Streetsblog New York City

Editor's note: Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sent us this commentary on the the BP oil spill, climate change, and the need for transportation reform.

Last Tuesday night, President Obama delivered his first speech from the Oval Office on the single greatest challenge our nation faces: how we supply and consume energy.

The searing images we’re seeing from the Gulf Coast -- of the families who lost loved ones, of people out of work and of oil-coated birds and dolphins -- are daily reminders of what’s at stake when we drill, baby, drill.

The truth is that we are drilling 150 miles offshore and one mile below the earth’s surface because we have run out of accessible oil. Most shocking is how small a difference this oil makes to our energy needs. The 35-60,000 barrels spewing daily from the Gulf floor would be enough to power our nation’s cars for just four minutes.

Whether from the Gulf of Mexico or Persian Gulf, we cannot meet our nation’s energy needs by drilling. We are at a precipice, and I stand firmly with President Obama when it comes to Congress passing legislation that arms the nation with clean energy.

But frankly, we need to do more on these issues, especially by addressing transportation and how we build in our communities.

The transportation sector accounts for almost three-quarters of U.S. oil consumption and one-third of our carbon emissions. If we really want to break our dependence on oil and improve our global competitiveness, we must focus on the way people commute and move goods.

Being truly aggressive about where and how we build can save even more money and energy -- with the potential to cut carbon pollution 12-16 percent by 2030 and save more than a million barrels of oil a day.

This is not the first thing that comes to mind for most people, but to ensure our energy security, we need a comprehensive approach. I hope this becomes part of the future message and, more importantly, a key focus of Congressional action.

Editor’s note: This is an essay from Jason Henderson, a Geography Professor at San Francisco State
University. He was born and raised in New Orleans and spent many years
exploring Louisiana’s wetlands. He is currently writing a book about
the politics of mobility, and frequently advocates for reduced car
parking and improved bicycle space in San Francisco.

The Moratorium

After almost two months of failed attempts at "topkills," "tophats," "junkshots," "cofferdams," and "caps-on-the-diamond-cut-riser" it is evident that the BP wellhead spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico has unleashed an unprecedented catastrophe. We made a mistake in wishing away the risks of deepwater drilling. Despite protests from the oil industry, the six-month moratorium proposed by the Obama administration is clearly needed in order for the nation to have a pointed and deliberate reflection about its priorities.

As a Louisiana native I am sensitive to the disruption this moratorium might cause for the 150,000 people employed in offshore drilling and corollary services. Yet take one look at the destruction of a truly renewable and sustainable industry — fisheries — and think it through. The offshore oil industry just killed the commercial and recreational fishing industry, it may destroy tourism, and will kill more if we do not get drilling and environmental protection right. How many jobs will be lost because of this ecological catastrophe? And what future start-up companies or footloose firms want to move to a region that is mired in a toxic cesspool of oil? Who would want to invest in property or raise families in a region that has not carefully protected its environment and regulated polluting industries? In the long run, the moratorium gives us time to work this out, and is better for the Gulf Coast economy. It’s also best for the nation.

But in the short run, a solid and comprehensive moratorium could mean roughly 1.7 million barrels a day eliminated from the US energy portfolio without any stopgap measure in place to check that demand. Far-off energy miracles in hydrogen, wind, solar, or nuclear energy will not meet the immediate demand. Instead, as Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu points out, the nation might get the 1.7 million barrels it draws from the Gulf from somewhere else.[1]

Read more…

The transit industry's leading D.C. lobbying outlet today joined the umbrella group for state DOTs and two major construction groups to protest the Senate climate bill's failure to set aside all of the revenue from its proposed new fuel fees for infrastructure projects -- specifically, to the cash-strapped highway trust fund that is generally split, 80-20, between roads and transit.

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) chief William Millar told reporters that while the local transit agencies he represents are "very supportive of legislation to address climate change and energy issues," the Senate bill's diversion of all but about $6 billion of its fuel revenues for purposes unrelated to transportation is a matter of serious concern.

"This is one of those cases where we really can't even talk about the merits of any portion of the bill because the fundamental position is flawed," Millar said.

Referring to the legislation's promise of funding for the clean transport and land-use grants known as "CLEAN TEA" and TIGER, he added, "Many of those are very good ideas … but you can't make those ideas work if there's no significant funding to make them work, and this bill would aggravate the funding situation for public transit."

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), was more direct in outlining where state DOTs want to see the Senate climate bill's fuel revenues directed. "Channel[ing] every dollar through the highway trust fund," he said, would help the industry break through a congressional stalemate and win passage of a new six-year federal transport bill.

Stephen Sandherr, CEO of the Associated General Contractors, and Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, echoed Horsley's interpretation of the new fuel fees in the climate bill -- which are imposed on oil companies and refiners but are likely to be passed along through higher gas prices -- as a de facto "user fee" on drivers.

The climate proposal, Ruane said, does "nothing more than finance a lot of goals, which are enviable in part, on the backs of transportation users."

It remains to be seen whether the transportation industry's combative stance against the partial diversion of the bill's transportation revenue, billed as a "call for a rewrite" of the climate legislation, will help force senators into restructuring the measure. Ruane said he "like[s] the odds" facing the four groups.

But one congressional source was befuddled by APTA's move to "bit[e] the hand that feeds them" by criticizing a climate bill that stands to give broad, lasting benefits to rail and bus systems.

Read more...

While many in Washington spent their holiday breaks wondering if Senate Democratic opposition would deal a major blow to progress on a climate change bill, eleven northeastern governors were agreeing on a deal that suggests otherwise.

The eleven governors, including New York's David Paterson, vowed to develop a shared low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that would cut the total "life-cycle" emissions from transportation fuels. That measure would include the indirect environmental harm caused by biofuels' adverse land-use effects as well as the direct consequences of burning conventional gas.

The process is not going to be easy, or quick -- the states' pact mentions only that a "regional framework" for the standard would be established by 2011. But the governors' deal is a sign that amid uncertain prospects for congressional action on carbon emissions caps, states are emerging as laboratories for new approaches to curbing pollution.

Even an LCFS that allows fuel producers to select their own method of pollution reduction and measures emissions on a per-gallon basis, as recommended by the Union of Concerned Scientists, would not be a substitute for climate legislation that seeks to put a fair price on carbon.

What an LCFS can do is put electrified rail and other forms of transit on a more competitive footing by encouraging gas and diesel prices that reflect the full environmental toll taken by the burning of fossil fuels. As the California High Speed Rail Blog observed in its analysis of that state's LCFS -- which is expected to serve as a model for the eleven northeastern states:

Read more...

Outside of China, only two cities of more than a million people are known to have a bicycling mode-share over 30 percent: Amsterdam and Copenhagen. As Rutgers urban expert John Pucher has documented, cycling's vibrantly high percentage of urban trips throughout Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany was not the product of amorphous cultural factors. Rather, it came about through public policies that not only made cycling safe and convenient but also made driving costly and cumbersome.

So it was disconcerting to learn that one of these measures -- limiting the supply and raising the price of central-city car parking -- is about to be compromised in Copenhagen. And the announcement could not be more ill-timed, with the Danish capital set to host the U.N. Climate Change Conference starting Monday.

The government of Denmark this week unveiled a package of incentives to jump-start the sale and use of electric cars. As the New York Times reported on Wednesday, each new electric car comes not just with a per-purchase subsidy of $40,000, but with this stunning perk: free parking in downtown Copenhagen.

Free parking, as UCLA Professor Don Shoup has taught us, comes with a high cost: greater car use. The more valuable and pricey the parking space, the greater the inducement to drive when it is given away. In the case of downtown Copenhagen, where parking probably goes for the U.S. equivalent of $25 a day, the inducement will be powerful indeed.

Consider a resident of metropolitan Copenhagen headed downtown from, say, 10 miles away. Even with petrol taxed to a price of $8 a gallon, the fuel cost of the 20-mile round-trip in a 32 mpg car is just five bucks. That's pocket change next to the $25 parking cost. But make parking free, and the $30 car trip can now be made for $5. Econometric models using price-elasticity suggest that the number of trips will roughly triple as a result -- at least until the resulting traffic chokes off some of the increase.

Granted, the parking subsidy applies only to electric cars, so for a while the surge might remain a trickle. But once put in place, subsidies are hard to withdraw. Eventually, the increase in use of electric cars for commuting and other trips into the heart of Copenhagen will take mode share from cycling, walking and transit -- not just directly due to the subsidy for driving, but indirectly because those "green modes" will have become less efficient, less safe, and less valued by society.

But perhaps the most jarring aspect of the new policy is the way the national government is cloaking it in green.

Read more...

Transportation's effects on public health are rarely discussed by policy-makers, but they remain very real -- and the National Research Council (NRC) put a number on them Monday, reporting that cars and trucks have about $56 billion in "hidden" health costs that are not reflected in the price of oil or electricity.

In its report on the "unpriced consequences of energy production and use," the NRC was acting under a congressional mandate to map the health impacts of various energy sources. Climate change was not factored into the NRC's conclusions, but the report nonetheless had a grim tale to tell about transportation fuel consumption.

The NRC found that the manufacture and burning of fuel for U.S. cars and trucks produced $56 billion in external costs in 2005, the year that the report was requested. That hidden cost averaged between 1.2 and 1.7 cents per vehicle mile traveled, depending on the type of fuel used.

In discussing the relatively small difference between the external costs of conventional gas-burning autos and the costs of hybrids or electric vehicles, the NRC wrote:

Although operation of the [electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles] produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates.

In other words, hybrids and electric vehicles are still likely to consume serious amounts of coal -- at least until the nation adopts an effective renewable electricity standard. The NRC notes that "further legislative and economic initiatives to reduce emissions from the electricity grid could be expected to improve the relative damages from electric vehicles substantially."

Given that cleaner electricity is a significant priority for transit and freight rail as well, perhaps it's worth mentioning: transportation reform is also electricity and energy reform.

Includes Provision That Would Allow NYC Hybrid Taxi Fleet

Flanked by fellow Democrats, members of the military, and a crowd hoisting signs with buzzwords like "clean energy" and "green jobs," Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) today released the first draft of their legislation to curb U.S. emissions and combat climate change.

The bill (available here) contains a stronger target for pollution reduction -- a 20 percent decrease below 2005 emissions levels by the year 2020 -- than the House climate measure which passed by a razor-thin margin in June.

But environmental groups are already lamenting that scientific consensus has urged a 40 percent pollution reduction below 1990 emissions levels in order to effectively forestall the negative effects of climate change, making the Boxer-Kerry bill "woefully inadequate," in the words of Center for Biological Diversity executive director Kieran Suckling.

And the Senate bill's transportation provisions, as Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported yesterday, offer only a marginal improvement over the House version, which gave transit and other clean transport just 1 percent of the proceeds from any cap-and-trade carbon regulation system.

The Senate bill's section on allocations -- the amount of aid provided to state governments and various industries to help meet emissions-reduction goals -- is subject to change as the environment committee, which Boxer chairs, and other panels attempt to amend the legislation.

As it stands, however, the Senate would require states to use 10 percent of their allocations to reduce transportation-based emissions. The House climate bill, by contrast, allowed states to use up to 10 percent of allocations on transportation but did not make it mandatory.

Boxer and Kerry's draft also includes a "set-aside," in Washington parlance, for transit grants to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) meet national standards for cutting transport-based emissions.

Those transit grants, distributed according to existing federal formulas, would be funded by auctioning a still-undetermined amount of emissions allocations and depositing the proceeds in state Climate Change Response and Transportation Funds (CCRTFs). After 10 percent of CCRTF funds went to coastal states, to help cope with the risk of climate-induced floods, and 1 percent went to Indian tribes, 50 percent of the rest would go toward transit.

Read more...

A 10 percent annual increase in U.S. transit ridership would reduce CO2 emissions by 180 million tons each year, taking the nation halfway to the target set by the House climate change bill within three years, according to a report [PDF] released today by Environment America and the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

The report, timed to coincide with the growing debate over transit's role in the final version of the congressional climate bill, includes a wealth of useful and surprising data about how last year's much-discussed rise in transit use translates into reduced driving and environmental benefits.

For example, that 10 percent increase in transit ridership is already happening in five states, all of which also saw a notable drop in vehicle miles traveled last year. And guess which five saw double-digit rises in ridership? Not New York or Massachusetts -- but Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, Delaware, and Maryland.

"A lot of [transit] growth that we're seeing isn't in typical big cities," Environment America transportation advocate Rob McCulloch, a co-author of today's report, said in an interview. "It's in suburbs and smaller communities where people are opting in. We think that's really where the opportunity is."

The report describes a 10 percent increase in transit ridership as a "high but realistic target," but it goes on to make a clear case for setting such a goal:

[I]n 15 years such an approach could reduce transportation oil consumption by 20 billion gallons per year — equivalent to what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This would also result in an annual reduction of 180 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution — more than four times the current benefit conferred by public transportation.

That annual cut of 180 million tons of CO2 would amount to 3 percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels every year. The climate bill passed by the House in June aims to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 11 years, making a national transit-ridership target a key weapon in the arsenal of climate policy-makers.

McCulloch and his co-authors make several policy recommendations to lawmakers now working on transport and energy proposals, but their most powerful message comes in the framing department.

Read more...

Kate Sheppard from Grist is Tweeting the heck out of the climate bill debate on the floor of the House of Representatives today (218 votes and counting). Barbara Boxer, who is working on the Senate version of this bill, yesterday reminded sustainable transport advocates that this is probably going to be their only chance in the next 18 months to get something done in Congress.

And Al Gore and the folks at Repower America say call your U.S. Representative today because you can be sure the guys from fossil fuel-funded advocacy organizations like Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future have made their calls. Here's Al...

Update: The bill passed by a vote of 217 to 205. More later.

In his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama last night emphasized his administration's commitment to keeping the domestic auto industry afloat, while offering only a passing mention to the nation's mass transit systems. Said Obama:

As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

With energy policy at the top of his agenda, the president pledged investment in solar and wind power, biofuels, "clean coal," and "more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

If indeed there are serious plans to include municipal mass transit -- which millions of working Americans also depend on -- as part of the mix, Obama is playing it close to the vest. Public transportation was mentioned only once during last night's speech. Along with "jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges," the president said Americans would be put to work by "expanding mass transit."

What did you think of the speech, particularly in light of the hit-and-miss stimulus package? Do you remain hopeful that Obama "gets it" when it comes to the value of public transportation in reducing oil dependence and fostering sustainable communities, or is his seemingly unflagging commitment to propping up Detroit too much?

Finally, is it true that Americans can't "walk away" from the automobile? This may be a valid point. Our obesity epidemic and general lack of sidewalks make it pretty tough to walk away from anything.