate to the underlying or more basic associations people have with various words.
• Understanding the Market Consistency of GHG/ VMT Reduction Strategies ("Turning Vision into Reality"): A discussion thread that surfaced periodically throughout the workshop centered on how to understand and work with prevailing desires and market demand as land use and transportation characteristics of a vision or of a set of policies are developed and implemented. Related to this topic was the recognition that MPOs and WSDOT have no land use authority and thus have limited ability to regulate the outcomes put forth in a regionally preferred scenario. Presentations and discussion focused on increasing political support for the vision and increase the likelihood of local governmental implementation.

C. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) Workshops

1. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO)

Summary

The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), in partnership with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), invited a broad range of participants, many from non-profit organizations and State and local public agencies that have addressed climate change in a variety of ways in the Burlington area in recent years. The CCMPO suggested that the workshop was organized around the central question of how the region should conduct a Climate Action Plan (CAP) process that would be led jointly by the CCMPO and CCRPC. The backdrop for this discussion was the announcement of a $1-million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) "sustainable communities" program.

During the course of the workshop, participants explored a series of fundamental questions, including the goals of the CAP, specific GHG mitigation and climate adaptation actions, components of the CAP planning process, parties to engage in the process, public involvement approaches, and the ultimate CAP products.

Themes of Participant Comments/Discussions

• CAP as Multi-sector, Integrated Strategy: Participants believed the CAP should be inter-disciplinary and integrate sectors beyond transportation. At the same time, they also believed it should be integrated with the CCMPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan. There was interest in using the CAP process to create a comprehensive alliance of multi-sector partners for addressing climate change, including the public, private and non-profit sectors. Participants noted that it is important to identify where and how key CAP implementation decisions will be made, and to tie the CAP into the plans of the entities that will make the implementation decisions.
• Broadening Outreach and Marketing: Participants said that individuals changing their behavior to be more "climate-friendly" should also be a goal of the CAP. To achieve this, there is a need to educate citizens and provide an educational framework that helps achieve a big shift in public willpower and behavior. Goals that will actually be effective in helping slow the effects of climate change are extremely hard to achieve unless there is substantial shift in public attitudes and actions. Participants also said that an ongoing, widely "marketed" plan in which all sectors can participate will be important in order to produce a CAP plan that local communities will buy into and in which they will participate.
• Focus on Strategies with Greatest Impact: Participants agreed that climate "solutions" identified in the CAP need to be measurable so that the Plan's effectiveness can be monitored, assessed and publicized. It is important that CAP not be a paper plan on a shelf, but a list of specific action items, with a timetable and implementation responsibilities articulated. Participants suggested that the CAP's primary focus be on the three sectors with the biggest potential to reduce GHG emissions in Vermont: transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and agriculture. Cumulatively, these account for 89 percent of the State's GHG emissions. In addition, the CAP should include a methodology for implementing a long-term tracking system that allows "adaptive management" of climate action strategies as conditions change over time. Participants also concurred that CAP strategies should be assessed for cost-effectiveness vis-à-vis the presumed implementing entity as part of the process for determining what strategies are ultimately included in the CAP.

2. Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Summary

ARC has conducted a variety of regional visioning and scenario planning efforts in the past decade including the recent Envision 6 effort. Therefore, this workshop focused on next steps toward more effective implementation of existing regional land use frameworks and programs. The Atlanta region is currently facing a severe water crisis. A Federal court ruling last summer threatens Lake Lanier's future viability as the region's primary source of water. The water crisis together with an upcoming transportation sales tax referendum put the topic of addressing climate change in a broader and more complicated political context. Discussion centered on utilizing these immediate threats and opportunities to move GHG mitigation efforts forward. This would be done by focusing on co-benefits and communication techniques that do not center on climate change by itself. Of the five workshop sites, the Atlanta region is one of the more sensitive when it comes to openly discussing human-caused climate change with local officials and regional stakeholders.

Themes of Participant Comments/Discussions

• Localized/ integrated communication techniques: Discussion and presentations focused on addressing climate change in a region where climate change skepticism is common. Participants discussed co-benefits, such as household savings of time and money associated with reduced travel demand and mode shifts toward walk, bike, transit, and carpooling. Economic growth co-benefits were also seen as a key. Discussion also focused on how to use the Atlanta area water crisis to work toward GHG mitigation by emphasizing the link between increased density and reduced water demand. Communication techniques that resonate with local residents and match their values held particular interest. Generally, there was a desire among workshop participants for better educational and training material to draw upon as local implementation steps are conducted.
• Multi-sector approaches: ARC has reached out to local governments extensively to communicate the link between land use strategies and efficient transportation behavior. Within the broader goal of reducing GHG, the workshop explored reductions that could come through non-transportation sectors such as building construction techniques and energy sector improvements. ARC's lack of authority beyond the transportation sector directed the discussion toward partnerships with other agencies.
• Plan management: Within the backdrop of Envision 6 and the Livable Centers Initiative (LCI), discussion also centered on how to improve the effectiveness of ongoing implementation efforts. This included discussion on the LCI, corridor and sub-regional visioning and planning techniques. FHWA support was discussed as well. This included the value of additional financial resources, a Peer exchange, minimizing inconsistencies between various FHWA standards, requirements and guidelines, and capacity building.

D. MPO/DOT Partnership Workshop

1. Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)

Summary

In 2010, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1059 (SB1059), a statewide, comprehensive bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation.⁴ SB1059 names the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as the lead agencies in implementing its requirements. The relevant State agencies along with Lane COG and the other MPOs affected by SB1059 (all except for the Portland area MPO, METRO), were early in the process of operationalizing the language of SB1059 in the months before and after the FHWA workshop.

It was premature to address specific questions and answers regarding how to address SB1059. Some key decisions need to be made to narrow the universe of options before meaningful 'next steps' discussions can be held. Therefore, participants preferred to reflect on SB1059, ask key questions that the legislation may create, think through some of the unanticipated consequences, and outline general approaches to ensuring that the legislation most effectively accomplishes its climate mitigation goals.

The workshop focused on a few key topics: fundamental approaches to scenario planning, the range of roles, resources, and guidance that the State could provide to enable MPOs to be effective in the work of addressing SB1059, and an open discussion of the broad range of transportation-related strategies that should be explored to reduce GHG.

Themes of Participant Comments/Discussions

• Alternative Approaches to Scenario Planning: Scenarios were discussed as a tool to accomplish two different general goals: (1) to face fundamental uncertainty and reaction to-or resiliency in the face of-significant shifts in external forces; e.g., demographic, economic, and environmental conditions well beyond the control of local and regional policy makers; or (2) Scenarios as mechanisms to test land use and transportation interactions while limiting the variability of external forces (i.e., more like an alternatives analysis). Participants struggled with which emphasis SB1059 should place on the two different scenario planning approaches (although it was acknowledged that the two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Participants supported and periodically affirmed the need to do both types of scenario planning. There was recognition that trying to utilize both approaches in the same planning process could create complexities that are too substantial for officials and the public.
• Broad Questions and Issues Related to Operationalizing Requirements of SB 1059: Participants explored general responses and key considerations raised by elements of SB1059, including (1) the toolkit, (2) the guidelines that State agencies would provide, and (3) the types of policy and investment levels that may be explored at either the metropolitan and local scale or the State level:
  • GHG Planning Toolkit (per SB 1059): While the legislation calls for a GHG planning "toolkit" to be made available to MPOs, there may be five distinct areas of tools, including tools to mitigate GHG emissions (e.g., TDM), modeling and technical tools, public communication strategies, GHG analysis "best practices" (e.g., inventories and projections),and process tools (methods for improving inter-jurisdictional coordination and commitment to reduce GHG emissions).
  • State Standards or Guidelines: Participants identified a range of guidelines or standards that would need to be provided at the State level to improve the efficiency of implementing the elements of SB1059, including clarification of the base year for analyses and adoption of accepted standards and planning assumptions.
  • Metropolitan and State-level GHG Emission Mitigation "Levers:" Participants identified a broad list of policy and investment strategies to reduce GHG emissions from transportation that could potentially be implemented at the metropolitan, local and State levels. The main questions from participants pertained to how best to assess each strategy's efficacy at each level and how to prioritize them for implementation.