A1C06: Committee on Social and Economic Factors in Transportation

Chair: William R. Black

Social and Economic Factors in Transportation

WILLIAM R. BLACK, Indiana University

Transportation Research Board’s Committee on Social and Economic Factors in

Transportation has in its scope “all direct and indirect social and economic effects of
transportation systems both within the transportation corridor and within the larger regions
affected, including those bearing on present and future transportation needs and services.”
This scope now includes research in five primary areas:

1. The economic and social impacts of transportation projects, policies, and trends;
2. Methods of impact assessment;
3. The identification and valuing of externalities related to the use of the transportation
system;
4. Sustainable transportation; and
5. Environmental justice as it relates to transportation.

Some of these areas overlap, and some of these fields might merit more attention than
others, but they all fall within the domain of social and economic research. This paper
examines each area, emphasizing current research directions and future research needs and
challenges.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS:

PROJECTS, POLICIES, AND TRENDS
At present, there is a need for social and economic studies that evaluate the impacts of
transportation projects. For example, what are the impacts of highway construction and
improvement projects as we begin a new century? Palmer and colleagues (1) and Harvey (2)
recently examined the impacts of highway improvement projects on economic activities
located along a right-of-way to be improved; they attempted to generalize their findings for
applicability to different localities and regions. This is the type of study that is necessary—
one that attempts to generalize the impacts of the problem examined, so that other localities
can apply the results. In the same vein, what are the social and economic impacts of
relocations caused by highway projects? Are the federal programs in this area working as
envisioned? We have seen few evaluations of the impacts of transportation projects. Some
notable exceptions are summarized in a recent volume published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on mitigating community impact:

Aside from analyzing projects, there is a need for research that evaluates
transportation policies and trends in terms of their human impacts. Far too
little attention is given to these areas. Included would be a more thorough
understanding of deregulation impacts and privatization. The entire process
Transportation in the New Millennium 2

of globalization is creating a demand for more transportation at a time when

some are calling for decreases in the generation of traffic. There seems to be
little understanding that NAFTA or a unified Europe will stimulate
significantly more freight transportation. Other trends occurring at the
present time that significantly impact urban travel are the increasing number
of women joining the labor force, the increasing number of single-parent
households, increasing numbers of elderly drivers, the entire area of “welfare
to work” (often underpinned with the belief that welfare recipients can move
into the labor force without the provision of transportation), and the
increasing number of motor vehicle accidents globally. All of these trends
have social and economic dimensions worthy of research and analysis (3).

In addition to policy changes and trends, environmental trends are worthy of study. For
example, what are the social and economic impacts of transportation changes brought about
by global warming? If policy makers decide to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, motor
vehicle fuel use might be reduced through rationing or taxation. What would be the human
impact of such actions? What are the economic impacts of a switch to sustainable
transportation? Will it be possible for lower-income families to acquire sustainable
transportation technology? How can this technology be distributed in an equitable manner?
These are just a few of the issues that deserve attention because they involve significant
social and economic impacts.

METHODS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Methods and procedures for assessing the impacts of transportation projects date from the
1960s and 1970s, when concerns mandated such studies [e.g., The Environmental
Assessment Notebook Series by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (4)]. In conjunction with
state and local transportation officials, FHWA recently developed a community impact
assessment process that parallels its National Environmental Policy Act procedures,
focusing attention on the human impacts that should be analyzed as part of any
transportation project. The process identifies four benefits of assessing the social and
economic impacts of transportation projects:

1. It allows for the support of sustainable, livable communities; it can promote

community values and thriving neighborhoods; and it can contribute to general well-being.
2. It ensures that transportation policies and investments embrace the concerns of
neighborhoods and communities, leading to better decisions and a greater acceptance of the
projects.
3. It helps coordinate and integrate independent plans for land use, local economies,
and transportation to achieve common goals.
4. It fulfills the legal obligations of environmental justice by maintaining
nondiscriminatory principles and practices.

To carry out these assessments, we need to identify methods, tools, and techniques for
practitioners. Although some methods date back to the 1970s, there has not been much
progress in social and economic impact assessment techniques since then. We have seen
major changes in research technology, notably through personal computers and geographic
Social and Economic Factors in Transportation 3

information systems (GISs), but have not incorporated them effectively into our methods.
These technologies would enable researchers to perform rapid preliminary assessments of
the potential impacts of a given project. Whether the information needed is the number of
potential riders within a quarter mile (.4 km) of a proposed transit line, or the accessibility
to different centers (senior citizen, medical, religious, etc.) for some clientele, a GIS can
give rapid answers, with a precision that depends on the quality of data available.
Statistical and spreadsheet microcomputer software has not been used effectively, nor
have more recent approaches. Instead, there seems to be a reluctance to dispense with
worksheets and pencils, which are less reliable and more time-consuming. We should take
advantage of the technology to improve the quality of our assessments and the accuracy of
our evaluations.
Beyond computer technology is the problem of research methodology. We do not have
rigorous definitions for some of the basic notions in this field. For example, we continue to
wrestle with definitions of such basic concepts as community cohesion. The recently
published Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation seeks to
address some of these points. In addition, a National Cooperative Highway Research
Program project, now under way, might resolve some of these questions, but probably will
only be able to scratch the surface. Researchers from other fields—such as sociology, social
psychology, and psychology—must be involved in defining some of these concepts.

EXTERNALITIES: IDENTIFICATION AND VALUE

There has been a significant effort lately to identify the major externalities associated with
the dominant highway–motor vehicle transportation system (5–9). Although no one
questions internalized costs such as fuel, insurance, registration, and the like, the same
cannot be said for the external costs. These include accident costs not covered by insurance,
the medical costs of local air pollution, the costs of policing the highway system, the loss of
productivity caused by motor vehicle accident injuries or fatalities, time loss by personal and
commercial vehicle users due to congestion, and the like. These costs usually are borne by
individuals or society, not by the transportation sector.
The reason for concern is that society is subsidizing these costs; but if the costs were
understood, they would be allocated logically to the modal sector, perhaps as a tax. Few
can fault placing transportation modes on a level playing field. At the same time,
expectations must not be unreasonable; for example, by trying to account for the costs of
global warming, the costs of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf, and similar
variables, the argument loses its strength. If the costs of all externalities could be valued and
incorporated into the price of fuel, the result would effectively halt the nation’s
transportation system, as well as the national economy.
The focus should be on a few of the external costs not currently covered by traditional
methods—such as local air pollution costs—and on attempting to value and recognize some
of the expenditures that society should recoup. This does not mean that the social and
economic impacts of global warming on the transportation system should be ignored, but
that it will take many decades to understand them. Nonetheless, seeking to include all of the
external costs weakens the argument for including some of the main, quantifiable external
costs.
Transportation in the New Millennium 4

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
The notion that any human activity should be sustainable probably has been accepted as a
basic premise in agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, transportation, and other sectors for
so long that its origin cannot be found. However, all human activities involving the use of
resources—soils, minerals, environmental aesthetics, or finite fossil fuels—cannot go on
forever, and it is necessary to manage resources carefully if they are to last beyond the next
century.
The transportation sector has realized this only in the past few years. But its
understanding is partial—it assumes that only the environment limits the sustainability of
transportation (10). However, it has been argued that our current highway–motor vehicle
transportation system is nonsustainable, because

1. It uses a finite fossil fuel;

2. This fuel creates local air-quality problems;
3. This fuel contributes to global warming;
4. The system produces an excessive number of fatalities and injuries; and
5. The system suffers from congestion in major urban areas (11).

All of these problems must be addressed if the transportation sector is to be sustainable

beyond the 21st century.
Among the proposals to create a sustainable transportation system are the following:

1. Switching to an alternative fuel that is renewable and does not pollute, such as solar
energy or hydrogen fuel;
2. Increasing the safety and reducing the emissions of motor vehicles through
intelligent transportation systems; and
3. Decreasing the demand for motor vehicle transportation through various public
policies, demand management, and educational actions.

The last of these falls within the general area of social and economic research in
transportation, and it has the most potential to resolve the problem of sustainability. This
area includes evaluations of the social and economic impacts of “value pricing” (formerly
congestion pricing) and toll strategies, telecommuting or teleworking, educational programs
to influence modal choice, and the provision of alternative modes.
There are also trends toward the purchase of larger and larger vehicles, typified by the
sport utility vehicle (SUV), which are far from sustainable in terms of fuel use. Accidents
involving SUVs also produce significantly higher fatality rates for passengers in the other
motor vehicles. Little action is being taken to reduce the accident risks from these large
vehicles, and there have been no studies to assess their social and economic impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
A final area of interest in the social and economic research realm of transportation is
environmental justice. Its major concern involves situations in which different population
groups are affected negatively by a transportation action. In an equitable world, there would
be no disparate impacts. The concept of environmental justice arose when toxic or noxious
facilities were sited in or near minority residential areas. This siting has produced significant
Social and Economic Factors in Transportation 5

activity at the federal level for nearly all federal programs, beginning February 11, 1994,
with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, up to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Final Order on Environmental Justice, DOT Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated
February 3, 1997. However, there appears to be less environmental justice activity in the
transportation area than in some other fields. It is difficult to point to recent examples of
disparate impacts in the transportation sector, although research is under way to identify
cases.
Kennedy has analyzed two major transportation cases (12). The first was Ralph W.
Keith v. Volpe (858 F2d 467, 9th Circuit, 1988) which concerned the displacement of
minority and low-income residents by freeway construction in Hawthorne, California. The
dislocation of this population mandated the construction of additional housing. However,
the provisions for low-income units in this housing failed, raising chrges of discrimination.
In the final analysis, the case revolved more around housing than transportation.
The second case involved the construction of Interstate 670 in Columbus, Ohio
(Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. Damian, 608 F. Supp. 110, S.D. Ohio,
1984). The plaintiffs maintained that the highway had a disproportionate impact on minority
citizens. Although this was true, the defendants were able to demonstrate that the selected
corridor created fewer adverse impacts on minority populations than the alternative
corridors that had been under consideration.
However, these are court cases, not research studies. There are not many research
studies because the negative impact of transportation projects in the United States was
reduced in part by federal legislation beginning in the 1970s. It is probably fair to say that
the major transportation cases involving environmental justice go back to that decade.
Moreover, any study that demonstrates discrimination or disproportionate impacts might tie
up its authors in the courts for years. Nevertheless, resources are available: a guide for
research on the topic, a preliminary bibliography, and a resource paper (12–14).

CONCLUSIONS
Social and economic research related to transportation is a broad subject, because of the
many ways in which transportation policies and actions can produce social and economic
impacts on the population. At the same time, social and economic policies can produce
unforeseen and unintended transportation impacts on the population—such as the
transportation-related problems generated by the welfare-to-work movement. These fields,
along with research needs in sustainable transportation and environmental justice, present a
research agenda that merits significant effort and attention in the coming century.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author expresses appreciation to Burton Clifton, Thomas Harvey, Lori Kennedy,
Brenda Kragh, and Amy O’Leary, members of the Committee on Social and Economic
Factors in Transportation, for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any flaws
that remain are the author’s.
Transportation in the New Millennium 6

REFERENCES
1. Palmer, J.A., J.P. Cornwell, and W.R. Black. Effects of Road Reconstruction on
Adjacent Economic Activities: A Retrospective Study. Transportation Research Center,
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1995.
2. Harvey, T.N. Synthesis of Highway Practice 221, Assessing the Effects of Highway-
Widening Improvements on Urban and Suburban Areas. TRB, Washington, D.C.,
1996.
3. FHWA. Community Impact Mitigation: Case Studies. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pub. No. FHWA-PD-98-024 HEP-30/5-98 (30m), 1998.
4. Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill. The Environmental Assessment Notebook. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1975.
5. Black, W.R., and D.L. Munn. Comprehensive Transportation Costing. SEFTalk. TRB
Social and Economic Factors Committee, Fall 1994.
6. Black, W.R., D.L. Munn, R.J. Black, and J. Xie. Modal Choices: An Approach to
Comparing the Full Costs of Transportation Alternatives. Report to the Indiana
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Department of
Geography and the Transportation Research Center, Indiana University, Bloomington,
June 1995.
7. Black, W.R. Full Costing. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1997, pp.
36, 46–47.
8. Litman, T. Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, 1995.
9. Litman, T. Full Cost Accounting of Urban Transportation: Implications and Tools.
Cities, Vol. 14, 1997, pp. 169–174.
10. Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle
Transportation on Climate and Ecology. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1997.
11. Black, W.R. Sustainable Transportation: A U.S. Perspective. Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1996, pp. 151–159.
12. Kennedy, L.G. Environmental Justice. Resource paper prepared for the Conference on
Refocusing Planning for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., February 1999.
13. Forkenbrock, D.J., and L.A. Schweitzer. Environmental Justice and Transportation
Investment Policy. Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1997.
14. Black, W.R. Environmental Justice in Transport: A Preliminary Bibliography.
Prepared for TRB Summer Meeting, Seattle, Wash., July 1998.