2012031014312705.pdf

www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 29–39

Sustainable transport: analysis frameworks

Barbara C. Richardson *

University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

Abstract

For both passenger and freight transport, this paper presents analysis frameworks illustrating the interaction of factors that influ-

ence indicators of transport sustainability; identifies opportunities for policy intervention; and illustrates the possibility of unin-

tended consequences of such intervention and the tradeoffs among the indicators. The frameworks account for systematic

relationships, feedbacks, and rebound effects of making changes to the system. For passenger transport, physical, psychological,

and social needs present themselves as primary influencers of sustainable transportation indicators. For freight, market forces

and government policy are primary influencers of variables that are predominantly of an economic nature. Questions for future

research are presented.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainable transportation; Passenger; Freight; Analysis frameworks; Policy

1. Background

It is generally recognized that the citizens of the world

need to plan to sustain our planet. Playing a major role

in the sustainability of the planet is every transportation

system on earth. Not only do they play a role in the sus-

tainability of the planet, but also they, themselves, must

be sustained in order to continue to afford to all peopleaccess to the economic and social opportunities neces-

sary for meaningful life. While great improvements have

been made to many transportation systems, remaining

problems are enormous.

English language literature on sustainable transporta-

tion is vast and emanates primarily from Europe, North

America, and Australia. Earlier writings began to ad-

dress what the scope of transportation sustainabilitymeant. DeCicco and Delucchi (1997), the Transporta-

tion Research Board (1993, 1997), and Richardson

(1999, 2000) addressed passenger issues. Gordon

(1995), O�Rourke and Lawrence (1995), Browne

0966-6923/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.11.005

* Tel.: +1 734 936 2723.

E-mail address: [email protected]

(1997), Duleep (1997), Joseph (1997), Rodriguez et al.

(1997), Scrase (1998), and Whitelegg (1997) addressed

freight sustainability issues. More recent literature

ranges from European freight models (Beuthe et al.,

2002; Friedl and Steininger, 2002; Priemus, 2002); to re-

views of international transport sustainability practices

(American Trade Initiatives, Inc., 2001; Deakin, 2002);

an international conference on social change and sus-tainable transport (Black and Nijkamp, 2002); social

and psychological driving forces behind changes in

transport (van Geenhuizen et al., 2002); and the impacts

of mobility management projects in 13 European coun-

tries (Wilhelm and Posch, 2003).

Each transportation system is complex, and this com-

plexity derives from the pluralism of its hardware (infra-

structure and vehicles) and of the people andorganizations involved. The complexity is multiplied

by the existence and roles of different modes, regulatory

and legislative bodies, service providers, builders, financ-

ing systems, technologies, land-use patterns, and, most

importantly, human behavior. The consequences of

transportation use are both positive and negative and

are addressed in considering the sustainability of the

mailto:[email protected]

30 B.C. Richardson / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 29–39

transportation system. Among these consequences are

safety, congestion, fuel consumption, vehicle emissions,

and access.

By modifying the Brundtland Commission�s defini-

tion of sustainability for the planet (United Nations,

1987), we can derive a definition of sustainable transpor-tation as the ability to meet today�s transportation needs

without compromising the ability of future generations

to meet their transportation needs (based on Black,

1996). Irrespective of the specific definition of sustain-

able transportation, there is frequently reference to the

‘‘triple bottom line’’ of economic, environmental, and

social equity sustainability. (e.g., World Bank, 1996;

Loo, 2002; Schipper, 2003).Even with this agreement on the triple bottom line,

virtually every individual and group that addresses

transportation system sustainability develops a different

set of variables that they consider to be the indicators of

sustainability. Based on a review of the literature, partic-

ipation in committees, meetings, discussions, and task

forces devoted to this topic, and empirical evidence, I

have chosen to label as indicators of transportation sus-tainability these five consequences, safety, congestion,

fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, and access. Clearly

there is room for discussion and debate on this choice.

For example, Black et al. (2002) use the term ‘‘indica-

tors’’ to mean quantifiable measures of performance

resulting from transportation policies. They note that

indicators that can be grouped into three categories

influencing six subobjectives for sustainable transporta-tion. They derive these from diagrams of hierarchies of

non-sustainable and sustainable transportation systems

similar to those developed by Richardson (1999, 2000).

The consequences of transportation use do not occur

in a vacuum. Each is affected by a set of causes. To help

in understanding these causes and their impacts, I pres-

ent two frameworks for analysis of transportation sys-

tem sustainability, one each for passenger and freighttransportation. In each I set forth the consequences of

transportation use: safety, congestion, fuel consump-

tion, vehicle emissions, and access (the latter only for

passenger transportation), these being some of the key

indicators for sustainability. For each of the conse-

quences, I have indicated what factors affect it, and what

factors affect those factors, and so on. The frameworks

are built based on the methods of influence diagram-ming (Clemen, 1996) and root cause analysis. The aim

of developing these frameworks is to identify those ele-

ments that have the most direct effect on indicators of

transportation sustainability that can be influenced by

government policy or industry action. In combining

the different indicators of sustainability in single charts,

the interrelationships among these indicators and the

factors affecting them are illustrated.To change any of these indicators in a positive direc-

tion, it is necessary to change those factors that influence

it. Changing a factor that influences one indicator may

also change another indicator in an unexpected way. Be-

cause the indicators function in a system, it is necessary

to look at the factors influencing the indicators in a sys-

temic way.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this paper are: (1) to present a

method to illustrate the interaction of the factors that

influence the indicators of transport sustainability, (2)

to identify factors that influence the indicators of trans-

port sustainability, (3) to show the interactions of thesefactors via analysis frameworks, (4) to identify opportu-

nities for policy intervention, (5) to raise the possibility

of tradeoffs among the indicators of transportation sus-

tainability and unintended consequences of policy inter-

vention, and (6) to do these for both the freight and

passenger components of the transportation system.

3. Method

The method used to create the passenger and freight

frameworks in the figures was developed over several

years, as were the frameworks. Their earliest versions

were first presented by Richardson in 1999 and 2001,

respectively. Figs. 1–9 reflect input from several sources.

Transportation sustainability literature searches on bothpassenger travel and freight trucking were conducted.

These yielded information, particularly with regard to

freight trucking, which was generally limited to environ-

mental and economic factors. Much of that discussion

can be summed up as a conflict between the economic

benefits from ground transportation and their social

costs such as air quality problems, and the difficulty of

designing public policy solutions to such problems be-cause of the interrelated nature of the environment, eco-

nomic activities, and the infrastructure that links them.

Interestingly, safety was not strongly addressed in this

literature. In contrast to the freight literature, the pas-

senger transportation sustainability literature more

broadly included societal factors, safety, access or

mobility, land use, and congestion.

Faculty, staff, and students of the University of Mich-igan and Northwestern University participated in focused

discussions on factors affecting future transportation sus-

tainability. University faculty and staff who participated

in the discussions were from the fields of urban planning,

environmental studies, transportation, public policy, nat-

ural resources, engineering, and business. Several truck-

ing industry executives who were members of the

University of Michigan Trucking Industry ProgramAdvisory Board participated in a facilitated discussion

on trucking sustainability and also responded to a survey

Individuals'Income, Age,

Health

Physical,Psychological,Social Needs

NationalResources

NationalDefenseNeeds

MarketForces

Driver Factors:Knowledge, Time, Money,

Interest, Ability,Experience, Attitude

VehicleManufacturers

IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Ability, Meansto Drive

Land Use VKT

FuelTechnology

Emissions Technology

Safety

Fuel Consumption

Congestion

Environment

Access

CrashAvoidance

Crashworthiness

HumanError

VehicleFactors

VehicleMaintenance

Availabilityof Public

Transportation

Vehicle UsePricing

Road Design

Fig. 1. Passenger factors affecting sustainability of the transportation system.

B.C. Richardson / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 29–39 31

that focused on the factors critical to the long-term viabil-ity of freight trucking. Input from these participants rein-

forced the inclusion of safety, access, and congestion as

indicators of sustainability. In contrast with the literature,

both University and trucking industry executives indi-

cated that safety is a primary concern from both eco-

nomic and societal perspectives, and the executives

unanimously assigned safety an importance score of 5

on a scale of 1–5. Both the passenger and freight sustain-ability frameworks have benefited from collegial review.

Because approximately 95% of vehicle kilometers of

travel (VKT) in the United States is by road, the default

focus in developing the frameworks is road-based. How-

ever, other modes are explicitly brought into the freight

framework, and the variables in the passenger frame-

work allow for the consideration of other modes. For

example, see rail service characteristics in Fig. 7 andpublic transportation availability in Fig. 1.

4. Framework for analysis of sustainability of passenger

transportation

Each of the five indicators of transportation system

sustainability, fuel, access, congestion, emissions, and

safety, has a wide range of factors that influence it,and factors that influence those factors, and so on.

These multiple layers of passenger-related factors influ-

encing transportation sustainability are organized into

the diagram shown in Fig. 1. Note that the indicators

of transportation sustainability are on the right side of

the diagram. Each of these is influenced by a set of fac-

tors, some of which are common to several sustainability

indicators. For example, vehicle kilometers of travel af-fect safety, congestion, the environment, and fuel con-

sumption. Similarly, individual desires affect safety as

well as all of the other sustainability indicators. Because

of the strong interdependence of land use and transpor-

tation, land use was included in the frameworks as one

of the influencers of the indicator variables.

Fig. 1 can be subdivided into five charts that delin-

eate, for each of the five indicators of sustainability,the influencing factors. The advantage of Fig. 1 is that

the whole picture is presented, showing the maze of

influences and interrelationships of the factors. The

advantages of Figs. 2–6 are that each sustainability con-

dition can be reviewed with greater clarity. For example,

Fig. 2, Passenger Factors Affecting Safety, shows that

levels of national resources and physical, social, and psy-

chological needs are behind individual desires, which


NationalResources


MarketForces

Driver Factors:Knowledge, Time, Money,

Interest, Ability,Experience, Attitude


IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Land Use VKT

SafetyCrashAvoidance

Crashworthiness

HumanError

VehicleFactors

VehicleMaintenance

Vehicle UsePricing

Road Design

Fig. 2. Passenger factors affecting safety.


influence voter preferences, which along with nationaldefense needs influence government policies (such as

taxation). Government policies, along with the price of

owning and operating a vehicle and market forces, im-

pact land use, and together they influence VKT. VKT,

with other factors, influence all of the indicators except

access. Fundamental to understanding highway safety

are the human, the vehicle, and the environment in

which the vehicle is driven. These three factors areshown as key influencers of safety. Similar tracings can

be made through the charts in Figs. 3–6. Fig. 5 deals

with access as an indicator of transportation sustainabil-

ity. In this context, access refers to access to social and

economic opportunity. It is possible that access could in-

crease with a decrease in traffic. Coming from all of the

transport sustainability indicators are arrows indicating

a feedback loop for the whole system.

5. Framework for analysis of sustainability of freight

trucking

Based on a synthesis of the information provided by

the literature search, the three discussion groups, and

the survey, a framework for analysis of sustainabilityof the freight trucking industry was developed and is

shown in Fig. 7. Figs. 8 and 9 show the frameworks

for safety and for fuel use, congestion, and the environ-

ment. The framework for freight transport, while having

some influencing factors in common with the passenger

transport framework (e.g., VKT and vehicle and fuel

price), is different from it. While both passengers and

the shippers of freight seek to optimize their own utilityfunctions, the differences in the two frameworks derive

mainly from the complex bundle of economic, temporal,

psychological, safety, and convenience needs that are

inherent in humans and not in freight.

Trucking safety is primarily a function of the road

environment, crashworthiness of trucks and other vehi-

cles, and the incidence of crashes, as shown in Fig. 8.

Crashworthiness is influenced by truck weight andsafety features that can, in turn, be influenced by gov-

ernment policy. Crash incidence is influenced by a num-

ber of factors, including truck driver behavior, weather

conditions, behavior of drivers of other vehicles, and

VKT. Truck driver behavior can be influenced by a wide

range of factors which, in turn, can be affected by gov-

ernment policy on hours driven, and by the demand


NationalResources


MarketForces


IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Land Use VKT

FuelTechnology Fuel Consumption

Vehicle UsePricing

Fig. 3. Passenger factors affecting fuel consumption.


NationalResources


MarketForces

IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Land Use VKT Congestion

Vehicle UsePricing

Fig. 4. Passenger factors affecting congestion.


for goods being delivered by truck. The road environ-

ment is affected by nature, market forces, and govern-

ment policy. Government policies would, in turn, be

influenced by shippers and the public.

As illustrated in Fig. 9, fuel consumption is influ-

enced most directly by land use, truck fuel economy,

truck vehicle kilometers traveled, and congestion. Truck

fuel economy is influenced by truck weight, fuel quality

Individuals'Income, Age,

Health


NationalResources


MarketForces

IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Ability, Meansto Drive

Land Use

Access

Availabilityof Public

Transportation

Vehicle UsePricing

Fig. 5. Passenger factors affecting access.


NationalResources


MarketForces

IndividualDesires

VoterPreferences

GovernmentPolicies

VehiclePrices

Taxes

Fuel Prices

Land Use VKT

Emissions Technology

Congestion

Environment

Vehicle UsePricing

Fig. 6. Passenger factors affecting the environment.


and cost, and power plant. Both market forces and gov-

ernment policy influence these. Options for government

intervention, among others, include increasing the price

of fuel by raising the fuel tax, enacting a carbon tax, or

supporting the development of alternative fuel vehiclessuch as hybrid or fuel cells. In addition, governments

could affect fuel consumption by lessening truck VKT

by promoting intermodalism. In such a case, rail and

water vehicles would be used in concert with trucks.

Water transport and train would be used for the longest

distances, with trucks being used for the shortest dis-

tances. Because congestion is a function of truck VKT,

efforts to lessen VKT should decrease congestion.

Congestion is influenced by land-use patterns as wellas the level of truck VKT. Business, individual, and

community land-use decisions will influence the levels

of density and their attendant implications. The final

element of sustainability, the environment, is a function

GovernmentPolicy

Market Forces

Hours Driving

Education Level

Training Level

Psychological/Emotional Level

Human Error

Wage Level

Sleep Deprivation

Unsafe Speeds

Lack ofExperienced

Drivers

Level ofFuel Tax

Hours ofServiceRules

Demands onTruck Drivers

Demand for Deliveryof Goods by Truck

Shipper Requirements( e.g., JIT, timeliness)

Availability of Rail Service• Infrastructure• Cost• Frequency• Timeliness

Truck Use Restrictions

Road Infrastructure Capacity

Business Location Decisions

Safety Featuresin Trucks

Truck DriverBehaviorRe. Safety

Weather Conditions

Behavior ofNon-TruckOccupants

Truck Weight

Truck Power Plant

Fuel Quality

Cost of Fuel

# of Trucks on Road

Frequency of TruckUse

Cost of Shippingby Truck

Distance Driven

Efficiency ofFreight Distribution

Distance BetweenOrigin & Destination

Efficiency ofFreight Packing

Crashworthinessof Trucks and Other

Vehicles

Incidenceof Crashes

TruckFuel Economy

Truck VMT

Safety

FuelConsumption

Congestion

Environment

Land UsePattern

PollutionControl

Technology

•

Road EnvironmentNature

Fig. 7. Freight factors affecting sustainability of the transportation system.


of land-use patterns, pollution control technology,

VKT, and congestion. Technology is influenced by gov-

ernment policy and market forces. Government policy

could come in the form of technology regulations, pollu-tion standards, or vehicle-use restrictions. Market forces

could come to bear, dependent upon competitive consid-

erations. As with the passenger transport framework,

there is a feedback loop emanating from all the sustain-

ability indicators.

6. Interactions among influencing factors

There are a great many interactions among the factors

influencing the transport sustainability indicators in each

of the frameworks, and also between the frameworks.

In the passenger transport framework, pricing of

vehicles, vehicle use, and fuel, land use, and VKT all

influence all of the sustainability indicators. Common

to all of the indicators are market forces, taxes, and gov-

ernment policies, along with all the factors that influence

them, including physical, psychological, and social needs

and individual desires.In the freight transport network, VKT, fuel economy,

and land use influence fuel consumption, congestion,

and the environment. VKT also influences safety. In

addition, market forces and government policy influence

all of the sustainability indicators.

In addition to the road and rail infrastructure, com-

mon to both the passenger and freight transport frame-

works are market forces, government policy, pricing offuel, vehicles, and vehicle use, vehicle fuel economy, pol-

lution control technology, vehicle crashworthiness, dri-

ver behavior, vehicle safety technology, land use,

availability of alternative modes, and VKT.

These interactions serve to illustrate the peril of

addressing only one policy option or indicator in the be-

lief that other indicators will remain constant. Changes

GovernmentPolicy

Market Forces

Hours Driving

Education Level

Training Level

Psychological/Emotional Level

Human Error

Wage Level

Sleep Deprivation

Unsafe Speeds

Lack ofExperienced

Drivers

Level ofFuel Tax

Hours ofServiceRules

Demands onTruck Drivers







Safety Featuresin Trucks

Truck DriverBehaviorRe. Safety

Weather Conditions

Behavior ofNon-TruckOccupants

Truck Weight

# of Trucks on Road



Distance Driven




Crashworthinessof Trucks and Other

Vehicles

Incidenceof Crashes

Truck VMT

Safety

•

Road EnvironmentNature

Fig. 8. Freight factors affecting safety.


of unknown magnitude and direction of non-analyzed

variables in the transport system are almost certain.

7. Policy and industry intervention opportunities

The transportation system is a combination of indi-

vidual and common goods. In the case of an entity that

is privately held and does not interact with others, the

benefits of an investment an individual makes in that en-

tity and the benefits of an investment in the system by an

individual are likely to be shared by all the users of the

system. Consider pollution control technology. If an

individual invests money to improve the pollution con-trol technology in his own vehicle, he incurs the full cost

of that investment, but reaps only a small percentage of

the benefit. If he invests in safety improvements to his

vehicle, he reaps a much higher proportion of the bene-

fit, and society also may benefit. An example is if a non-

investor avoids involvement in crashes that the investor

does not cause because of his new technology. In gen-

eral, there is little motivation for most people to invest

in those things that will help move us toward transpor-

tation system sustainability because the costs and bene-fits are so out of line with each other. To address this

problem, often referred to as an example of the ‘‘tragedy

of the commons’’, wide-scale intervention is needed.

This intervention comes to the transportation system

through government and industry initiatives.

The organization of influencing factors as shown al-

lows the reviewer to consider not only the aggregated

descriptors of the factors influencing sustainability, butalso the points of potential policy and industry interven-

tion in the process toward transportation system sus-

tainability. Some of the factors shown are amenable to

change through the policy process, and some are not.

GovernmentPolicy

Market Forces

Level ofFuel Tax







Truck Weight

Truck Power Plant

Fuel Quality

Cost of Fuel

# of Trucks on Road



Distance Driven




TruckFuel Economy

Truck VMT

FuelConsumption

Congestion

Environment

Land UsePattern

PollutionControl

Technology

•

Fig. 9. Freight factors affecting fuel consumption, congestion, and the environment.


In the case of passenger transport, industry has a

clear role in developing technologies and vehicles that

contribute to improved safety, fuel economy, and emis-

sions. Less obvious, but very important, are opportuni-

ties for the industry to inform and educate the public

regarding safe driving behavior and vehicle mainte-nance, or even to be in the business of providing mobil-

ity, rather than simply vehicles. In the realm of freight

transport, industry has a very strong role to play in set-

ting and enforcing rules governing driver behavior (e.g.,

hours of driving, training requirements, distance driven,

and driving speed), efficiency of freight distribution, and

in vehicle factors such as the power plant, safety fea-

tures, and pollution control technology.The policy intervention opportunities for government

agencies are different from those for industry, and also

differ among levels of government. At the national level,

government can regulate features in both passenger and

freight vehicles, for example, fuel, emissions, and safety

technology and vehicle size and weight. It can pass laws

regarding behavior such as speed limits, seat belt use,

and alcohol use; levy taxes on vehicle sales, fuel, and dri-ver licenses with the objective of covering the costs of

the externalities of transport use; and invest in non-high-

way and public vehicles and infrastructure. Some of

these can also be done at the state and local levels. Local

government can, more easily than higher levels of gov-

ernment, set land-use policy that would alter transporta-

tion use patterns. It can also set and enforce restrictions

on time and place of vehicle use. All levels of govern-ment have roles to play in the education of transporta-

tion system users with regard to the need to conserve

energy, reduce pollution, and engage in safe driving

practices.

8. Applicability of the method

The method used to develop the analysis frameworks

and the content of the frameworks are based on data

collected in the United States, where the preponderance

of personal trips made are by private vehicle. The

method of developing the frameworks, including the

assembly of views of concerned and knowledgeable par-

ties and the organization of them based on root causeanalysis and influence diagramming, is expected to be

generally applicable in most places. However, the fac-

tors and relationships in the frameworks shown would

most likely be unique to each place in which they were

used. The content of the frameworks would vary by geo-

graphic area, forms of government, the people and orga-

nizations contributing their views, their cultural

background and expectations, the objective of the anal-ysis at hand, residential and business density, and time.

The frameworks as presented can be expanded to in-

clude more detail regarding influencing factors or

importance or strength of the connections between fac-

tors. Location-specific frameworks could be enhanced

by contributions of research and data collection.

The value of the method is that it provides a system-

atic picture of the entire transportation system and thatit helps in setting forth the myriad consequences of


change and the interactions inherent in the transporta-

tion system.

9. Findings and conclusions

Given willing, knowledgeable participants, it was rel-

atively straightforward to build the sustainable trans-

portation analysis frameworks. These frameworks take

into account systematic relationships, feedbacks, and re-

bound effects of making changes to the system. They

illustrate that one-dimensional problem solving using

cause-and-effect approaches will not be helpful in mov-

ing toward transportation sustainability. Interestingly,for passenger transport, physical, psychological, and so-

cial needs present themselves as primary influencers of

sustainable transportation indicators. For freight, mar-

ket forces and government policy are primary influenc-

ers of variables that are predominantly of an economic

nature. These observations, combined with the interre-

latedness of the influencing factors, provide guidance

for the planning of transportation system changes. It ishoped that these frameworks will help analysts, plan-

ners, and decision makers in moving toward sustainable

transportation systems.

10. Future research

The development of these transportation sustainabil-ity frameworks raises several questions that might be an-

swered in future research. They are:

• Are there other indicators of sustainability that need

to be addressed?

• What factors are not present in the diagrams?

• How can the impacts of change in technology and

policy intervention be measured?• For which items is more information required so that

good decisions can be made?

• What is the efficacy of different technologies, for

example, intelligent transportation system

technologies?

• What methods would best be used to forecast impacts

of changes in the influencing variables?

• What would be the impact of analyzingsustainability?

• What can be done regarding land use patterns?

• What is the role of urban sprawl in sustainable trans-

portation systems?

• What are the roles, responsibilities, and relationships

of all participants in the transportation planning and

policy setting processes?

• Do these participants need to reach consensus on avision of a sustainable transportation system?

• How do they reach consensus?

• How can behavior be changed so that people use

fewer resources, as do those who engage in voluntary

simplicity?

• What will be the best ways of changing people�sbehavior?

• Can the issue of sustainable transportation be raisedinto awareness as a public health issue as smoking

has?

• What will be the best ways of getting new technology?

• How can public policy be influenced so as to promote

a sustainable transportation system?

• What are the key places in the decision process lead-

ing to a sustainable transportation system where pol-

icy intervention would yield the greatest results?

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions

of the Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department ofTransportation through the Great Lakes Center for

Truck and Transit Research, members of the University

of Michigan Trucking Industry Program Advisory

Board, many colleagues at Northwestern University

and the University of Michigan, and, of course, anony-

mous reviewers.

References

American Trade Initiatives, Inc., 2001. Sustainable transportation

practices in Europe. Report No. FHWA-PL-02-006. Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Beuthe, M., Jourquin, B., Degrandsart, F., Geerts, J.F., 2002. External

costs of Belgian freight traffic: a network analysis of their

internalization. In: Black, W.R., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Social Change

and Sustainable Transport. Indiana University Press, Blooming-

ton, IN, pp. 219–226.

Black, W.R., 1996. Sustainable transportation: a US perspective.

Journal of Transport Geography 4, 151–159.

Black, W.R., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), 2002. Social Change and Sustainable

Transport. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

Black, J.A., Paez, A., Suthanaya, P.A., 2002. Sustainable urban

transportation: performance indicators and some analytical

approaches. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development

128 (4), 184–209.

Browne, M., 1997. Trends in urban freight transport: setting a

framework for a sustainable future. In: Sustainable Freight

Transport in the City, Conference Papers, held September 24–25,

1997. Transport 2000, London.

Clemen, R.T., 1996. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to

Decision Analysis. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,

CA.

Deakin, E., 2002. Sustainable transportation: US Dilemmas and

European experiences. Transportation Research Record, No. 1792,

pp. 1–11.

DeCicco, J., Delucchi, M. (Eds.), 1997. Transportation, Energy, and

Environment: How Far Can Technology Take Us?. American

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.

Duleep, K.G., 1997. Keep on truckin�—sustainably? In: DeCicco, J.,

Delucchi, M. (Eds.), Transportation, Energy, and Environment:


How Far Can Technology Take Us? American Council for an

Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, pp. 179–194.

Friedl, B., Steininger, K.W., 2002. Environmentally sustainable

transport: definition and long-term economic impacts for Austria.

Empirica 29 (2), 163–180.

Gordon, D., 1995. Sustainable transportation: What do we mean and

how do we get there? In: Shaheen, S., Sperling, D. (Eds.),

Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable Trans-

portation System. American Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy, Washington, DC, pp. 1–11.

Joseph, S., 1997. Sustainable development, freight transport and the

urban environment. in sustainable freight transport in the city.

Conference Papers, Held September 24–25, 1997. Transport 2000,

London.

Loo, B.P.Y., 2002. Role of stated preference methods in planning for

sustainable urban transportation: state of practice and future

prospects. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development 128

(4), 210–224.

O�Rourke, L., Lawrence, M.F., 1995. Strategies for goods movement

in a sustainable transportation system. In: Shaheen, S., Sperling, D.

(Eds.), Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable

Transportation System. American Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy, Washington DC, pp. 59–76.

Priemus, H., 2002. Toward multimodal networks and nodes of freight

transport in the European Union. In: Black, W.R., Nijkamp, P.

(Eds.), Social Change and Sustainable Transport. Indiana Univer-

sity Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 227–234.

Richardson, B.C., 1999. Toward a policy on a sustainable transpor-

tation system. Transportation Research Record, No. 1670, pp. 27–

34.

Richardson, B.C., 2000. Role of the motor- vehicle industry in a

sustainable transportation system. Transportation Research

Record, No. 1702, pp. 21–27.

Richardson, B.C., 2001. Freight trucking in a sustainable transporta-

tion system. Transportation Research Record, No. 1763, pp. 57–

64.

Rodriguez, D.A., Richardson, B.C., Belzer, M., 1997. A methodology

for estimating the driver safety and turnover consequences of an

increase in wage levels. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Transportation Research Forum. Montreal.

Schipper, L., 2003. Sustainable urban transport in the 21st century: a

new agenda. In: Proceedings of Conference: Transportation,

Energy, and Environmental Policy: Managing Transitions, held

in Monterey, CA, 9/11/2001–9/12/01. Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC.

Scrase, R., 1998. Driving Freight Forward. ITS International, pp. 47–51.

The World Bank, 1996. Sustainable Transport: Priorities for Policy

Reform. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-

opment/The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Transportation Research Board, 1993. TRB Conference Proceedings

3, International Symposium on Motor Carrier Transportation,

Williamsburg, VA, May 31, 1993. TRB, Washington, DC.

Transportation Research Board, 1997. Toward a sustainable future,

addressing the long-term effects of motor vehicle transportation on

climate and ecology. Special Report 251. National Academy Press,

Washington, DC.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Develop-

ment, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,

Oxford, England.

van Geenhuizen, M., Nijkamp, P., Black, W.R., 2002. Social change

and sustainable transport: a manifesto on transatlantic research

opportunities. In: Black, W.R., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Social Change

and Sustainable Transport. Indiana University Press, Blooming-

ton, IN, pp. 3–16.

Whitelegg, J., 1997. Evaluating strategic transshipment sites and urban

distribution centres. In: Sustainable Freight Transport in the City,

Conference Papers, held September 24–25, 1997. Transport 2000,

London.

Wilhelm, A., Posch, K.-H., 2003. Mobility management strategies for

the next decades: findings and recommendations from largest

European Mobility management project. Transportation Research

Record, No. 1839, pp. 173–181.

2012031014312705.pdf

Documents