Last week I had the opportunity to attend the second day of the Ontario Bike Summit (#OBS2012) in downtown Toronto. I went as part of the Morning Glory Cycling Club’s Advocacy Committee, but I was thinking as a cycling commuter, recreational cyclist, driver, engineer and planner. It was a great event to promote cycling in Ontario. #OBS2012 is the brain child of Share the Road [www.sharetheroad.ca]. This year Share the Road set the following mandate for the conference (partial):

• To share information on how to develop a “Share the Road’ campaign in partnership with local law enforcement, media and other community partners
• To demonstrate innovative methods for mobilizing community resources, creating momentum and achieving success
• To share research and information on the connection between public health and the built environment
• To share tips and ideas on how to work more effectively with local governments to advance cycling – including strategies for securing more support from the province
• To share data and research that you will help you “make the case” for enhanced cycling
• To Inspire bicycle friendly cities on the 5 “Es” of a Bicycle Friendly Community: Environment, Encouragement, Environment, Education and Evaluation and Planning

Here are some of the great things I learned at the Conference:

1.  CAA Bike Assist Program: Have a CAA membership? Good news, it covers you on your bike! “If you run into a problem that cannot be fixed on the spot, CAA will transport you and your bicycle to wherever.” More on the CA Bike Assist program can be found here
2. More people would ride more if cycling was Safer and there was more cycling Infrastructure (i.e bike lanes, shared lanes, etc). Some numbers from CAA: 60% of members and non-members from CAA want to see more cycling infrastructure in cities, 70% of Ontario’s population thinks more needs to be done for cycling (i.e. Share the road campaigns, safety, awareness, etc). Share the Road is asking the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to dedicate $25M (1/8th of 1% of MTO’s budget) of their budget to cycling infrastructure.
3. Cycling safety and an increase in infrastructure will only be improved through collaboration. Partnerships must be formed with municipal, provincial and federal governments. Governments must work together and not in silos; health care, transportation, planning, municipal housing and affairs, culture, tourism, etc. Partnerships must be made with the public and private sectors.

Ask The Tough Questions:

I challenged the members of parliament on their current cycling strategy. A lot of the discussion on Wednesday circled around the ‘war on cars’. I know that it has been at the forefront of discussion in Toronto because of Mayor Ford. I challenged the MPPs to move away from the polarized discussion of cycling commuters and cars. I asked why cycling as a recreation was not a part of their discussion. I tabled my question stating that I was an engineer, an environmental planner, occasionally a cycling commuter but I was asking the question as a recreational cyclist.

What I heard back. Recreational cycling used to be a part of the discussion, but cycling was not a popular sport at the time. The shift was then to commuters since they were the most visible. But no MPP answered the question! Share the Road Board Members and a few other key speakers really appreciated the question. The idea of bringing recreational cycling back into the conversation is on the horizon. Let’s see what happens next.

Share the Road:

Learn more about Share the Road and sign up for their newsletter here. Share the Road’s goal is to make Ontario more bicycle friendly for everyone by: Enhancing access for bicyclists on roads and trails, Improving safety for all bicyclists, and Educating citizens on the value and importance of safe bicycling for healthy lifestyles and communities. Share the Road represents all cyclists – children, tourists, commuters, recreational riders, mountain bikers and racers.

I had a great time at #OBS2012 and look forward to attending again next year. If you have any other questions about the conference send me an email and I’d be happy to try and answer your question.

Happy Cycling.

(A slightly different version of this blog post can be found on the Morning Glory Blog Site)

Why is flying the most sustainable?

The triple bottom line analysis consider the economic (the raw cost of travel), the environmental (my carbon footprint) and equity (the social cost).

The Economic Cost

I decided to redeem some travel rewards so the flight cost me $161.88 (for taxes, security and admin fees). The least expensive ticket one can book according to Expedia this morning was $499. When I looked earlier in the week both Air Canada and Porter had seat sales on; flights were $338. Given that I booked the flight earlier in the week I’ll use the $338 value in my analysis.

Via rail is Ontario’s only rail carrier. You can take the GO train within the Greater Toronto Area but it does go beyond the GTA borders. When I looked at booking it was $155, but when searching today it was $202.50. (And knowing me I would have bought my ticket at the station today!)

If I was going to drive I’d have to spend $117.68. According to fueleconomy.gov my car requires premium gasoline and goes 11.5km/L on the highway. The round trip distance is 888km and for simplicity I’ll say that the drive is all highway kilometres (10km total is not on the highway). Thus it will require 78L of fuel (round up to 80L and ignore any congestion encountered on the way). Gas was $1.47.1 at my corner gas station according to Toronto’s Gas Prices this morning.

Summary: Flight: $161.88, Train $155, Drive $117.68

The Environmental Cost

The carbon footprint cost. How much damage am I doing by going to Ottawa? According to Carbon Finance one could sell a tonne of carbon on the European market for €12.32 or $16.64CAD today.

When I booked my flight Air Canada stated me that the total carbon footprint for my portion of the flight round trip was 0.21tonnes of CO2 emissions for a value of $3.49.

According to CarbonFund.org each km of long distance rail travel emits 0.49lbs/mile or 0.12kg/km. The Toronto Travel Guide says it’s 446km, which totals 107kg (.107tonnes) of CO2 emissions round trip or $1.78.

The footprint of my car is 174g/km according to NextGreenCar but that is based on a combined urban and highway driving. For simplicity I’ll use this value, so for my 888km my calculated footprint would be 154kg (.154tonnes) of CO2 emissions, bringing the total cost to $2.56.

Summary: Flight $3.49, Train $1.78 or Driving $2.56.

The Equity Cost

It comes down to what I value my time at. I remember when I wrote my thesis (in 2007) that the average value for an hour of work was $20. I could have valued at what my current salary pays me at, or I could have been a little more conservative and used my ski coaching salary. Both of these were greater than $20 so I think I’ll stick with that (Note: I do value my time more than $20/hr! )

Ignoring the time it takes to get to each mode of travel here is what the cost breakdown is for travelling to Ottawa.

My flight is 1hr gate to gate, probably 40mins in the air. Roundtrip, $40.

The train varies between a 4 hr&24min trip and 4hr&48min trip, for an average of 4hrs&36mins. Cost of my time to take the train roundtrip is $184.

For the drive lets assume I drive the speed limit, the 444km trip would take just under 4.5hours. Round trip the total cost would be $190.

Summary: Flight $40, Train $184 or Drive $190.

From the table you can see that the cost of flying is by far the cheaper option. Even if I only valued my time at $10 it is still significantly cheaper to fly, driving is $30 more than flying and taking the train is more than $60 more. However, if I’d had to pay for the full price ticket (at $338) it would make flying the least viable option; I guess that reminds us all to collect and redeem those travel miles!

(Note: This was a quick, basic way to calculate my triple bottom line total cost of travel. I do not claim that it is the most accurate method to calculate the cost of traveling. This exercise was merely meant to demonstrate the ability to account not just for economic costs but also the environmental and equity (social) cost).

Bixi Bikes comes to Toronto

BIXI Toronto launched May 3rd with 1000 bikes in over 80 locations. They can currently only be found within the downtown core (from Bathurst east to Jarvis and Queens Quay north to Bloor) but Bixi is hoping to expand. If you live and/or work in the downtown area Bixi might be for you, especially when it’s only $95/year for a well tuned bike whenever you need it. If you’re only in Toronto visiting BIXI has both day rates ($5/day) and 3-day rates ($12). I was hoping to use BIXI when I go to one of my favourite restaurants this week, Pizza Libretto. But there are no BIXI stations near by and it could be up to an extra $12+ if I don’t return the bike within 90 mins!

Toronto Bike lanes

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford recently announced that he is removing the bike lanes on Jarvis Street. Traffic engineers at the city of Toronto claim that commuters are faced with much longer commuting times and only 600 cyclists are using the Jarvis Street Bike lanes. This may have been more digestible to city cyclists if Ford had offered up some alternative. There is a cycling culture in downtown Toronto and Ford could have proactively offered up another street for bike lanes. Cyclists could instead be offered north routes on one-way Bleecker Street and southbound access on another adjacent route to Jarvis.

For an urban, supposedly active city Toronto’s bike lanes are disconnected, random and usually dangerous to say the least. Biking Toronto has a great website where cyclists can interact and they offer up a map of the existing bike lanes. I try and ride my bike in the city, but it’s usually not on bike lanes (mostly because there aren’t many in the area I live in). Driver behaviours vary day to day; you never know when someone is going to try and cut it close. My suggestions for safe city riding:

1. Wear a helmet (duh!)
2. Ride about 0.5 to a full meter from the curb or parked cars. As a cyclist you have the right to be in the right hand lane (as a slower moving vehicle). If you leave yourself some ‘wiggle’ room by the curb you can save yourself from falling over. It also indicates to drivers to move almost over into the left hand lane to get around you.
3. Do NOT ride on the sidewalk (it’s for pedestrians)
4. Wear bright colours. The more visible you are, the more likely other cars and cyclists will see you.
5. Carry ID, a mobile phone and have money for a cab.

The Sidewalks are for Pedestrians

Suggestion #3 is to not ride on the sidewalk. One it is illegal. And two it frightens pedestrians.

One of my favourite ways to stay active and healthy is to run track workouts down at Varsity Stadium with the University of Toronto. For my warm-up and cool-down I usually go and adventure through Queens Park and campus, seeing old buildings I used to attend classes in and getting my legs ready for something blisteringly fast (well fast for old lady legs!). Recently my fear factor has gone up significantly; there are so many cyclists jumping on and off sidewalks or just steadily riding on sidewalks. I am very afraid that one of them is going to plow into me one day. While it wouldn’t be as devastating as being hit by a car, I think the damage could still be quite significant.

Cycling friends please leave the sidewalks to those of walking and running.

With summer here I’m going to try and get in as much time on my bike as possible. I may even start waking up and ridiculously early hours just to get in a long road ride before I go to work. My goal is try and ride my bike to work once my competitive track season is over, but we’ll see given how dangerous it may be.

Enjoy your summer.  Why not enjoy your summer on your bike?

A co-worker was going on mat leave so we all decided to have lunch together. We picked a restaurant close to work and agreed to meet at the lobby 15 minutes before our reservation. We congregated in the lobby chatting, waiting for the stragglers to come down from their offices, and then the debate over who was going to drive began!

Drive!? ‘You want to drive?’ I asked. I was absolutely adamant that I was walking. It was a beautiful sunny day. I wanted to stretch my legs. But my friends insisted on driving. I overheard ‘I want to make sure I’m back in good time.’

I just GoogleMaps’d the location and it is 850m! I think I arrived one minute after they did. Returning back to the office, with the left turns and the lights, I was back at my desk before my office mates.

We relate our cars to efficient, time-saving machines, but sometimes they are quite the opposite.

I decided to look up what the average distance people are willing to walk to amenities.

In order to get the points for being close to amenities under the CaGBC/USGBC LEED for New Homes one has to construct within a half mile/800m of a frequent transit stop or community resources. I also did a quick Google search and found on average people are willing to walk between 1/4 mile/400m and 1/2 mile/800m.

Physical and mental health is on the decline and obesity is on the rise. A simple way to help combat this is to walk to lunch.

Different government agencies are developing individual green manuals for their jurisdictions, since each jurisdiction faces unique climate and construction constraints. These manuals are much like the LEED manual; the points system for constructing sustainable buildings. Buildings are a simpler than highways, while the foundation may change the general construction as the building goes up remains the same. It’s why each road jurisdiction necessitates its own individual manual.

What can we expect on the greener roads?

• Reduced raw material: recycled pavements, long life pavements, life cycle assessments of the road structure, etc
• Improved Human Health and Safety: intelligent transportation systems, pedestrian and cycle friendly road and highway intersections, etc
• Water: reduced water use during construction, proper storm water management, etc
• Optimized land  and habitat use: crossings for wildlife, minimize the width of roads and clear zones, protect streams and wetlands, etc

Greener roads will continue to evolve. Our traditional way of road construction cannot continue, not just due to the environmental hazards, but the cost to build and maintain our current infrastructure is not possible.

According to Commute Solutions: The True Cost of Driving it costs me $18.50 per day to drive to work!

Driving is not just the cost of gas and the amortization of your vehicle; do not forget to include insurance, license and registration, tires, maintenance, etc. And there are all the other things we so frequently forget to include, the costs to maintain the roadways, pollution, noise, etc.

Although I drive to work most days I have made changes to try and reduce my carbon footprint. I am fortunate and have some flexibility in my schedule, so I either work and earlier or later shift to avoid peak congestion. I also plan to start split commute; subway and biking, again at off peak times to bring my bike on the subway and to avoid as many cars as possible. If I get really adventurous I may even start running to or from work to try and bump up my running mileage!

On October 25th all of Ontario goes to vote their municipal leaders. Here in Toronto the race for mayor seems to be cooling down. While candidates continue to campaign, Rob Ford seems to be storming ahead with the lead.

What? Rob Ford? The man who has insulted at least half of the city’s population; he announced he was opposed to gay marriage and does not support immigrants coming to Toronto. He’s been arrested for impaired driving. But this blog is not meant to be about bashing Ford (I’ll save that for another day).

When we go to the polls on October 25th we will all be voting for the future of our cities and towns. Toronto is at a cross-roads. With construction having started on the Spadina Subway extension and the current transit system somewhat in limbo the city needs a mayor that will revitalize transit and make it a priority of their term.

What does the city need for Transit?

Last week I vented about Rossi’s proposal to tunnel the Allen expressway down to the Gardiner. My theme with transit is similar; Toronto needs to work with what it has before unrolling expensive, ostentatious, impossible transit.

Currently Toronto is serviced by 3 subways, a Rapid Transit line (an extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway line), 11 streetcars and (≈) 144 daily bus routes. Wow, sounds pretty robust. But it’s still inefficient and people opt for their car over transit.

In addition each of the suburban communities has a transit system, Mississauga, Brampton, Viva (servicing York Region), as well as, GO Transit and VIA Rail (servicing a variety of communities). And while the transit operations are starting to ‘work’ together (under PRESTO) there is no seamless system for transit riders to move between the systems (something else to take into consideration when voting).

What can we do better?

1. Work with what we’ve got: When you look at the system map it’s clear that Toronto has the means to have a great transit system, it just needs some tweaks (see suggestions below). London, UK drastically improved reliability when it introduced a congestion charging scheme. First people chose transit over cars due to the cost savings. With fewer cars on the road and dedicated bus lanes, transit was more efficient, even faster than your personal automobile so people switched to transit for efficiency.
2. Dedicated streetcar and bus lanes: Not only do they improve transit times, they also improve transit reliability
3. Signal Priority: As a bus approaches an intersection the lights change in favour for the bus. This is necessary with dedicated lanes to keep transit vehicles moving on schedule
4. Add to the system: Not new routes, just more vehicles on the routes. People opt for their personal vehicle in off-peak hours because their bus runs every 30mins to hour. Reduce that to ten minutes and more people will choose transit over their vehicles.
5. Permit bicycles on subways during peak hours: The new buses and street cars are equipped with bicycle racks, but you’re still not permitted to bring on the subway during peak hours. People would be much more inclined to switch out of their cars given the means to travel efficiently through the city, which means bringing your bike on the subway any time of the day.

Aside from suggestion 4 all of these examples are very low cost to implement and can improve the reliability of the TTC. But what would cost more having more buses in a dedicated transit lane with signal priority or constructing dedicated streetcar and subway lines?

What are the Candidates Saying

Rob Ford: Ford wants to see more streetcar lines, but as the Transit Toronto blog argues this will only increase congestion. He also wants to see an additional 12km of subway lines along Sheppard Avenue. His final comittment was to for 100km of bike trails (rumour has it these are not to be on Toronto roads). His transit plan was released on youtube and just like the quality of the video, his plan is lackluster.

George Smitherman: Smitherman’s plan is called the Integrated Transit Plan. At the heart of the plan is customer service; including free service for seniors between 1oam and 2pm, a transit charter, and a promise to keep vehicles clean and maintained. Looking at a longer term horizon (10- and 20-years out) Smitherman is committed to extending subway lines and adding more LRT lines.

Rocco Rossi: Rossi has a 5 priorities for improving transit in Toronto, #1 being to build more subways. He also recognizes that Toronto cannot continue to operate as a silo, under priority #2 Rossi recommends a stronger partnership with Metrolinx. While this will improve regional transportation, Rossi ignores a massive part of our current local system, buses.

Sarah Thomson: Again she sees subways as queen bee. She’s going all-out, stating that the city needs another 58km of subway lines (the current system is 70km so she’s trying to almost double it). Thomson does have the most aggressive cycling plan with more than 1000km on-road and 40km off-road through utility corridors.

None of them look to our existing system and how to make it better. Instead they’re promising unrealistic, expensive systems. Smitherman’s plan seems best, work on the small things before tackling the big ones, create a better sense of ‘community’ our transit system and while he spells out big ticket plans, he understands that Toronto needs to keep moving – ‘faster, better, easier and safer’.

Over the next few weeks I’ll look at some of the other relevant issues for Toronto’s Mayoral campaign including municipal taxes, city roads and anything else relevant to sustainable cities and transportation.

A little history…

The Allen Expressway was originally designed to be a connection from the 401 all the way down to the Gardiner, known as the Spadina expressway. Construction began in 1963. Homes were demolished, neighbourhoods destroyed and air pollution was increasing for surrounding residents. Opposition continued to mount. Modifications to the Spadina Expressway were made in 1964, it meant the expropriation and demolition of more homes. by 1966 the city opened the first section from Wilson Avenue down to Lawrence, with a massive, highly efficient connection with the 401. Construction down to Eglinton continued but in 1969 a group led by Alan Powell and Jane Jacobs known as the “Stop Spadina, Save Our City Co-ordinating Committee” (SSSOCCC) formed committed to halting the progress of the Spadina Expressway.

Based on the Eglinton terminus the SSSOCCC won.

What does Toronto really need?

Does Toronto need a buried expressway? Didn’t we learn enough from Boston’s Big Dig? The multi-billion dollar project was way over budget, has not improved efficiency and has not helped reconnect citizens to the waterfront.

Toronto needs roads to function more efficiently, better bus transportation on existing roads and traffic engineers to work together to get our city moving again, from pedestrians, to cyclists, to buses and finally vehicles.

Toronto needs a mayor who can think about what the citizens really need. Do they need their taxes raised to fund more projects? Or do they need a mayor who can work with what the city already has and make it better?

Give me a KISS

Do you remember when you were much younger and someone told you to follow the KISS principle? Keep It Simple Stupid. While I was driving back from class I thought of a few things the city could do before it was forced to construct an underground expressway

• Eliminate illegal parking/stopping on streets during day hours: Bathurst was crawling today. Why? Because a delivery truck decided to park facing south on the northbound lanes. Instead of two lanes of traffic, it was reduced to one. In addition the one lane competed for right turn space, since the driver had parked so close to the intersection. Flow would have been uninterrupted without the truck illegally stopped.
• Dedicated Pedestrian Crossing at all major intersections: I wrote a blog on this before. The Dundas square intersection almost ‘gets’ it. But instead there should be no pedestrian crossing when traffic is moving. It is safer for pedestrians to cross when the intersection is completely stopped.
• Eliminate Street Parking: You cut capacity in half with street parking. Facilities can be built in nearby areas. I see the other side of the argument, that it hurts businesses where street parking has been eliminated. However, the loss of business due to congestion is likely greater than the cost of lost business.
• Dedicated Bus and Carpool lanes: Their benefits are well documented and require little infrastructure for implementation.
• Signal Timing: Ever feel like you get a green light as the one in front of you turns red? City Traffic Engineers need to set routes as ‘main lines.’ Consecutive green lights would allow people to come into and out of the city easily.

Instead of dreaming of elaborate, expensive, complicated infrastructure, lets go back to the basics. Instead the city should work with its existing infrastructure. Make the roads move efficiently. Make buses move along those routes efficiently. Make it attractive to live in the city again. Work with all the great infrastructure that exists in the city before we bring in more.

Maybe Rossi has a vision. Or maybe he thinks a massive elevator will transport vehicles up to meet the Gardiner.

It seems like most north-south routes through the core of the city are under construction (Bayview, Mount Pleasant, Yonge and Avenue). And a select few east-west streets are also under construction, namely the Gardiner Expressway and Bloor Street, Toronto’s main lateral arterials.

Construction is only adding to an existing gridlock problem. Last week the National Post reported that Toronto was rated the 2nd worst city in the world for traffic congestion by IBM. Johannesburg took the #1 spot for worst traffic. Residents perceive that traffic is getting worse (9% of commuters felt the quality of their commute had declined) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) estimated that Toronto lost $3.3 billion last year in productivity due to the congested roads.

Toronto’s gridlock is getting worse, between the increase in population and the increase in construction it is excruciating to travel through the city by car. And currently there is no public transit solution worth considering (would you rather be stuck on a crowded bus or in your own car?)

Someone said to me the other day,

Is all the construction a conspiracy by David Miller to convince Dalton McGuinty and Queens Park that we need Transit City Now?

The solution is not just a mass transit upgrade for Toronto. Part of the solution also includes a cultural shift (i.e getting people out of their individual cars and back on to buses, getting people to move back into the city and out of the suburbs). It should also include more bike lanes, but bike lanes with a buffer from traffic; Toronto’s driving culture still isn’t capable of sharing lanes.

Regardless of the outcome, Toronto is stuck with massive delays, congestion and, thus, pollution from the added construction to the gridlock. And while I understand that there is a huge infrastructure gap and the roads NEED to be fixed a better construction mitigation plan should have been sought out.

1. Climate change science, sources and trends
2. The importance of climate change to the state DOTs
3. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions from transportation
4. Climate adaptation for Transportation Agencies
5. Climate legislation and policy

Burbanks’s presentation began by discussing the unequivocal evidence of global warming, increased GHG emissions and the effect of humans on the rising levels of GHG’s. I won’t get into that much here. Although she agreed that there is some science out there disqualifying climate change, the science behind human effects on climate change is overwhelming. Her presentation on climate science was quite good and if you have a few minutes go through pages 12 to 18 of her slides.

What I thought was more interesting were her findings on climate change and its effects on DOTs.

The Three-Part Challenge to State DOTs

1. Reduce transportation GHG’s: by as much as 60-80% by 2050
2. Adapt transportation infrastructure: most importantly to severe storms, but also rising sea levels, high temperatures and flooding
3. Find a new revenue stream: one based on low carbon fuels

In the US highway vehicles = 82% of Transportation CO2 emissions, 23% of total US CO2 emission

The Economist vs. Political Debate

Burbank is an economist and argued that GHG reduction should be done as cost effectively as possible. She stated that the evidence supports that an 80% reduction in GHG’s in transportation maybe more costly in some sectors than others. i.e. From an economic perspective transportation targets should probably be lower

BUT the political reality is that each sector will have to contribute its ‘fair share.’ Therefore the DOTs will likely be forced to achieve a reduction of GHG’s of 60-80% from current levels

Initially we thought of reduction strategies in terms of a 3 legged stool, which included vehicles, fuels and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). That has known grown to a five legged stool to include Operating Efficiency and Construction, Maintenance and Agency Operations. Brown notes that a 50% cut in GHG/mile is feasible from conventional technologies and biofuels by 2020-2030 (slide 25 has some worldwide GHG rates).

“In the long term, carbon free road transport fuel is the only way to achieve an 80-90% reduction in emissions.” Although the number of light duty vehicles in the developed world (OCED) will not dramatically increase over the next few decades, those in the developing world (non-OCED) will dramatically increase. We have to decarbonizes fuel because of their increased use of light duty vehicles.

To further reduce the carbon footprint of transportation the DOTs have to starting thinking about pricing schemes. As Burbank says “Without price signals, trying to reduce GHG is swimming upstream.” Pricing will encourage consumer purchase of lower carbon vehicles/fuels, business Investment in low-GHG technology, decreased VMT, Eco-driving
and more efficient land use.

And the pricing tools already exist; auto ‘feebates,’ carbon/fuel prices, PAYD insurance (Pay-as-you-Drive, i.e. by km/annum), mileage fees, increased parking pricing, and congestion Pricing (just like in London and Singapore)

Alongside pricing tools government’s will have to employ strategies to reduce GHG in light duty vehicles by 10-20%. These can include:

• Managing speed (35-55 MPH/56-88 KPH is optimal)
• Speed limits/enforcement (reduce fuel use by 2-4%)
• Eliminating bottlenecks
• “Active” Traffic Management to smooth traffic flow
• Improving signal timing (could reduce 1.315 MMT CO2/yr)
• Roundabouts
• Reducing Car and Truck Idling
• Work zone management to smooth flow
• Encourage eco-driving

Strategies to reduce GHG’s in our vehicles and fuels will not be enough. It will take a coordination of strategies for Construction, Maintenance and Agency Operations that will help to decrease GHG emissions. Some examples that governments can employ:  LED traffic lights, low carbon pavement, energy-efficient buildings (i.e LEED certified), solar panels along the right of way, alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles in agency fleets, and alternative fuel and hybrid buses.

Why do Agencies need to plan for Adaptation?:

Climate change is a reality that transportation agencies need to deal with . Those that are proactive will be the ones that spend less money over the long run.