I had a webcast of this hearing streaming in the background, and my ears perked up when I heard this exchange about gas prices between Chu and Florida Republican Cliff Stearns (starts at the 32:30 mark):

Stearns to Chu: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 per gallon. As Secretary of Energy would you speak for or against any measures to raise the price of gasoline?

Chu: The Secretary of Energy, especially now in today's economic climate, would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. We're looking forward to reducing the cost of transportation in the American family. This is done by encouraging more fuel efficient cars. This is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.

Stearns: You can't honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices the level in Europe.

Chu: No we don't.

Stearns: Your statement that gas prices ought to rise to the level of Europe, doesn't that sound a little bit silly, in retrospect, for you to say that?

Chu: Yes.

Chu's tongue may be tied for political reasons, but holding gas prices -- and the gas tax -- steady is going to make any push for transit a whole lot tougher.

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?

NOW host David Brancaccio does an interview on the LA Metro. Click through for the full video.

The latest episode of NOW is surely the most effective takedown of car-dependent planning ever broadcast in news magazine format. Adhering to the familiar contours of pocketbook journalism, "Driven to Despair" starts with a sympathetic portrayal of the Schleighs, a family who moved to a southern California exurb seven years ago. With their adjustable rate mortgage about to reset and gas prices already busting the family budget, they need a way out.

What follows can be fairly described as a 25-minute ode to the time- and money-saving benefits of transit, complete with a brief history of the Los Angeles streetcar system and a rueful suggestion that the Presidential candidates should address transportation more forcefully.

Watching the Schleighs and their neighbors react to the idea of riding a train to work -- sneering, in one case -- it's all too apparent why someone running for national office would skirt the issue. But you also realize that if a national pol were to finally go out on that limb, he or she may find voters more receptive to the idea of better trains and buses than feared.

"Driven to Despair" will be broadcast on PBS affiliates tonight (check local listings). It's the first part in a NOW series on infrastructure called "Blueprint America."

Enjoy the weekend, Streetsbloggers. We'll be back on Tuesday.

With rising gas prices crippling school bus fleets across the U.S., Clarion-Ledger editorial cartoonist Marshall Ramsay offers an intriguing new school transportation idea. Click through to see it.

Today is the first day of class for New York City public school students, while other districts across the country have been in session for weeks. The Times reports that some are grappling with how to get kids to and from school in the face of $4-per-gallon gasoline.

Schools in many states have cut bus stops to save diesel. Districts in California and Ohio have gone further and eliminated bus service either completely or for high schools, leaving thousands of students to find their own way to school.

West Virginia officials issued a memorandum recently to local districts titled “Tips to Deal With the Skyrocketing Cost of Fuel.” Last week, David Pauley, the transportation supervisor for the Kanawha County school system, based in Charleston, met with drivers of the district’s 196 buses to outline those policies. Mr. Pauley told them to stay 5 miles per hour below the limit, to check the tire pressure every day and to avoid jackrabbit starts.

The Caldwell Parish School District, in northern Louisiana, took a more sweeping approach to saving fuel by eliminating Monday classes. The district joined about 100 systems nationwide, most of them rural, that in recent years have adopted a four-day schedule.

Simple fuel-saving measures that should be commonplace notwithstanding, the severe impact of gas prices on education has some wondering if schools ought to be in the transportation business in the first place. At the same time, though, the Federal Transit Administration is moving to curtail public transportation for students.

When all is said and done, might higher gas prices finally return us to such "innovative" solutions as walking, biking and car-pooling to school? It's happening already in some areas, with or without administrative support.

Photo: Brad Aaron

A recent poll conducted by AARP finds that Americans over the age of 50 are cutting down on car trips due to rising gas prices, but are finding public infrastructure, or lack thereof, to be an obstacle.

Almost one of every three people (29%) polled say they are now walking as a way to avoid high gas prices. But as those people set out to walk, almost 40% of the 50+ population say they do not have adequate sidewalks in their neighborhoods. Additionally, 44% say they do not have nearby public transportation that is accessible. Almost half (47%) of poll responders say they cannot cross the main roads safely – 4 in 10 pedestrian fatalities are over the age of 50.

Still, 40 percent of poll respondents say they have walked, biked, or taken public transit more frequently since gasoline prices began trending upward. More than half, 54 percent, say they would use alternate modes of transportation if conditions were improved.

As older New Yorkers can attest, impediments to car-free mobility are not exclusive to suburbs and exurbs. Washington, DC, for example, ranks ninth -- better than Arizona but worse than Florida -- in pedestrian fatalities among those over age 65, according to AARP. (New York state is third worst, behind Hawaii and Alaska.)

With some 35 million members, AARP is a formidable lobby. As a member of the National Complete Streets Coalition and backer of legislation that would steer federal funds toward making roadways accessible to all users, it promises to be a player in next year's big transportation appropriations bill.

Photo: Tuan Phan/Flickr

The problems that the bill addresses are not confined to two states. News of service cuts and fare hikes keeps pouring in from places as far-flung as San Diego, Corpus Christi, Cleveland, and Burlington. All are getting squeezed by fuel costs while handling ridership surges as great as 35 percent or higher. 

Keeping service running smoothly while new riders switch to transit is not solely the concern of one party, either. Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio just directed a $1.5 million earmark to Dayton's transit agency, saying "it is critical that we continue to make our public transportation systems more efficient and accessible."

Securing funds through national legislation rather than piecemeal earmarks will send a stronger message: Better transportation choices can provide relief for people hit hard by high gas prices. Discussion of this bill, say transit advocates, will help set the tone as debate ramps up about next year's national transportation funding package.

The Senate Banking Committee, which is considering the bill, needs to hear from people who support it, says Hanley. "We need 60 Senators ready by Labor Day to return to the Senate and insist on transit stimulus."

Photo of a bus boarding in Allentown, PA: Allentown Morning Call

He has hired new advisers, and with them he seems to have worked out a new approach. He is no longer telling the sorts of hard truths that people would prefer not to confront, or even half-truths that they might find vaguely discomfiting. Instead, he's opted out of truth altogether.

So, what is the hard truth about America's energy predicament? Kolbert goes on:

The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, "because oil prices are determined on the international market," the impact on fuel costs would be "insignificant."

If the hard truth is that the federal government can't do much to lower gas prices, the really hard truth is that it shouldn't try to.

With just five per cent of the world's population, America accounts for twenty-five per cent of its oil use. This disproportionate consumption is one of the main reasons that the United States-until this year, when China overtook it-was the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. (Every barrel of oil burned adds roughly a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.) No matter how many warnings about the consequences were issued-by NASA, by the United Nations, by Al Gore, by the Pope-Americans seemed unfazed. Even as the Arctic ice cap visibly melted away, they bought bigger and bigger cars and drove them more and more miles.

The impact of rising fuel prices, by contrast, has been swift and appreciable. According to the latest figures from the Federal Highway Administration, during the first five months of this year Americans drove thirty billion fewer miles than they did during the same period last year.

Read on...

If the bill makes it through the Senate, the Oval Office figures to be a major hurdle. President Bush has signaled his reluctance to subsidize operating costs for transit, although that philosophy seems not to apply when it comes to subsidizing the habits of America's motorists.

Meanwhile, in places like Louisville and the Denver suburbs, the prospect of service cuts and fare hikes continues to loom at precisely the moment that more people are depending on transit to get around.

The key word in that title is "relief." The legislation recognizes that financially pinched Americans are turning to public transportation in record numbers, but in too many cities and small towns there's inadequate access to such transit. Even in places like Portland where transit is abundantly available, it still must be kept affordable.

In addition to provisions for struggling transit agencies, the bill includes measures to boost the supply of housing near transit stations, as well as incentives for transit riders, cyclists, telecommuters and carpoolers.

A story in the Hill today looks at the bill and the advocates lining up behind it:

A new coalition, Transportation for America, www.t4america.org, is starting to lobby to boost funding for transit programs like high-speed rail and federal help to communities that pass zoning laws that reduce the need for workers to commute long distances.

“We should be providing support to states and planning organizations to reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions,” said Steven Winkelman, director of the Transportation and Adaptation Programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy.

Now, “with limited travel choices, Americans are left vulnerable to high fuel prices,” Winkelman told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week. The panel examined ways Congress could support the conservation of fuel in response to high fuel costs.

Streetsbloggers may be especially interested in the following provisions of the bill, listed on Blumenauer's website: 

• Equalize the transportation fringe benefit so that those who commute by public transportation get as much as those who commute by driving.
• Allow employees to cash-in their parking benefits to spend on other choices that better meet their needs.
• Extend the same transportation fringe benefits to bike commuters as provided for those who commute by car or transit.

Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling. Click through to view the comic in its entirety.

Gasoline tax revenue is falling so fast that the federal government may not be able to meet its commitments to states for road projects already under way, the secretary of transportation said Monday.

The secretary, Mary E. Peters, said the short-term solution would be for the Highway Trust Fund’s highway account to borrow money from the fund’s mass transit account, a step that would balance the accounts as highway travel declines and use of mass transit increases.

Meanwhile, America's historically underfunded transit systems are also struggling with rising fuel prices and record demand. No word yet on how taking money away from transit to pay for highways fits in to George W. Bush's plan to end America's oil addiction but maybe time for Americans to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what kind of nation do we want to be?

The Gas Tax Holiday may have petered out, but John McCain still has a lot of petroleum-based populism left in the tank. His latest campaign ad, "Pump," primes the audience with a little wishful thinking.

"Gas prices -- $4, $5, no end in sight," a voice intones, "because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" An image of Obama floats across the screen in response, as a crowd chants his name.

While it's easy to refute the "Drill Now!" argument, even on strictly economic terms, the There Will Be Blood contingent figures to be quite sizable this election season. Ersatz moderate David Brooks, for one, seems impressed by McCain's energy platform, which he praised in a column last week:

The high point of his campaign, so far, has been his energy policy, which is comprehensive and bold, but does not try to turn us into a nation of bicyclists. It does not view America’s energy-intense economy as a sign of sinfulness.

Sinfulness? Forget moral judgments. An honest policy assessment would recognize that a less "energy-intense" transportation infrastructure will go a long way toward reducing the economic pain of "rising prices at the pump."

What's happening here goes a lot deeper than the end of cheap oil. We are now passing through the early development of a wholly new geographic order – what geographers call “the spatial fix” – of which the move back toward the city is just one part.

Suburbanization was the spatial fix for the industrial age – the geographic expression of mass production. Low-cost mortgages, massive highway systems and suburban infrastructure projects fuelled the industrial engine of postwar capitalism, propelling demand for cars, appliances and all sorts of industrial goods.

The creative economy is giving rise to a new spatial fix and a very different geography – the contours of which are only now emerging. Rising fuel costs are one thing, but in today's idea-driven economy, it's time costs that really matter. With the constant pressure to be more efficient and to innovate, it makes little sense to waste countless collective hours commuting. So the most efficient and productive regions are the ones in which people are thinking and working – not sitting in traffic. And, according to detailed research by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman, commuting is among the least enjoyable, if not the single least enjoyable, of all human activities.

The results are fascinating. Annual price changes in most of the largest metro areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia, followed a similar pattern: Values were most stable within a 10-mile radius of the center of the city, but generally worsened with each successive radius ring as far as 50 miles from the center of the city.

"There's a pretty clear pattern of neighborhoods close to the urban core holding their values better than neighborhoods in suburban and exurban communities," said Stan Humphries, Zillow's vice-president of data and analytics. "Where there is a lot of supply and demand changes, there's a quicker effect on housing prices." 

It may seem obvious by now that rising gas prices are affecting decisions about where to live, but don't tell that to the editors at Money. As Greater Greater Washington blogger David Alpert points out, the magazine's latest list of America's best places to live skews heavily toward the sprawling, suburban side. Of course, Money's readers can probably absorb a spike in transportation costs without too much hardship, which may explain why they don't factor it into their rankings.

A completely different picture emerges from Money's own online series about how people are adapting to more expensive gas. The short profiles read like a public service campaign for living arrangements where cars are not required to make even the most basic trips. Here's what Carrie Zukoski, 41, a PR director living in St. Louis, has to say:

I ride my bike as much as I can. Rising gas prices hurt much less at the pump for me. Last fill up was 22 days in between. This year I'll try to bike even more.

In 2007 I commuted by bike about 1,400 miles. Compared to many people, it's not that much, but for a fair-weather commuter who lives less than five miles from work, it's not too bad.

Waiting for the bus in Syracuse, NY.

Transit agencies all over the country are nearing a state of emergency. At the same time that rising gas prices are leading more Americans to opt for buses and trains, transit operators are being forced to cut service and raise fares due to budget shortfalls.

In Minneapolis, the local transit agency is pondering not one but two fare hikes. Seattle's Metro is considering bumping up fares for the second time this year to stave off service cuts. Gainesville, Florida is confronting a double whammy of higher fares and reduced bus service. In western Massachusetts, one county transit authority faces what its manager calls a "make or break" moment, as many locals try riding the bus for the first time and evaluate their options.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last month (preview only), much of this is due to the impact of higher fuel costs on transit budgets. The upshot? The capacity of many transit systems, particularly in smaller cities, is shrinking just when more service is needed most. People looking to save money and travel more energy-efficiently are being penalized in the process.

"This is an emergency," says Larry Hanley, an International Vice President at Amalgamated Transit Union who negotiates transit worker contracts in towns and cities throughout the Northeast. "Particularly in smaller cities where the transit systems don't have any cushion or margin for increased operating costs."

Nationwide, 48 percent of bus operators and 69 percent of rail operators have already raised fares due to increased fuel and electricity costs, according to a survey released in May by the American Public Transit Association. In terms of service cuts, the figures are 21 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

Working with Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar and environmental organizations, the ATU was instrumental in pushing the "Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008" through the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year (download the bill). The legislation provides emergency federal aid for transit systems and promotes the use of alternative fuels. No Senate version of the bill has emerged, but Hanley, a former Staten Island bus driver, remains optimistic. "This legislation moved quickly through the House because members of Congress recognize that this is a crisis." 

Hanley believes the benefits of federal support for mass transit are wide-ranging and more effective than alternatives currently being discussed. "Congress can cut a 'fiscal stimulus' check so Americans can go to Wal-Mart and buy products made in China or we can 'Drill, Drill, Drill,' for six months-worth of oil," Hanley said. But, if the federal government really wants "to stimulate local economies, help the environment and strengthen national defense by reducing oil dependence, it's hard to find a better public investment than mass transit." If the Senate fails to act on the Oberstar bill, a second opportunity to provide funds may come in the fall, if Congress decides to pursue another economic stimulus package.

Meanwhile, stories of transit systems in distress can be found all over the nation, from Utah to Wisconsin to South Carolina. Either each agency will scrimp and make do as best they can, making life more difficult for countless riders and keeping yet more Americans from switching to bus and rail, or Congress and the President will take a real step toward addressing the gas price crunch by shoring up the nation's transit systems. What's it gonna be?

Photo: danifink/Flickr

From Dick Locher of the Chicago Tribune comes a cartoon complement to Judith Warner's essay in the Times last Friday, declaring that SUVs have outlived any "utility" owners may once have derived from them.

This AM New York cartoon, currently making the rounds on e-mail, was surely a ridiculous exaggeration when first published in 2004. But it's not as far off the mark today. As the Times reports, Florida is the latest state to start giving away free "gas for life" as a lottery prize. And though the jackpot, in reality, is $2,600 in prepaid gas cards every year until the winner's death, some Floridians say they would prefer that prize to the game's $250,000 cash payout, regardless of which would actually be more valuable.

"If gas keeps going up and up - and I expect it will - then I'd rather have free gas for life," said Robert Acosta, who spends about $50 a week on fuel for his four-cylinder Toyota Scion and bought a $5 Summer Cash ticket in anticipation of the first drawing, this Wednesday.

Were the 44-year-old Mr. Acosta to win, and live to be twice his current age, the total payout to him in free gasoline would be $114,400. That is far short of the first prize, particularly since virtually all the gas prize would be paid in future dollars.

But with a gallon of unleaded regular in South Florida costing an average of about $4.30, some players are ready to forgo the math.

"Gas has become more precious than cash now," [lottery retailer] Bernard Feldman said.