This rating system focuses on conventional visions of what's "green".  That vision is far too narrow.  Why the focus on public transit rather than a broader focus on alternative transit modes?  Why nothing about walkable communities, where automobile use is minimized by design?  Why the big concern for traffic congestion when reducing congestion is known to entice people to use their cars even more?  What about looking at green jobs?  What about policies encouraging businesses to "green up their act?"  I'd give the rating scale a C-.

It's surprising how many aspects of sustainability are impacted through transit, thus the importance we place on it in our study. We actually do include measurements for walk and bike to work percentages by city. Aspects of congestion impact air quality, fuel consumption, childhood asthma rates on neighboring communities to freeways and more. We do also include measures of green business incentives, as well as a city's capabilities in knowledge management and policy directives. All told, we collect around 2000 data points over a 6 month period. But your larger point is well taken. Sustainability is often too narrowly thought of as "environmental" sustainability. In fact, the social and economic equity aspects of a city's development are intertwined with it's environmental fortunes. Van Jones' work on green collar jobs really brings this concept out. In our 2009 data collection, SustainLane will be adding metrics for green jobs, education levels, crime and several other social and economic indicators, as a city's sustainability measure. Thanks for your comments. It has been through feedback such as yours that we've improved our rankings in each of the last three years.