This intersection, the most dangerous in Syracuse, can't inspire too many people to walk or bike. If Albany passed a complete streets law, one of many green transportation policies they haven't acted on, it could be safer. Image: Google Street View.

“Getting Back on Track,” a new report by Smart Growth America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, ranks New York 21st of all the states when it comes to environmentally friendly transportation policy, right between Nevada and New Mexico (check out Streetsblog Capitol Hill for a national perspective on the report). Though the state does a decent job of spending its money in the right places, New York lacks almost all the legislative cornerstones necessary to move our transportation system towards sustainability.

Transportation accounts for a full 32 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. American transportation emissions alone are greater than the total greenhouse gas emissions of any other country except China and Russia. State policy is crucial to cutting that figure. The report cites one study which found that if Maryland built a new outer beltway through the D.C. suburbs, those 18 miles of tolled highway would increase the total greenhouse gas emissions of the entire Washington region by 11 percent.

But because of Albany inaction, New York is an embarrassment when it comes to policies other than spending and investment. At 44th, our infrastructure policies are rated worse than South Dakota’s (consolation prize: we just barely edge out North Dakota).

Thanks to the State Assembly, we don’t have a complete streets law, so in many areas, people don’t feel safe making even the shortest trips without getting in a car. We’re one of only nine states that doesn’t allow pay-as-you-drive insurance, which creates a big financial incentive to drive less. We don’t offer incentives to carpool or telecommute and we don’t offer incentives for transit-oriented development.

The report’s authors made special note of New York’s poor performance. “One of the states that fared less well than I might have expected is New York State,” said Smart Growth America’s Neha Bhatt on a conference call with reporters. “It was outperformed by a lot of rural states.” The Assembly’s killing of congestion pricing in 2008 received special attention from the report authors as a case study in state-level obstructionism.

When it comes to state spending, at least, New York does much better, beaten out only by Rhode Island and Delaware. New York earns top marks for being the only state to spend more on transit than highways. On top of that, more of that highway spending goes toward maintenance, as opposed to trip-inducing road expansions, than in any other state.

Even so, “Getting Back on Track” finds that New York State is failing to adequately fund transit, leaving riders reliant on what comes from local governments and the feds. These days, that means the numbers just don’t add up. And New York was one of 15 states given the lowest ranking on using federal road money for bike or pedestrian infrastructure. Despite the state’s relatively high score on spending, we’re not doing nearly as well as we could be in terms of the budget; it’s just that most states are doing even worse.

To be fair, New York isn’t getting all the credit it deserves. Our newly passed smart growth law wasn’t counted because it hadn’t taken effect when the report was being prepared. “If they pull the implementation of that off well, it’s going to become a model state policy for the entire country,” said Bhatt. If effective, the smart growth law would bump New York up a few slots, though it would still be well outside the top tier of states.

With so many transit riders — and perhaps more importantly, transit-riding voters — New York should be a leader in green transportation. “Getting Back on Track” shows that instead, we’re in many ways at the very back of the pack.

Plus, there’s the ultimate shame for New Yorkers. The third-place state to our number 21? New Jersey.

Construction to widen I-40 in Arkansas, which came in last in a state ranking of environmental transpo policies. Image: Weaver Bailey Contractors

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Smart Growth America just teamed up to release a new study of states’ efforts between 2005 and 2008. The verdict? “Most states do not make any effort at all to connect transportation policy with climate change and energy goals, and some put in place systems that effectively sabotage these goals.”

NRDC and SGA want to see states invest in public transportation, support smart growth policies and transit-oriented development, and set traffic reduction targets (using tools like congestion prices to reach them).

The authors looked at a variety of policies they say can be applied all over the country, in cities, small towns and rural areas.

California scored highest, with an overall score of 82 out of 100, but that number doesn’t tell the whole story. Mott Smith, a smart growth-minded real estate developer based in Los Angeles, said he’s pleased to be living in a state that is getting so much right. “But I hope our leaders don’t get the wrong idea that they can just relax and rest on their laurels and not push even further,” he said, “because we still have quite a ways to go.”

Even the top-ranked state has a lot of room for improvement, the report authors note.

California scored very well in the Linking Transportation and Land Use sub-category, yet only contributes 16 percent of the state’s overall public transportation funds. Similarly, while the state did very well in the overall Policy category (85 points), it did relatively worse in the Investment category (58 points). Though California has many of the right policies in place, the state could improve the effectiveness of its strong smart growth and transit oriented development policies, further supporting a reduction of transportation-related GHG emissions if the state focused a greater proportion of its transportation funds on cleaner transportation modes and projects such as transit and non-motorized facilities.

Some unexpected results from the rankings: New Jersey cleaned up, finishing third out of all the states, but New York was way down at #21, between Nevada and New Mexico.

California got 17 out of 17 points for complete streets. Photo by Bryan Goebel.

Not unexpectedly, more urban states fared better. Arkansas ranked lowest with a total of 2 points.

Federal policy, of course, provides major incentives to keep states from enacting better policies of their own. Federal transportation funding is allocated according to vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption, and highway lane miles – rewarding states that enact highway-oriented transportation policies with more money to continue those policies.

What kind of federal policies would encourage state DOTs to invest in more efficient and sustainable transportation modes? NRDC and SGA want to see the federal government:

• Set specific emissions reduction targets for the transportation sector.
• Make low-emission transportation plans a criterion for receiving federal aid.
• Update funding formulas to reward reductions in driving, instead of increases.
• Prioritize cleaner transportation modes.
• In the event that carbon is taxed or pollution permits are sold under a future climate policy, dedicate those revenues to fund clean transportation investment.

Former Maryland governor Parris Glendening (who leads Smart Growth America’s Leadership Institute) said he went over the results of the survey with current Governor Martin O’Malley. Maryland scored second out of all 50 states, but according to Glendening, O’Malley is already angling to beat California next time around.

“I’m hoping, in all candor, that just about every state looks at this and says, ‘How do we move up the ranking?’” Glendening said. “Not just because it’s fun to move up the ranking. But because it represents real progress in the overall picture of the country.”

Report author Colin Peppard of NRDC agreed. “The policies that support clean transportation are also very effective at promoting things like local economic growth, reducing the public health impacts of transportation like childhood asthma and respiratory disease, and also improving the affordability to households across the country,” he said. But a lot of states aren’t connecting the dots yet. “There’s a lot of potential out there.”

An electric car in London. Image: exfordy via Flickr.

As a sustainability initiative, the merit of the proposal depends on whether trips in these new electric cars will replace trips powered by internal combustion or trips by foot, bicycle, and transit. According to the report, electric vehicles charged on New York's grid would emit as little as a quarter as much carbon per mile as conventional automobiles. "Electric cars are cleaner than conventional vehicles," said Natural Resources Defense Council vehicles analyst Luke Tonachel, "but walking, biking, and transit are all cleaner still." 

Switching to electric cars also does little or nothing to improve street safety, decrease congestion, or promote good urban design -- impacts that also benefit more sustainable modes of transport. Which seems to have been overlooked elsewhere, even in countries with enlightened transportation policies. As Charles Komanoff wrote on Streetsblog in November, Denmark's roughly $40,000 tax on conventional automobiles doesn't apply to electric vehicles, and EVs get free parking in downtown Copenhagen -- big perks that will lead more people to drive and fewer to bike or use transit. So is New York City planning to subsidize electric cars the same way they're doing in Denmark?

Thankfully, the PlaNYC report doesn't recommend using financial incentives to push people toward electric vehicles. "The absence of endorsements for such subsidies is a strong signal that the Bloomberg administration does not intend to follow Denmark’s mistake of subsidizing EVs in ways that would encourage more driving," said Komanoff. "This is very good news."

Instead, the report offers policies that mainly remove barriers for people already willing to pay a premium to own an electric car. The recommendations are pretty mild, like educating potential buyers about electric vehicles and then assisting them in finding or installing charging equipment. (The report also includes some fascinating insights into the psychology of early EV adopters. Because "not only do early adopters want to be the first on their block to own the latest vehicle technology, they would like everyone else on their block to be aware of this fact as well," it suggests recognizing early adopters, perhaps by planting trees in front of their homes.)

The big policy choices will come when or if the city decides to promote electric vehicle usage beyond the small set of early adopters. If electric vehicle production scales up in the next few years, the report suggests that the city should expand its focus to a new set of consumers. The city's response targeted at those consumers is the one to watch out for.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal's Joseph White, who covers the auto industry in his "Eyes on the Road" column, made a prediction that livable streets advocates will welcome. In the next year, he forecast, national environmental groups will re-focus their Congressional lobbying to emphasize reducing the amount Americans drive:

Last year's energy debate centered around CAFE, the acronym for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The next phase of the energy/climate change debate over cars will force us to learn another piece of technical jargon: VMT, or vehicle miles traveled.

Now, many of the environmentalists, politicians and scientists who made the case for boosting vehicle fuel efficiency are turning their attention to the problem of how much we drive -- and the legacy of 20th century land use and transportation choices.

Deron Lovaas, a transportation researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that the debate over how to curb driving will come to the fore next year, when Congress is scheduled to debate a massive bill to fund transportation projects using federal gasoline tax revenue. The NRDC and other environmental groups, fresh from their victory in the fuel-efficiency debate, are turning their attention to issues such as reforming land use rules to promote denser development and concentrating more public spending on better mass transit systems for metro areas, he says.

If this shift indeed comes to pass, it could mark an inflection point in the course of efforts to reduce emissions from transportation. CAFE standards and renewable fuels have long occupied the attention of well-funded environmental groups, keeping ideas like smart growth, transit-oriented development, and building walkable communities on the back burner, especially at the national level. But with evidence mounting that biofuels result in more emissions than fossil fuel, and enthusiasm for ethanol waning (at least in Europe), it may be harder for environmentalists to ignore the fact that America is not just addicted to oil, we're hooked on driving too.

Still, big-time environmental groups have yet to alter their public message. To use the example of the NRDC, their "Beyond Oil" website (pictured above) still puts "Better Cars" and "Better Fuels" front and center, while better land use and transportation planning are lumped under "More Solutions."

There's more solid evidence that White's article is part of another welcome trend: big media outlets emphasizing the connection between global warming and the way cities are planned. Leading the pack is Times reporter Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog. In January, Revkin announced that he will make "the urban age... a central focus" of his blog, and so far he is delivering.

Generally, the most vulnerable states are in the South and the least vulnerable are in the Northeast. There is significant variation among states: Citizens in the most vulnerable state-Mississippi-spend an average of more than 6 percent of their per capita income on gasoline, while citizens in the least vulnerable state-Connecticut-spend about 2.5 percent of theirs, a 60 percent difference. When oil prices go up, citizens in vulnerable states are hit the hardest.

NRDC research shows that the 10 states doing the most to wean themselves from oil are California, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maine, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts.

In contrast, the 10 states doing the least to reduce their oil dependence are Wyoming, West Virginia, Mississippi, South Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Alabama, Texas, and Ohio. The failure of these states to take meaningful action to reduce oil dependence exacerbates the national security and environmental harms associated with our current transportation habits.