The consequences of our transportation policy. (Photo: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency via Flickr)

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]

Defenders of offshore drilling say that demand for oil in the U.S. will still hover around 20 million barrels a day — every day — including during the moratorium, however long it lasts. Since there is nothing online to substitute for the oil drawn from the Gulf of Mexico, the equivalent will instead be shipped in by tanker. Existing and soon-to-be deployed rigs in the Gulf will be moved to Brazil, Mexico, or West Africa. Once they are licensed to operate there, they’ll likely be fixed in place for up to two years. Therefore 1.7 million barrels of oil will still come in every day, but at greater risk to other places with less regulation or oversight. Do Americans feel that these places are more expendable than Louisiana and the Gulf Coast? I hope not. And if we put all our eggs in the Middle East basket again, consider that it costs America between $47 and $90 billion annually to defend Middle Eastern oil supplies.[2]

So what can be done in the immediate future to rectify the whole mess? I propose that we can offset the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by driving 20 percent less. What follows is an outline of how I came to this conclusion, and what government can do to achieve it quickly.

Photo: Jonathan Henderson, Gulf Restoration Network

Offsetting the Moratorium

According to the US Department of Energy’s 2009 Transportation Energy Fact Book, regular passenger cars used 4.8 million barrels a day in 2008.[3] That same year light trucks (SUVs, mini-vans, and personal household pickup trucks) burned another 4 million barrels a day. In total, personal household passenger vehicles burned 8.8 million barrels per day in 2008. The 1.7 million barrels per day produced in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly for gasoline, amounts to roughly 19 percent of US gasoline consumed daily for cars and light trucks. For comparison, trucks for freight used 2.5 million barrels per day in 2008, and 1.2 million barrels per day were used for flying.

So if we err on the side of caution and round up, America needs to reduce daily gasoline consumption by 20 percent every day for the next six months, and, I argue, for the next two-to-five years as this deepwater drilling conundrum is resolved. We do not want to hit trucking because that carries our food and goods. We do not want to hit industry, which uses 4.5 million barrels a day, because we want to remain competitive globally (although we could stand to decrease consumption of disposable plastics made from oil). And we do not want to hit agriculture because petroleum, like it or not, grows food. There are various other important things, like pharmaceuticals, eye glasses, and laptops that are part of the 20 million barrels consumed daily in the U.S. We pretty much will want to keep using those things, albeit in cleaner ways. So we are left with reducing everyday driving, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is what the nation needs to do anyway. We owe it to ourselves, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the rest of the world. And we need to do it now — not wait for miracle green cars decades from now. So how do we do it?

We should learn from World War Two

During World War Two the United States supplied 6 billion barrels of oil for the Allies’ war effort. [4] It was used to propel bombers and transport the wounded, to build battleships and provide fuel for growing food for the Allied armies. U.S. oil amounted to roughly 85 percent of all the oil burned by the Allies, and it was oil that largely determined who won the war. As rapid expansion of wartime industry occurred, the government recognized the need to conserve oil. It established the Office of Defense Transportation (ODT) within days of the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941. ODT was mandated to "assure maximum utilization of domestic transport to ensure successful prosecution of the war" and lasted until August 1945, just after the Japanese surrender.

Through gasoline rationing, coordination of public transit, and aggressive marketing of the moral imperative to conserve, the U.S. reduced gasoline consumption by 32 percent between 1941 and 1945.[5] In 1941, 23.6 billion gallons of gasoline were used for civilian cars and trucks, but by 1944 it was reduced to 16 billion gallons. More significantly, by 1944 personal driving was reduced to 63 percent of what it was in 1941. Annual vehicle miles traveled per private personal vehicle dropped from roughly 9,500 miles to 5,250 miles per car. The "We Can Do It!" spirit of war on the home front translated into a concerted effort to reduce driving.

Lest you conclude that rationing is some sort of communistic plot, recall that after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down Gulf of Mexico drilling and crippled 50 percent of U.S. refining capacity, President George Bush urged Americans to be "better conservers" and asked us to avoid non-essential driving. He also asked federal workers to carpool or take public transit.[6] While this was purely voluntary and amounted to nothing, the point is, an oil man said it. He did not have to, but Bush’s people understood the relationship between oil and driving and saw the panicked long lines at gas stations in Houston suburbs. Now, 52 days after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and sank, there has not been a peep about the relationship between oil and driving from the current administration. But I am certain that they understand that relationship, and so I will offer the following suggestions for how we as a nation can reduce driving by 20 percent in order to offset the 1.7 million barrels of oil pumped daily from the Gulf of Mexico.

Flickr photo: Atwater Village Newbie

How to reduce driving by 20 percent (or more):

Federal funding for transit operations

During World War Two, public transit reached its peak ridership in the U.S., and this was largely through coordination by the federal government as part of the national gasoline rationing strategy. Public transit policy was energy policy. While I am not advocating a federal takeover of transit, the federal government can provide something more targeted to transit today — operating revenue.

Consider this. As part of a voter mandate to study how transit can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transit planners in San Francisco have thought about what would be needed if a substantial portion of motorists in that city switched to transit.[7] Currently the transit system, Muni, is at capacity carrying roughly 700,000 passengers a day. Planners estimate that in order to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas footprint by 20 percent, transit would need to expand by 25 percent, and carry 920,000 daily passengers. This actually approaches the city’s peak ridership of 970,000 at the end of World War Two, as the federal government coordinated transit for the war machine. But Muni’s expansion needs several hundred million dollars of annual operating funds. These are funds that the city does not have. The federal government should make it a core part of energy policy to provide that operations support and to support public transit operations throughout the nation. Public transit is energy policy.

Yet public transit service throughout the nation has been cut because of local and state revenue shortfalls due to the financial meltdown in 2008. That, coupled with increased health care and pension costs for transit drivers, meant rapidly increased operating costs but rapidly shrinking revenue. For example, in San Francisco a draconian 10 percent service cut went into effect in May even as people demand better transit service — and even as the city’s system is at capacity. If thousands of people suddenly stopped driving and took transit, the existing system could not absorb the new riders.

All transit systems in the U.S. need an emergency cash infusion to sustain current operating levels and to expand capacity in order to absorb new riders. In Congress, $2 billion is being proffered as a Band-Aid for this national transit crisis. That $2 billion is not enough for all of the transit systems throughout the nation, and needs to be substantially increased to meet existing demands. The government bailed out banks and automobile companies that it deemed "too big to fail." Given the ecological disaster in the Gulf and the much-needed moratorium on drilling, public transit is now too big to fail if we are going to get out of this.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Bicycle Systems

Obviously it will be hard to get transit capacity expansion ratcheted up immediately, but Congress can act fast and at least make operating funds available now. But to be clear, in the early phase of the drilling moratorium, transit will not be adequate to absorb a 20 percent reduction in driving. This will take months to bring online. Therefore, in the short-term, there is a quick, cheap, and nimble solution to help get us to 20 percent reductions in driving — bicycles. Bicycles do not require expensive, long-term capital investment. A bicycle system can be developed rapidly. Unlike transit systems, a bicycle system does not require large operating costs. In San Francisco the modest, off-the-shelf bicycle plan would cost $24.5 million to implement.[8] Though modest in scope it is expected to take five years to implement, mainly due to funding issues, and because of resistance by local motorists for removal of car space in order to create space for bicycles. With political will, San Francisco’s modest bike plan could take just six months to deploy and would have minimal operating costs when compared to transit and automobile systems. Repeat this throughout the nation in all urban areas, and this can be synchronized with a longer moratorium on offshore drilling.

Bicycles are practical and can meet many needs. Throughout the U.S., 40 percent of all car trips are less than five miles, the ideal spatial range of bicycling, and some argue that 20 percent of all trips could be made by bicycle if the U.S. built proper infrastructure.[9] In cities like San Francisco, up to 75 percent of voters support new bike lanes.[10] But many people are hesitant to start cycling now. Large majorities of people say cycling with automobiles is uncomfortable, that there are not enough bike lanes, and that it is difficult to cross major streets.[11] Cities can address this promptly by producing truly wide, safe, interconnected bicycle lanes. In most cases the physical space is there to do it. It just requires political will and good paint. Like public transit, a bicycle system is a critical part of energy policy, and at the local level, cities and towns can do their part during this crisis by prioritizing bicycles as a cheap, quick, and effective tool for reducing driving.

Entrepreneurial jitney services

Whenever public transit and bicycles are proposed as solutions, a small but vocal group of naysayers argue that they cannot bicycle to the grocery store and carry groceries, or schlep their children to day care on buses. Some of these concerns are valid for some people, but most people are physically able and resourceful enough to manage. However, one way of rethinking grocery shopping and automobiles is to consider implementing flexible jitney services. This might be an opportunity for entrepreneurs to do their part in reducing driving by helping to promote and establish flexible, on-demand, door-to-door jitney service from grocery stores and other activities currently centered on driving. In many countries around the world, particularly where transit service is inadequate, inexpensive mini-van and shared taxi services are widespread.

While a system of jitneys would take time to implement and no doubt have political opposition from transit agencies and taxi-cab companies, an immediate short-term path to flexible jitney service could be deployed by the grocery store industry. Each grocery store could own and operate a service to provide costumers deliveries when they cannot carry groceries. This is already done in some cities and could be greatly expanded. In New York City several Whole Foods in Manhattan have no parking for costumers and instead offer delivery service for those who cannot carry their groceries home. In San Francisco both Mollie Stones and Safeway deliver groceries. This is not the panacea for everyone, but with creativity and innovation, grocery stores could be an anchor in creating licensed jitney services that contribute to reducing driving overall. More importantly, as more and more people move to urban areas and seek alternatives to driving, more urban space can be used for housing, and less for expensive and gluttonous parking space.

Personal responsibility

Photo: Thinkquest.org

During World War Two, one of the key approaches to reducing driving was to promote moral arguments. Many people have seen the iconic 1942 propaganda poster "When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler." The poster showed a typical businessman in a convertible driving alone, but with the transparent, shady figure of Hitler in the passenger seat. The poster impressed on motorists that excess personal driving wasted fuel that was needed to win the war. Appealing to a sense of morals helped get people to decrease driving, and helped win World War Two. In a similar vein, if we as a nation accept the urgency of the oil spill, and of the interrelated crisis of global climate change that is connected to oil and driving, then there is a moral imperative to reduce driving today. President Obama stated that BP has a moral obligation to the Gulf of Mexico. He is right. But American motorists also have a moral obligation to reduce demand for offshore oil by reducing driving.

In many coastal states, Republicans like governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Bill Christ of Florida have joined Democrats like senators Barbara Boxer and Bill Nelson in opposing new offshore drilling. Reacting to the spill, Schwarzenegger said, "I see on TV the birds drenched in oil, the fishermen out of work, the massive oil spill and oil slick destroying our precious ecosystem. That will not happen here in California…" Senator Barbara Boxer used images of oiled birds in an impassioned and morally driven speech on the floor of the US Senate on June 10. She also praised California’s unspoiled coastline and linked its preservation to the ban on offshore drilling in California. Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity have filed lawsuits to halt offshore drilling plans in the Gulf of Mexico that were approved without full environmental review. Moratorium or not, offshore drilling is going to be tied up in prolonged political and legal debates for years. People in these coastal states and supporters of these environmental organizations have a moral obligation to reduce their driving if they want to stop offshore drilling. And even if they insist that they must keep driving, they can at the very least show support for those who do actually chose to reduce driving.

Individual motorists can start by accepting that the space of cars in cities must be reconfigured to accommodate public transit, cycling, and walking. Motorists who continue to drive have a moral responsibility to discontinue their local political resistance to changing our streets. They’ll still be able to drive, just more slowly, with less convenience than they have now.

Throughout cities in the U.S., vocal motorists oppose proposals to re-allocate street space to favor buses or bicycles. Each time a stretch of street is considered for change, angry motorists line up at city hall to protest the change. Our cities are in a spatial stalemate, traffic is miserable, the buses move slow due to traffic, and bicyclists find haphazard, fragmented bike lanes. Often cars double-park in bike lanes, making cycling very unsafe. Meanwhile, car-oriented neighborhood organizations demand that new infill, transit-oriented housing must contain excessive amounts of parking, which then make it difficult to configure space for sustainable transport. Attempts at traffic calming or pedestrian enhancements are diluted by anger over lost parking space or because many motorists simply do not want to slow down.

All of this resistance to change by motorists needs to stop. Motorists who insist on continuing to drive need to step aside in local political debates and cede space to other modes. At the local level this sort of intransigence has been a major barrier to change, and has kept America addicted to oil. Every single skirmish over a parking space or traffic lane sets back progress in sustainable transportation. Individual motorists need to discontinue opposing change, and better yet, vocally endorse the removal of travel lanes and reductions in parking as a necessary step towards reducing oil dependency and addressing climate change. It is a matter of national security and global justice.

Conclusion

Today there is an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that stems from the insatiable demand for oil and for using that oil for driving. Almost half of the oil used in the US is used for personal driving, and upwards of 68 percent of the oil we use is for all transportation. We can make a substantial dent in our oil dependency, while also giving the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico time to work, by reducing personal driving by 20 percent. We do not have the time to wait for a magical "clean" car decades away — we must act now.

Instead of seeking to substitute 1.7 million barrels of oil by shipping more oil in by tanker, we can offset an offshore drilling moratorium by driving 20 percent less. Instead of drilling for the sake of preserving 150,000 offshore jobs, the nation needs to immediately order thousands of new, off-the-shelf transit vehicles in the short-term — stimulating the transit industry. Jobs in public transit can offset lost jobs in drilling. The nation must also help finance cheap and quick implementation of bicycle systems in cities and towns. Local governments can do their part by re-allocating street space to make cycling safer, and to help transit run more smoothly by avoiding traffic. Business — particularly grocery stores — can do their part by creating innovative new jitney services for their local communities. And individual motorists can take personal responsibility by not opposing efforts to re-allocate street space for transit and bicycling.

During World War Two the federal government coordinated a massive wartime transportation effort in a very short amount of time. Individuals, influenced by moral arguments, also did their part for the greater good. Today we need to lay out a similar vision in the service of a moral imperative. It was done during World War Two, we can do it again.

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), right, with onetime climate bill cosponsor Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at left. (Photo: CSM)

"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.

“Perhaps these groups are confused about the purpose of the climate bill: It’s to reduce emissions, not increase them," the source told Streetsblog Capitol Hill. "The Kerry-Lieberman bill invests more money in transportation than any of the previous climate bills. Instead of working constructively to increase that investment, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Why is APTA advocating for a strategy that will decrease the amount of climate money going to transit? Transit makes out like a bandit in the Kerry-Lieberman bill.”

APTA's alignment with AASHTO and the construction industry groups marks a split of sorts from the Transportation for America (T4A) infrastructure reform coalition, which has praised the upper-chamber climate bill's focus on investing in clean transport projects while taking no official position on the legislation as a whole.

The Senate climate plan provides "a new source of revenue" for transportation, T4A spokesman David Goldberg said in an interview. "This is not a gas tax, and it's not conceived of as a supplement to the highway trust fund, for whatever the business-as-usual, run-of-the-mill highway trust fund projects are."

How big would that new source of transportation revenue be, relative to the total amount raised by the Senate climate bill's new fuel fees? APTA, AASHTO, and 25 other industry groups shared their estimates in a letter sent today to the legislation's chief sponsors, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT):

In 2013, fees from on-road fuel consumption [under the climate proposal] would generate at least $19.5 billion.  Instead of returning revenue from these fees to improving the transportation system, the bill diverts at least 77 percent of the funds away from transportation infrastructure investment.  As carbon prices increase, the bill diverts as much as 91 percent of fuel revenues.  Of particular concern, the bill limits new investment in the Highway Trust Fund to $2.5 billion per year, far below the amount the bill raises from system users. 

Photo: Scientific American

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:

Note that California’s new low carbon fuel standard does not aim to directly reduce total vehicle miles driven, nor to increase vehicle occupancy rates, nor to reduce aggregate net CO2 emissions from ground transportation in the state. Some or all of these outcomes may materialize indirectly as a result of higher vehicle and/or fuel prices.

Free parking for electric cars would go against the grain of longstanding policies, like the decision to pedestrianize the Strøget, shown here in 1935, when private cars were still allowed. Photo: Copenhagenet.

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.

As the Times reported:

"We want to be a test and laboratory country for electric cars, hybrid cars and other new technology," said Lars Barfoed, the Danish minister of transport. "And as host of the climate change conference, that’s made us feel responsible and want to show the world we can do something."

"Doing something" apparently refers to supplying the battery-charging stations with kilowatts generated by wind turbines, which now account for a world-beating 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. While effective use of wind power is a big carbon plus, subsidizing electric car use could easily end as a net negative if it pushes the travel mix to more car use and undermines Copenhagen's urban vitality.

Denmark and Copenhagen are hardly alone in being blinded by alternate-fuel vehicles' green halo. The 2007 Bloomberg congestion pricing plan specified a two-thirds discount for "clean-fuel" trucks, despite the dwindling air quality advantage as cleaner diesel fuels and engines are phased in anyway, and in seeming denial of the additional traffic congestion (as well as reduced toll revenues to support transit).

The veteran energy and transportation specialist Lee Schipper wrote recently in a related context:

Creating a zero-carbon car for China tomorrow won't solve the much bigger problems of urban congestion, traffic fatalities and the paving over of once-beautiful cities to make room for more cars. The discussions should back up. Energy is only a means to an end. What are the ends, urban access and mobility, or cars for a small minority?

Wise words for Danes and Americans alike.

Photo: MetroDCLiving.com

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.

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.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), left, at a 2008 rally. Photo: NWF/Flickr

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.

Electric vehicles, including electrified transit, fares better under the Senate bill. The Department of Energy would have full control over a still-undetermined share of allocation auction proceeds, with the dual mission of establishing reliable infrastructure to fuel electric vehicles and developing "a national transportation low-emissions energy plan."

Also noted yesterday: The Senate climate draft features a provision that allows states to set higher fuel-efficiency rules for taxicabs than the national standard, which will hit an average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. The taxis language would allow New York City, represented by environment committee member Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to press on with plans, derailed in federal court, to transition to an all-hybrid taxi fleet. Rep. Jerrold Nadler has introduced a companion taxi bill in the House.

Meanwhile, transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill's focus on their area -- which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called "CLEAN TEA" legislation.

The fate of transit and other clean transport may rest with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the upper chamber's lead sponsor of "CLEAN TEA." Carper, who was not present at today's Boxer-Kerry press conference, released a statement that notably withheld an endorsement of the current climate bill:

Senators Kerry and Boxer have worked hard to produce the bill they released today and I congratulate them for their efforts so far. It is now time for the Senate committees to get to work examining the bill's provisions and considering any changes necessary. ... I expect there wil be some important changes made as this effort advances and we build consensus around how to address this vitally important global energy and climate challenge.

Few on the Hill expect the Senate to be able to meet its initial goal of voting on a final climate bill before United Nations climate change talks begin in December in Copenhagen. Still, Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility -- which makes the Boxer-Kerry bill's relative alignment with the House version one of its biggest political selling points.

As one of the House climate bill's lead sponsors, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), put it: “Given the Senate draft’s structural similarity to the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, a legislative solution that can pass both chambers of Congress is finally within sight."

The question is, how much of a solution will the final product turn out to be?

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.

At this month's University of Virginia infrastructure conference, one popular lament was that transportation lacks a national "story," a coherent and catchy appeal to Americans from all walks of life. Bicycle and transit advocates may well disagree, as may state DOT officials who think of more roads as the be-all, end-all of infrastructure policy.

Yet it's easy to see a "story" emerging from today's transit report, one that's focused on flexibility -- for transit agencies to use federal money to keep operating and for officials to use funds on different modes of transport -- as well as a common goal of reducing the nation's expensive, crippling oil dependence. The more that lawmakers and environmental groups use those themes to make transportation a bigger part of the climate debate, the better.

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.

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.

“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars…”
-- Barack Obama's inaugural address.

“The last thing this nation needs now is a stimulus plan aimed at the development of non-gasoline-powered automobiles married with extensive rehabilitation of the highway system.”
-- James Howard Kunstler

Grist, TPM and Politico have the news.

With the president-elect, Congress and the current White House divided on how or if American taxpayers should save the domestic auto industry, General Motors is taking its case directly to the public with this video and accompanying web site. More threat than appeal, the message, in a nutshell, is "Do it, or else."

On gmfactsandfiction.com, the reeling giant "Tells It Like It Is":

From plants to parks. From dealerships to driveways. From gas stations to grocery stores. What happens in the automotive industry affects each and every one of us. In fact, the collapse of the U.S.-based auto industry wouldn't just impact the more than 239,000 Americans directly employed by the Big Three. One out of every 10 people in America is employed in a service that is related to the U.S. auto industry. If a plant closes, so does its suppliers, the local stores, the hot dog vendors, and the local restaurants. The effect would be devastating in ways of which you never have thought.

Writing your congressperson yet? Well what are you gonna do now that your "suppliers and dealers" can't get credit? Who's gonna keep you supplied, man?

In all seriousness, while its fate is on the minds of many, New Yorkers included, GM may not be helping its case here. Rather than inspiring confidence that the company would put taxpayer dollars to good use, the "Facts and Fiction" campaign reeks of desperation and even paranoia. (See the web site's "Submit a Myth" widget: "If you’ve read or heard something about GM we’d love to know about it so that we can have an opportunity to address it.") Again revealing itself to be two steps behind, GM doesn't seem to have caught on to the fact that Americans are currently more receptive to change than fear mongering.

So that's the problem, huh? Think GM can't change? GM can change, baby. Just give GM another chance.

Cadillac assembly line replica at the Detroit Historical Museum

The Times reports that on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid co-signed a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asking that part of the $700 billion bailout package be directed toward Detroit. "A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability, the overall health of our economy and the livelihood of the automobile sector’s workforce," they wrote.

The letter was issued following a Thursday meeting between Congressional leaders and representatives of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, as Big Three sales continue to plunge. On Friday, GM announced that it could begin running out of cash in 2009.

Rahm Emanuel, incoming White House chief of staff, hinted on Sunday that his boss could be amenable to the Pelosi-Reid proposal. Again, the Times: 

When asked on ABC’s "This Week" where Mr. Obama stood on the issue, Mr. Emanuel seemed to suggest that Mr. Obama, as a last resort, might be open to tapping the rescue fund to help carmakers, calling the auto industry an "essential part of our industrial base."

He added that Mr. Obama has asked his economic team to look at ways to involve the industry in shaping an energy policy that weans the country off foreign oil, seeking ways to use the $25 billion in loans that Congress passed in September to help make auto plants more capable of producing fuel-efficient cars.

The Bush White House, for its part, has indicated it would not support using bailout funds for the Big Three.

Photo: MarkinDetroit/Flickr

Union Station, Denver, CO

T4A has set up a page for members of the public to send their own version to Obama via e-mail.

While you're at it, you can also outline your vision for the country, complete with photos and video, for the incoming White House team at change.gov. The T4A vision summary and Obama urban policy platform might be good jumping-off points.

The T4A letter appears in full after the jump.

What will you say to President-elect Obama? 

Dear President-elect Obama:

First of all...Congratulations! Your election, and results from down-ballot votes around the country, represents a resounding call for a new direction.

The Transportation for America campaign, representing more than 100 organizations and thousands of energized citizens around the country, salutes you. And we join you in seeking infrastructure investment that will stimulate the economy now and lay the groundwork for a clean-energy future that is less dependent on oil.

Americans are ready for this bold vision. Even in this tattered economy, citizens in California, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado and at least 10 other states voted themselves a tax increase so they could jumpstart construction of light rail, commuter train service, high-speed rail and other clean transportation options. Now they, and dozens of other communities, need a federal partner that can step up and do its part.

We call on you to follow through on the vision you offered in the campaign by acting rapidly, starting with the transition and during the first 100 days, to urge Congress to pass a smart package of stimulus investments as well as a new national transportation program. Appoint a Secretary of Transportation with a proven record of understanding both urban and rural needs, as well as how transportation, growth and development, the economy and the environment interact.

You have expressed support for building complete streets that “make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access transportation alternatives,” and for repairing and restoring our troubled highways and bridges - we call on you today to fulfill that promise in your first 100 days.

By fixing our highways, bridges and transit systems, and pushing ahead with ready-to-go rail projects, we can create millions of jobs that can't be outsourced, launch a clean, green economic recovery, and get started on building a 21st century transportation system.

To quote our next president: "Yes, we can!"

Photo: Sandy Leidholdt/Flickr

Congresswoman-elect Kathy Dahlkemper overcame ridicule for her "wacky" notion that Pennsylvanians should try walking and cycling. But down in western North Carolina, voters returned Rep. Patrick McHenry -- shown here mocking, and misrepresenting, the federal bike commuter tax benefit -- to Washington.

Though his state also went for Barack Obama, the outspoken conservative Republican defeated Democratic challenger Daniel Johnson handily. The Hickory Record reports:

"The morals and values I took with me to Washington — I still have them," he said. "I'm not going to stop fighting for conservative ideals now."

McHenry's values and ideals have earned him a lot of views on YouTube, where his anti-cycling speech has been given special treatment.

Video: GreenMaterialism/YouTube

The National Republican Congressional Committee ran this ad against Democratic challenger Kathy Dahlkemper in the race for Pennsylvania's third congressional district. It hits a few Gingrichian notes on how to address the country's energy problems before the announcer tells us incredulously:

Dahlkemper's wacky solution? She said we should make personal sacrifices, such as walking places and riding bikes. Hmm... Why don't we use dog-sleds, too?

That passage heaps on the fear and loathing with scare quotes, shots of an impossibly crowded sidewalk, and a bike bell sound effect. But guess what? Seven-term incumbent Phil English is heading back to Erie, and Kathy Dahlkemper is going to Washington. The AP breaks down her victory:

Mrs. Dahlkemper's advantage was viewed as being in the more urban areas of the district -- the cities of Erie, Sharon, Meadville and Butler -- where she was expected to benefit from longtime union support and Sen. Barack Obama's presence at the top of the ticket. Her challenge was to sway voters in the suburban and rural regions.

Think Dahlkemper's competition will bank on the same anti-urban message in 2010?

Workplaces have decentralized. Commuting patterns are no longer radial, from suburban residences to central cities. Now they are complex weaves across broad megaregions. Yet the infrastructure system hasn't adapted.

The Times published five letters in response, including this one from Transportation for America's David Goldberg:

David Brooks is spot-on with his call for major investment in transportation infrastructure, both for near-term economic stimulus and for a sustainable recovery. His recommendations of what to build are outdated, however.

As he notes, a way to put people to work would be to repair and maintain our existing highways, bridges and transit systems. But building new highways was the project for an earlier era, the 1950s, when gas was cheap and President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Interstate System.

Today we urgently need to build the infrastructure for a clean-energy economy and reduced dependency on oil. Soaring gas prices made our vulnerability clear: Americans flocked to public transportation or took to their bicycles only to find the transit systems underfinanced and the roads dangerous and inhospitable. Half of our urban-dwelling citizens found they had no transit at all.

If we're going to go into debt to build for the future, we must do so to complete our transportation network with high-speed rail, modern public transit, streets that support safe biking and walking, and, yes, well-maintained highways.

Dave Alpert at Greater Greater Washington picked up the exchange, noting how cities such as Charleston, South Carolina are already moving beyond the default presumption that transportation investment equals road-building.

And BikePortland's Jonathan Maus, recalling an earlier Brooks column that dismissed cycling as transportation, offered this take on transportation spending priorities:

Should we invest billions into highway projects that cater to "mobility" of single-occupancy vehicles (like we did in the 1950s) and throw scraps to everything else (like we do now)? Or, will we look to create world-class biking cities where possible (because bikes offer the best return on transportation investment of any mode) and then invest in things like passenger rail, streetcars and bus-rapid transit?

It is, after all, a simple sounding solution that appeals to politicians in love with the quick fix, oil companies desperate for access to new sources, and auto-dependent Americans, many of whom now find themselves stranded in far-off suburbs, trapped in expensive car commutes and completely lacking freedom of choice when it comes to transportation. No matter that drilling here and drilling now isn't going to do much of anything to reduce gasoline prices or wean Americans from their crushing oil dependence. 

If you're curious about the masterminds behind the message, head over to Newt Gingrich's "tri-partisan" American Solutions web site. There, you can download "The New Language of Smart Energy," a 42-page talking points memo from Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz handily sums up his findings as "The 10 Communications Commandments for 2008." Not surprising, given the buckets of fossil fuel money behind Gingrich's American Solutions, the Commandments can pretty much be summed up as "Thou Shalt Drill. Thou Shalt Drill Here. Thou Shalt Drill Now."

Here, courtesy of Frank and Newt, is some of the messaging that oil companies are using to maintain their grip on U.S. energy policy and get to those environmentally-sensitive leases. Mock and ignore them at your own peril.

• First off, before even getting into the Ten Commandments, make sure you present yourself as having risen above partisan politics.
• Then frame the issue in terms of national security. Our dependence on oil isn't the problem. It's our dependence on "foreign oil" that's the problem. All that stuff about oil being a globally traded commodity? Too complicated. Skip that. 
  
• Shortages "are unacceptable in our 21st century economy." All that stuff about geology and peak oil? Too wonky. Skip that.
• "It is about American oil and American gas." (Bold and underline formatting courtesy of Frank Luntz.)
• The more you can talk about futuristic "breakthrough technology," the more you'll be embraced by the American public.
  
• "Diversity of supply leads to security of supply." But focus, mainly, on diversity of oil and gas supply not diversity of energy sources.
  
• Do: Talk about new technology and the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. Don't: Talk about conservation or sacrifice.

Newt, Frank, and the rest of their ilk seem to be in retreat for now. But with some drivers returning to their gas-guzzling ways, how long until the next "crisis" hits -- and the oil-suckers emerge from their crypt?

Happy Halloween.

Graphic: Carly Clark

Section 211 of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" allows for a "qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement" for "reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment."

Other transpo-related items in the bill include credits for biofuels and other "alternative" mixtures, plug-in electric vehicles, and what looks like a few goodies for oil and natural gas producers. Another section includes incentives for green construction and renewable energy production.

The full text of the 451-page bill, expected to be taken up by the House of Representatives on Friday, is available here. Tell us if you find other items of interest.