University of California, Santa Barbara Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management

Sustainability of Transportation in California – Strategies Developed Using Future Scenario Planning

MESM 2006 Group Project Proposal

By

Erin Fisher Sarah Herder

Nicholas Kordesch William Kost Renee Lafrenz

Faculty Advisor: Roland Geyer

23 May 2006

2

I. Abstract............................................................................................................................ 3 II. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3 III. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Significance .................................................................................................................. 4 V. Background .................................................................................................................... 4 VI. Approach....................................................................................................................... 7

1. Definition of Scope ..................................................................................................... 7 2. Identify primary driving forces................................................................................... 8 3. Select combination of driver states and develop scenarios......................................... 8 4. Determine mobility implications AND 5. Use indicators to analyze sustainability ... 8 6. General analysis of the array of possible future scenarios.......................................... 8

VII. Management Plan ........................................................................................................ 9 Group Structure and Management .................................................................................. 9 Organizational Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................... 9 Meeting Structure.......................................................................................................... 10 Deadline Compliance.................................................................................................... 10 Conflict Resolution ....................................................................................................... 10 Procedures for Documenting, Cataloguing, and Archiving Information...................... 11 Guidelines for Interaction with Faculty Advisor, External Advisor, and Clients......... 11 Overall Expectations of the Group Members ............................................................... 11

VIII. Deliverables ............................................................................................................. 11 IX. Milestones................................................................................................................... 12 X. Points of Contact.......................................................................................................... 13 XI. Budget......................................................................................................................... 13 XII. Budget Justification................................................................................................... 14 XIII. References................................................................................................................ 16 XIV. Appendix A – Definitions........................................................................................ 18 XV. Appendix B - State of the Debate regarding the choice of drivers: .......................... 19 XVI. Appendix C – Current State of the System.............................................................. 21

3

I. Abstract Future scenario planning is a method of identifying the boundaries of future possibilities while still considering the uncertainty of what is to come. By using two drivers of change and various indicators within these drivers, we aim to produce three to five different scenarios for transportation in California for the next 25 years. We will then assess the implications of each of these scenarios without management. This thereby provides the context to make recommendations for actions that can be taken to maintain the sustainability of transportation in California.

II. Executive Summary California’s economy and lifestyle depend on transportation, but environmental and security developments suggest that current practices are unsustainable. Recent initiatives have targeted reducing dependence on petroleum, especially as transportation fuel, as well as increasing the efficiency of energy conversion technologies. However, the use of alternative fuels and more efficient technologies will provide little benefit if the transportation infrastructure is unsustainable. Due to the state’s growing population and changing demographics, traffic congestion will make it increasingly difficult to use any vehicle effectively. Due to numerous highly uncertain internal and external factors, predicting the exact future state of transportation in California is difficult, if not impossible. However, the process of future scenario planning offers a way to identify the boundaries of future possibilities, thereby providing a context to develop a robust strategy to better cope with a variety of possible future developments. Thus, one aim of this study is to identify important drivers of change in California and assess how they can manifest themselves in the future, depending on how they are managed. We propose use of a mostly deductive approach to creating between three and five possible future scenarios. Having identified our purpose and scope to be addressing transportation in the State of California in the year 2030, we will identify key local factors, as well as external driving forces affecting the condition of transportation in the area. After an in-depth analysis of these driving forces, we will select potential combinations (three to five) of driver ‘states’ and develop scenario plots, explaining how each combination might come about. These scenarios will then be examined to determine their implications on future mobility, and predetermined indicators will be used to analyze the level of sustainability in each of the scenarios. As a conclusion, a general analysis and comparison will be conducted across all of the scenarios.

III. Objectives The purpose of this project is to systematically and comprehensively develop and analyze possible scenarios for the future of transportation in the state of California. To do so, two

4

uncorrelated drivers will be identified that are anticipated to have the greatest impact on California’s transportation system. Between three and five extreme scenarios will be identified, and the economic, social/political, and environmental implications of the scenarios will be analyzed. Early indicators that one scenario is coming true will be identified, and recommendations will be formulated for achievement of an optimal future state.

IV. Significance The future of California’s transportation system has received increased attention due to population growth and rising environmental concerns. Previous efforts to forecast transportation needs in California have been narrow in scope. Programs such as CalSTART have been introduced to promote increased efficiency and renewable energy use, but by only focusing on probable futures they leave out many possible scenarios. By establishing a framework of possible future scenarios, this project will:

• Help transportation planners reduce risks and costs associated with long-term planning

• Encourage innovation among private companies • Build consensus regarding future transportation options within the general public

V. Background “Enhanced mobility is essential to continued economic progress; but mobility must be made more sustainable”

-The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Report on Sustainable Mobility 2030

Introduction Transportation has been shown to be one key ingredient in economic growth and human progress observed in the twentieth century. However, transportation has also been associated with increased pollution, emission of greenhouse gases, congestion, and disruption of communities and ecosystems. Sustainability has traditionally been defined as configuring human behavior such that the needs of today’s generation are met without sacrificing the ability to meet the needs of future generation. In the context of transportation in California, we have defined sustainability as safely, reliably, and equitably meeting the transportation needs of today, while sustaining environmental quality and economic integrity, without sacrificing the ability to meet the changing transportation needs of the future.

State of the System (baseline year = 2000) California’s transportation system contains 23 million vehicles for the 33 million people in the state. Californians drive an estimated 856 million vehicle miles per day. The

5

population is projected to grow to 48 million people by 2030 (California Department of Finance). Public transit is often limited in capacity to mobilize the population. In the past, development has occurred without consideration for access to public transit. With congestion and pollution already posing problems in the state, some argue that transportation in California will no longer be economically or environmentally sustainable. For additional statistics on the transportation system in the state of California, please see Appendix C. California has a history of pro-active policy in relation to the environment, including the effects of transportation. As a result, numerous national policies have been modeled after its own regulations. For example, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 relied heavily on elements of the California Clean Air Act. In 2002, the California State Assembly passed Bill 1493 requiring the state Air Resource Board to set standards for auto emissions of greenhouse gasses. This made California the first state or nation to enact standards aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. If the bill is upheld in court, the state will require auto emissions to be 30% lower than 2004 levels by 2016. This tendency for early adoption of regulation makes California an important indicator for national and global trends in policy. Various non-governmental organizations play an important role in shaping transportation policy in California. The CalSTART non-profit organization created a partnership between public and private sectors to develop advanced transportation technologies and foster companies that will help clean the air, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, and create jobs. The methods of scenario planning Planning for increased population and mobility within the state has proven difficult due to numerous economic, social, and environmental uncertainties. Some of the challenges in planning a sustainable future transportation system hinge upon the uncertainties in gasoline prices, global warming, land use, economic growth, federal and state legislation, the role of public transport, and technology. Scenario planning, first developed by Shell Group Planning of the Royal Dutch/Shell Company in the 1970s, provides a method of planning for the future in an uncertain world. Scenarios are narratives of alternative environments in which today’s decisions may be played out (Schwartz 2004). The Royal Dutch/Shell Company began scenario planning after growing environmentalism and the OPEC oil crisis of 1973 took the company by surprise. In Shell’s case, a series of forecasts that focused on a single probable future resulted in gross misjudgments and missed opportunities. One team member remarked, ‘‘sooner or later forecasts will fail when they are needed most: in anticipating major shifts in the business environment that make whole strategies obsolete’’ (Zegras 2004). The scenario planning method has provided advantages over more traditional planning methods, such as contingency plans, forecasting, and sensitivity analyses. Whereas these traditional methods take into account one uncertain factor to produce one or two possible

6

future outcomes, scenario planning examines the results of multiple uncertainties. Scenario analysis is another traditional tool that relies on probability modeling to forecast plausible future outcomes. Scenario planning differs from scenario analysis in that it encourages the development of plausible but not necessarily probable scenarios, which creates a wide range of extreme future scenarios. This range of dramatically divergent scenarios better accounts for major unexpected changes. For example, when the highly successful Enron Corporation used scenario planning in 1999, management initially rejected the “ludicrous” scenario that envisioned Enron’s collapse (Shoemaker 2002). The inclusion of such an extreme, improbable scenario eventually helped the company manage losses when a tailspin actually occurred. Rather than utilizing model-based futures, scenario planning creates detailed narratives which provide decision makers with vivid, memorable future states. Scenario Planning & Transportation The application of scenario planning to regional transportation systems is new and evolving. Some recent studies have employed the scenario process to prepare for uncertainties related to transportation (Zegras 2004). The utility of these studies will unfold as the future scenarios play out. Some studies have been limited by a bias towards predictable drivers, which results in scenarios based on probable outcomes rather than robust, contrasting narratives. Previous studies have not used scenario planning to examine California’s transportation system. Once scenarios are identified and described, they can be used to draw recommendations and build consensus. By building an understanding of potential outcomes, more desirable and sustainable paths may be identified. As scenarios begin to unfold, early indicators may be identified which signify a movement toward one scenario over the others. Action and policy can then be adjusted accordingly.

7

VI. Approach This project will use the techniques of future scenario planning to create pictures of the possible extremes for the future of transportation in the State of California. The following flow chart (Figure 1) illustrates the steps taken during the process of scenario planning.

Figure1. Flow chart of project steps (adapted from Zegras et al. Scenario Planning for Strategic Regional Transportation Planning)

1. Definition of Scope The scope of this project has been defined as “domestic transportation within the State of California in the year 2030.” The current state of the system will be defined by a number of parameters (e.g. number of cars) and the sustainability of the system will be assessed by evaluating the parameters’ impact on a number of indicators (e.g. greenhouse gas

1. Define scope

2. Identify driving forces

3. Select combinations of driver ‘states’ & develop scenarios

4. Determine mobility

implications

4. Determine mobility

implications

4. Determine mobility

implications

5. Use indicators to

analyze sustainability

5. Use indicators to

analyze sustainability

5. Use indicators to

analyze sustainability

6. General analysis of the array of possible future scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

8

emissions). A number of parameter statistics have been identified for the current state of the system in Appendix B. Drivers (or forces acting on the transportation system) will include both internal (within California) and primary external factors. Primary external factors include such forces as actions taken by other U.S. states or by the U.S. federal government. Secondary external factors, outside the scope of this project, include such forces as actions taken by international governments and international economic growth. The sole exception will be specific wildcards, such as terrorist attacks.

2. Identify primary driving forces From an initial extensive list of forces driving the future of California’s transportation system, a small set of key, unrelated drivers will be identified. These drivers will be chosen based on their level of uncertainty and the weight of their contribution to changing the system. Every effort will be made to find and group associated drivers, so as to cover as diverse an array of issues as possible and to avoid redundancy.

3. Select combination of driver states and develop scenarios The two drivers, as chosen by the above procedure, will be paired, resulting in between three and five extreme possible future scenarios. Inductive methods would suggest first imagining possible scenarios and subsequently deriving the combinations of drivers that would produce such scenarios. This project, on the other hand, will use deductive methods, whereby the drivers are first identified, with no regards to the possible scenario outcomes. The scenarios will then be derived from the combinations of the chosen drivers. After obtaining the array of future scenarios based on the extreme states of the drivers, plots or “stories” will be developed that will explain the process by which each scenario was reached.

4. Determine mobility implications AND 5. Use indicators to analyze sustainability After the scenarios have been defined, the new state of the system under each of the scenarios will be assessed by analyzing the new state of the original parameters (listed in Appendix B). The sustainability of the system will again be assessed by evaluating the parameters’ impacts on a number of predetermined indicators.

6. General analysis of the array of possible future scenarios Two methods have been suggested for detecting whether a certain scenario is coming true: scanning and monitoring (Gregory, 1998). Scanning involves a ‘survey of the entire environment’ that looks for new developments or anomalies that might signal a change. Monitoring, on the other hand, involves looking at a much narrower scope of predetermined indicators. Each method has its advantages: monitoring may be less energy- and resource-intensive than scanning, but scanning may pick up on changes in the environment not predicted by initial monitoring indicators.

9

It is not the purpose of this project, however, to develop such indicators. The highly varied nature of the state of California makes it unlikely that any single scenario would come true across the entire region. Additionally, the scenarios are meant to represent the extremes of possibility, and it is unlikely that any future state would match a single scenario. Thus, the purpose of this project is to outline the boundaries of possibility, not to find an optimal future outcome. Rather than finding indicators, we will be making a series of recommendations. On the most general level, we aim to make recommendations on the use of scenario planning in general, and how it applies to transportation. When should scenario planning be used? Should scenario planning be taught to environmental students as a tool for future planning? In addition, we will report on what we have learned during the process and whether or not the scenarios we came up with are consistent with current trends.

VII. Management Plan

Group Structure and Management Each member will be assigned various tasks over the course of the lifetime of the project. He/she will be responsible for completing each task on time. While we encourage group work, autonomy is still respected. Outside help from other members is always acceptable for completing a task. It is the ultimate responsibility of the project manager to ensure that tasks are completed on time, maintaining a high standard of quality and clarity. Other members will consult with the project manager regarding any proposed changes in group structure and management. Each quarter, a Quarterly Timeline will be established to set out our goals and strategy for the quarter. It is the responsibility of the group members to ensure that the Timeline is followed. Each member is responsible for keeping their personal agendas up to date in Corporate Time.

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities • Project/Data/Web Manager – Bill Kost

o Maintain website o Maintain GP folder o Maintain Library o Maintain List-serve o Organize e-data

• Graphics Coordinator/Social Manager – Renee Lafrenz o Assist in website maintenance o Provide constructive criticisms o Facilitate illustrations

• Financial/Administrative/Communications Manager – Erin Fisher o Maintain Group CT account o Responsible for meeting room reservations o Responsible as our contact with Bren Administration o Track and record expenses

10

o Responsible for necessary funding o Establish and maintain project budget

• Secretary – Nick Kordesch o Record and distribute meeting minutes o Conduct/lead discussions in group meetings

• Editor/Primary Client Contact– Sarah Herder o Coordinates editing efforts for group o Maintain contact with all clients and external advisors

Meeting Structure Meetings will be held every Tuesday from 12:45 p.m. until 1:45 p.m. in BH 3526. All members are expected to attend. Planned absences are acceptable as long as the group is notified in advance. It is recommended that the faculty advisor attend meetings as often as possible to give feedback and advice, but attendance for the entire meeting is not mandatory. Meeting agendas will be put together by the Secretary. Any members wishing to speak at the meetings at length about any topic are required to inform the Secretary no later than the Monday prior to the weekly meeting (so he can set up an efficient agenda). Last-minute contributions will be deferred to the end of a meeting if time allows. Topics agreed upon by the group as high priority may be discussed prior to the end of a meeting. At the end of a meeting action items for the upcoming week will be determined, keeping in line with the Quarterly Timeline. Additional meetings between group members, clients, etc. will be set up with the Administrative Manager and Corporate Time.

Deadline Compliance At every weekly meeting members will be reminded of assignments and their respective due dates. Each member is expected to complete their task with due diligence. If more time is required for a task, with group consensus the Project Manager may grant a time extension.

Conflict Resolution Members who are in conflict should use the following conflict resolution procedures:

1. Direct communication between parties involved. This step should focus on resolving the issue between the two or more group members without further action by outside parties. If the conflict is personal, it is expected to be resolved by the parties involved, lest it be discussed amongst all group members at a group meeting. If the conflict is related to school/work, the Project Manager is responsible for addressing the conflict at the next group meeting. 2. Discussion of the conflict among all group members. As a group, we will determine appropriate courses of action to resolve all conflicts, whether through behavior adjustment or direct action. 3. Mediation with the group advisor. If the group cannot resolve a conflict, the advisor will be called upon for advice and resolution assistance.

11

4. Documentation of continued non-compliance with the conflict resolution plan and more severe disciplinary action. If repeated conflicts arise similar in nature to prior conflicts, disciplinary action may be warranted if agreed upon by group members and advisor.

Procedures for Documenting, Cataloguing, and Archiving Information All new sources of literature will be put in the library folder “New Papers.” They will then be catalogued by the Data/Information Manager. Catalogued papers will be moved into the folder “Archived Papers” for future use. An up-to-date Excel spreadsheet will track archived papers, organizing them by author last name, title of the paper, and one sentence summary/abstract. Any handwritten notes may be submitted to the library in .pdf format or typed in .doc format. All other data will be catalogued and organized in a timely and efficient manager on a case-by-case basis by the Data/Information Manager.

Guidelines for Interaction with Faculty Advisor, External Advisor, and Clients Our faculty advisor, Roland Geyer, will be called upon whenever needed. His attendance to weekly group meetings, while not mandatory, is greatly appreciated. We expect feedback on submitted papers to be directly proportional to paper length, following the trend of one week minimum, plus one day for every 10 pages over a 10 page submission, with a maximum turnaround time of two weeks. Exceptions can be made if prior notification is given to the group members in advance. Meetings with our primary contact at Volvo, Ichiro Sugioka, Ph.D., will be conducted in person on an as-need basis. Further updates can be handled via email and/or teleconferencing. All other communication with everyone else will be handled in compliance with the Administrative Manager.

Overall Expectations of the Group Members It is the expectation that each member contributes wholeheartedly to the success of the group. We encourage learning, fun, and the occasional social event to maintain good rapport between members. We are all friends, and school work should not have any negative impact on our relationships. It is the expectation that all members are honest and forthcoming about any problems, issues, questions, or concerns and that everyone is trustworthy enough to resolve any issues in an appropriate manner. It is the expectation that we are respectful to each other as peers and that everyone is willing to take part in social events from time to time.

VIII. Deliverables Deliverables will include:

• Final report o Outlining a minimum of three, maximum of five future scenarios o Utilizing agreed upon parameters

12

o Identifying major driving forces and indicators o Complete analysis of implications of scenarios o Formulate recommendations to avoid undesirable scenarios or to reach

desirable scenarios • Presentation utilizing Art Center College of Design, to be presented in multiple

venues (in addition to Bren Group Projects presentation event)

IX. Milestones Date Product Spring Quarter 2006 May 21 Draft Project Proposal to advisor June 2 Proposal Review; creation of up-to-date

website June 7 Report on proposal review due to advisor June 7 Faculty advisors and peer evaluations June 12 Assignment of summer tasks Summer 2006 All summer Completion of summer tasks September 13 Summer Tasks Meeting Fall Quarter 2006 November 17 Completion of progress review December 1 Draft progress report December 1 Faculty advisors and peer evaluations Winter 2007 January Begin work with Art Center College of

Design on presentation February 5 Draft Executive Summary February 12 Draft Final Report March 2 Submit information for group project

presentation April 2 Final Report April 2 Project Brief Spring 2007 April TBA Final Report Oral Presentation and Poster April TBA Final Evaluations April TBA Final Report archived

13

X. Points of Contact Project Members: Erin Fisher efisher@bren.ucsb.edu Sarah Herder sherder@bren.ucsb.edu Nicholas Kordesch nkordesch@bren.ucsb.edu Bill Kost wkost@bren.ucsb.edu Renee Lafrenz rlafrenz@bren.ucsb.edu Faculty Advisor: Roland Geyer geyer@bren.ucsb.edu Client: Ichiro Sugioka, Volvo isugioka@volvocars.com External Advisors: Bob Wilkinson wilkinson@bren.ucsb.edu Devinder Garewal, California Air Resources Board (CARB)

dgarewal@arb.ca.gov

Mark Delucchi, UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies

madelucchi@ucdavis.edu

Project E-mail volvo2@bren.ucsb.edu Project Website http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~volvo2/

XI. Budget

Volvo II Budget Description Cost $

Phone: Set Up $10 Total fees for 12 mo ($1/mo) $12 Voicemail ($22/mo *8 mo) $176 Per Call Fees ($10/ mo* 8 mo) $80 Printing: Printing $100 Copies $100 Conference attendance (2 conferences) $200 Travel expenses $200 Administrative/ business supplies $40 Presentation expenses $100 Final Poster Production $150 Final Paper Printing $100

Total Fees $1293 Bren Contribution (printing + general expenses) $1300

14

XII. Budget Justification XII. Budget Justification The Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management is providing $1,100 for general expenses and $200 for printing costs. Total anticipated costs are approximately $1300. Description of anticipated, estimated costs:

• Phone: o Our clients are not located within easy travel distance for regular

meetings. Ichiro Sugioka is located in Camarillo and Devinder Garewal travels internationally, so we may anticipate approximately two conference or other informational calls per month. The cost of phone calls varies with location.

o Other stakeholders or advisors will be identified as the project progresses. These individuals will likely live outside of the Santa Barbara area, and will be most easily accessed via telephone.

o Voicemail will be required for clients and other stakeholders to reach our group at their convenience, if and when they do not have access to email.

• Printing: o Due to the extensive body of literature available on topics relevant to our

project, some printing and copying costs are anticipated. These costs include any copying from the UCSB or other libraries.

o As Bren will be providing $200 specifically for printing costs, we plan on fully utilizing and not exceeding these funds.

• Conferences: o Volvo specifically requested our group attend the following conferences-

� Human Behavior Workshop, sponsored by Volvo � Policy Consensus Workshop in early fall

• Travel expenses: o Gas and mileage to and from Camarillo multiple times throughout the year o According to Bren School policy, a reimbursement of 40.5 cents per mile

is allowed. Camarillo is approximately 55 miles from Goleta, so a round-trip reimbursement would be approximately $45. With two vehicles traveling to transport six people, and a minimum of three trips total, the anticipated travel costs are over $270. $300 was budgeted to allow for one extra trip, if necessary.

• Administrative supplies: o This cost could include printing business cards, office supplies, any

software that might be needed (although none are expected), research materials, and other expenses involved with hosting a meeting for clients and stakeholders.

• Final Poster Production and Final Paper Printing:

15

o These costs are estimates, and will be more fully researched and adjusted in the Fall Quarter. We plan on researching printing companies, in order to obtain the most professional final products at the minimum costs.

We do not anticipate any unforeseen costs arising during the course of the project. We have not received any additional funding from Volvo for any of these expenses. However, Volvo has stated that if outside expenses occur, there is the possibility of external funding. We will adjust our budget accordingly, if necessary.

16

XIII. References Ackoff, RL. (1994). The Democratic Corporation. New York: Oxford University Press. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), www.bts.gov. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), California Transportation Plan

2025, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/ctp/2025/index.htm California Transportation Plan 2025.

California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov. California Energy Commission, www.energy.ca.gov. Cao, Xinyu et al. The Intended and Actual Adoption of Online Purchasing: A Brief

Review of Recent Literature. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. May 2005.

Department of Finance (DOF), www.dof.ca.gov. Department of Transportation (DOT), www.dot.ca.gov. Gregory, Erika, Gerald Harris, and Jay Ogilvy, “After the Scenarios, Then What?

Strategic Conversation, Early Indicators, and the Art of Communication Scenarios”, Global Business Network, March 1998.

Ogilvy, J. and Smith, E. “Mapping Public and Private Scenario Planning: Lessons from

regional projects.” Development, 2004, 47(4), 67-72, Society of Intl. Development.

Ory, David T. The Impact of Telecommuting on the Commute Time, Distance, and Speed

of State of California Workers. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Dec 2005.

Shell Intl (2003). Exploring the Future- Scenarios: An Explorer’s Guide. Global

Business Environment, Shell Intl Limited. Schwartz, Peter and J. Ogilvy. Plotting Your Scenarios: An Introduction to the Art and

Process of Scenario Planning, Global Business Network. 2004. Teece, D.J. ‘Firm Boundaries: Technological Innovation and Strategic Management.’ In: Thomas, L.G. (ed) The Economics of Strategic Planning, Lexington Books, 1986.

17

Weiss, Malcolm A. et al. On the Road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies. Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Oct 2000.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Mobility 2030: Meeting the

challenges to sustainability. Full Report 2004. Zegras, Christopher et al. Scenario Planning for Strategic Regional Transportation Planning. Urban Planning and Development. Mar 2004.

18

XIV. Appendix A – Definitions System – the sum total of the variables and their manifestations Parameters – quantitative or qualitative characteristic of the system, used to calculate the

indicators Indicator – quantifiable measures of an aspect of the state of the system that indicate the

level of sustainability of the system Driver – endogenous or exogenous forces that change the system over time (may overlap

with variables) Scenario – a possible state of the system at a future point in time Process – the development of a state according to a parameter Variable – time The following diagram is an illustration of the interaction of the above factors:

SYSTEM: CA Transportation

Parameters: “physical characteristics of the system” (used to calculate the indicators) Examples: # of cars; avg. drive time; # / length of bus routes Indicators: “quantifiable measure of an aspect of the state of the system” Examples: GHG emissions; financial outlay; reliability

Baseline year = 2000

DRIVERS: “endogenous or exogenous forces that change the system over time” - Economic - Social / Political - Environmental - Technological

(WILDCARDS)

OUTSIDE OF SYSTEM - other states - federal government - international states

SCENARIO 1 - Affected Parameters - Affected Indicators

SCENARIO 2 - Affected Parameters - Affected Indicators

SCENARIO 3 - Affected Parameters - Affected Indicators

TIME

SCENARIO 4 - Affected Parameters - Affected Indicators

General Framework System: “the sum total of the variables and their manifestations” Scenario: “a possible

state of the system”

PROCESS: The evolution of each scenario will depend on the initial state of the system, time, and the drivers’ effect on the variables, and will be described by the “Plot” of each scenario.

19

XV. Appendix B - State of the Debate regarding the choice of drivers: The process of identifying and choosing two significant drivers is of key importance to this project. We recognize that there are virtually an infinite number of possible drivers, and that there is no one correct choice. In order to pick the “best” combination of drivers, we propose to list all drivers and to indicate for each driver which other drivers it affects and which other drivers affect it. The following diagram illustrates this process:

From this diagram, it becomes clear, for example, that the “responses of the natural environment” affect a significant number of other factors, while none of the other factors actively affect it (in the time period given). Also, although all the arrows are represented the same, it is safe to assume that not all the effects would be of equal force or magnitude. This knowledge must also be factored into the group’s decisions. It is also important to note that a number of feedback loops exist: for example, between “transportation costs” and the “state of the economy”. If each driver positively affects the other, it is considered ‘reinforcing.’ If the first driver positively affects the second, while the second negatively affects the first, it is considered ‘stabilizing’. These feedback loops make it impossible (and unadvisable) to isolate a single cause-and-effect relationship. To deal with this, we will assume a value for one of the drivers (the one that appears to have the ‘larger’ effect) and relate the value of the second to this first value.

State of the Economy (disposable income, economic growth...)

Socio-Political (public opinion, environmental policy/restrictions...)

Environmental prioritization/educ-ation of the general public

Responses of the natural environment, both local and global (increasing evidence of global warming, ice caps, weather...)

Transportation Costs (gas prices, travel time/congestion, expansion of infrastructure)

(Environmental Technology)

Land Use (sprawl vs. Smart growth

20

Economic and environmental forces have been chosen as our two main drivers, which will act as the axes for our analysis. The following figure illustrates this decision and our preliminary descriptions of the four possible scenarios.

Low environmental priority

High Economic Growth

High environmental priority

Low Economic Growth

Transportation infrastructure changes Major technological advances

People keep old cars Roads deteriorate

Small improvements, like efficient cars

Fast unregulated growth & sprawl

21

XVI. Appendix C – Current State of the System All values are given for the state of California in the year 2000, unless otherwise specified. All values are one-year averages, unless otherwise specified.

Demographics Total Population1 33,871,648 people

217,576 people # of Documented Immigrants2 26% of all immigrants to the U.S.

Estimated Total # of Illegal Immigrants2 2.2 million

Accessibility / Social Equity Elements Vehicle Purchase $4,800

Gasoline & Motor oil $1,400 Insurance,

Maintenance, License $2,400

Transit $500 Total = $9,100

Personal Financial Requirements3

19% of Median Household Income

Median Household Income4 $46,900 Mean Household Income for Low Income Homes5 $13,900

% of Income spent on Transportation for Low Income Homes6

39%

Transportation is the second largest household expense.5

Consumer Demand for Transportation Services 17.6 billion gallons motor fuel

Fuel Consumption6 $29 billion

Total On-Road Vehicles 23 million Total Vehicle Miles Traveled5 307 billion Miles of Public Road 170,000 miles

Highway 14,376 million gallons Non-Highway 14,582 million gallons Motor Fuel Use7

Special Use 2,639 million gallons Average Travel Time to Work7 27.7 minutes

Home-Work 19% Home-Shop 14% Home-Other 39% Work-Other 8%

Trip Type

Other-Other 20% Public Bus Route Miles7 23,037 miles

22

Congestion: The highway 101/I-405 interchange in Los Angeles is the #1 worst physical bottleneck in the U.S. with over 27,000 hours of delay experienced by drivers in the year 2000. Los Angeles accounted for four of the top ten worst bottleneck in the U.S. in 2000.

Economic Elements Mean Fuel Price8 $3.25/gallon (retail) Motor Fuel Tax Rate7 $0.18/gallon (gas, diesel, & gasohol) State Expenditures on Transportation Related Projects9 $3.25 billion

State GDP10 $1.5 trillion State % of U.S. GDP10 17% Total Energy Consumption11 2,912.81 trillion BTU Freight Transported by Truck12 1.1 billion tons

2.6 million tons Freight Transported by Air5

$173 billion Freight Transported by Rail5 144 million tons

Entering CA 136.89 million tons Freight Transported by Water7

Leaving CA 59.72 million tons

Environmental Elements GHG Emissions13 203.116 million metric tons CO2E % of Total GHG Emissions from Transportation13 41.2% % of Urban Land 8%

Total Particulate Matter

125.348 tons/day

Total SOx 107.056 tons/day Air Quality14

Total NOx 2,994.279 tons/day Current problems with land-use practices: lack of coordinated planning, single-use zoning, low-density growth, & urban sprawl. 1 US Census Bureau 2 US INS 3 Average for San Diego, CalTrans 4 Dept. of Finance 5 CalTrans 6 2002, CalTrans 7 BTS 8 May 22, 2006, California Energy Commission 9 1999, BTS 10 2004, Dept. of Finance 11 California Energy Commission 12 Into and out of California, 1998, CalTrans 13 2002, California Energy Commission 14 2004, California Air Resources Board