Public transportation systems are often part of strategies to reduce urban environmental impacts from passenger transportation, yet comprehensive energy and environmental life-cycle measures, including upfront infrastructure effects and indirect and supply chain processes, are rarely considered. Using the new bus rapid transit and light rail lines in Los Angeles, near-term and long-term life-cycle impact assessments are developed, including consideration of reduced automobile travel. Energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants are assessed, as well the potential for smog and respiratory impacts.

Results show that life-cycle infrastructure, vehicle, and energy production components significantly increase the footprint of each mode (by 48–100% for energy and greenhouse gases, and up to 6200% for environmental impacts), and emerging technologies and renewable electricity standards will significantly reduce impacts. Life-cycle results are identified as either local (in Los Angeles) or remote, and show how the decision to build and operate a transit system in a city produces environmental impacts far outside of geopolitical boundaries. Ensuring shifts of between 20–30% of transit riders from automobiles will result in passenger transportation greenhouse gas reductions for the city, and the larger the shift, the quicker the payback, which should be considered for time-specific environmental goals.

Better methods are necessary to fully account for anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and the essential services provided by ecosystems that sustain human life. Current methods for assessing sustainability, such as life cycle assessment (LCA), typically focus on easily quantifiable indicators such as air emissions with no accounting for the essential ecosystem benefits that support human or industrial processes. For this reason, more comprehensive, transparent, and robust methods are necessary for holistic understanding of urban technosphere and ecosphere systems, including their interfaces. Incorporating ecosystem service indicators into LCA is an important step in spanning this knowledge gap.

For urban systems, many built environment processes have been investigated but need to be expanded with life cycle assessment for understanding ecosphere impacts. To pilot these new methods, a material inventory of the building infrastructure of Phoenix, Arizona can be coupled with LCA to gain perspective on the impacts assessment for built structures in Phoenix. This inventory will identify the origins of materials stocks, and the solid and air emissions waste associated with their raw material extraction, processing, and construction and identify key areas of future research necessary to fully account for ecosystem services in urban sustainability assessments. Based on this preliminary study, the ecosystem service impacts of metropolitan Phoenix stretch far beyond the county boundaries. A life cycle accounting of the Phoenix’s embedded building materials will inform policy and decision makers, assist with community education, and inform the urban sustainability community of consequences.

Providers of systems engineering services and their employees are not always able to be the masters of their own destiny. When working in staff augmentation roles under the auspices of another company, they are typically forced to operate within the corporate culture from which they derive their livelihood, following “foreign” processes and procedures, responding to orders and directives. This situation calls for an alternative maturity model for those that provide systems engineering services. While a client organization might be maturing according to any of several proposed models (SEI 1993, SEI 1995, EPIC 1995, ISO 1990, IEEE 1994), the services contractor cannot necessarily be said to be achieving a similar status.

This should not, however, preclude significant maturation goals on the part of the service provider. The Phoenix Imperative is both a business model and maturity model that has worked effectively in several corporations providing system engineering services. It was developed in the context described above and honed over a period of several years with several customers. It provides not only an alternative to the other organizational maturity models that have been proposed, but also delivers the potential for adoption as a personal maturity model for individuals interested in increasing their effectiveness within the context of employment with a service provider.

In his writings over the past decade, Brad Allenby has proposed (at least) 16 principles of sustainable engineering (see references) that are collectively known as the Earth Systems Engineering and Management (ESEM) principles. These principles have merit and applicability in many disciplines and domains of discourse, but are sometimes awkward to use due to the quantity of words required to accurately express their meaning. In light of this, it has become necessary to formulate a simplified list of “abbreviated tags” for ease of reference in conversation and concise writing. This list of tags also makes the principles immediately accessible to those who may want to pursue the more thorough definitions offered by Allenby. The following tags have been proposed for use when a concise phrasing is required. The citation provided after the tag is, in my opinion, the most complete expression of Allenby’s thought on this principle. It can be used when citing the principle in written assignments or publications.

Background: We describe the study design and methods used in a 9-month pedometer-based worksite intervention called “ASUKI Step” conducted at the Karolinska Institutet (KI) in Stockholm, Sweden and Arizona State University (ASU) in the greater Phoenix area, Arizona. Methods/Design: “ASUKI Step” was based on the theory of social support and a quasi-experimental design was used for evaluation. Participants included 2,118 faculty, staff, and graduate students from ASU (n = 712) and KI (n = 1,406) who participated in teams of 3–4 persons. The intervention required participants to accumulate 10,000 steps each day for six months, with a 3-month follow-up period. Steps were recorded onto a study-specific website. Participants completed a website-delivered questionnaire four times to identify socio-demographic, health, psychosocial and environmental correlates of study participation. One person from each team at each university location was randomly selected to complete physical fitness testing to determine their anthropometric and cardiovascular health and to wear an accelerometer for one week. Study aims were: 1) to have a minimum of 400 employee participants from each university site reach a level of 10, 000 steps per day on at least 100 days (3.5 months) during the trial period; 2) to have 70% of the employee participants from each university site maintain two or fewer inactive days per week, defined as a level of less than 3,000 steps per day; 3) to describe the socio-demographic, psychosocial, environmental and health-related determinants of success in the intervention; and 4) to evaluate the effects of a pedometer-based walking intervention in a university setting on changes in self-perceived health and stress level, sleep patterns, anthropometric measures and fitness. Incentives were given for compliance to the study protocol that included weekly raffles for participation prizes and a grand finale trip to Arizona or Sweden for teams with most days over 10,000 steps. Discussion: “ASUKI Step” is designed to increase the number of days employees walk 10,000 steps and to reduce the number of days employees spend being inactive. The study also evaluates the intra- and interpersonal determinants for success in the intervention and in a sub-sample of the study, changes in physical fitness and body composition during the study.