While Mr. Hamberger's suggestion to rely more heavily on freight rail sounds good, it oversimplifies the issue.

Eighty percent of communities do not even have access to rail lines.

Trucks are the preferred mode for moving nearly 100 percent of all consumer goods and about 70 percent of overall freight tonnage in the United States. Trucks provide the speed and reliability businesses need to operate their just-in-time logistics systems.

The trucking industry works every day to ensure that people in every city and the farthest corners of the country have the fresh food, medicine, clothing and fuel that they need to live, and the consumer goods that make their lives comfortable. Trucking is essential for supporting the quality of life we enjoy in the United States.

As we move forward with environmental policies, EPA has the authority to regulate pollutants and the DOT (NHTSA) has been charged by Congress under the information and Security Act of 2007 to develop truck efficiency and economy standards. We believe any efforts between EPA and DOT need to be coordinated and harmonized under any climate change charges. The cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454), however, may disrupt this balance as it proposes to give the EPA authority to regulate emissions standards in addition to defining and regulating pollutants.

A cap-and-trade approach is not well-suited to an industry such as trucking because of the extremely large number of entities, most of which are small businesses (96 percent), operating on slim profit margins. Trucks are also tasked with moving 100 percent of all consumer goods and almost 70 percent of the nation’s freight, so emission caps would significantly hinder our nation’s productivity. Mobile sources, such as commercial trucks, should be addressed differently than traditional stationary sources under any proposed carbon reduction regulatory program.

Actively seeking to improve emissions standards and reduce greenhouse gases through new vehicle technologies and more stringent operating policies provides a far more sustainable solution than simply relying on a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. The trucking industry supports fuel economy standards for trucks so long as they are technologically and economically feasible and we’re already taking action on fuel economy with operators across the country.

ATA’s Sustainability Task Force developed a progressive sustainability agenda that will reduce fuel consumption by 86 billion gallons and CO2 emissions by 900 million tons for all vehicles over the next 10 years by: setting governors on new trucks to limit speeds to no more than 65 mph; reducing the national speed limit to 65 mph for all vehicles; reducing engine idling; reducing congestion by improving highways; using more productive truck combinations; supporting national fuel economy standards for trucks; and increasing fuel efficiency by encouraging participation in the U.S. EPA SmartWay(SM) Transport Partnership Program.

There is also the need for increased research at both EPA and DOT and the need for Congress and states to provide financial incentives to speed up the introduction of new technologies like hybrids, fuel efficient equipment, etc., to improve fuel efficiency and in turn reduce greenhouse gases.

Collapse

This is indeed a lively discussion of a timely topic. Fortunately, the process of assembling performance standards for vehicles (fuel economy under DOT jurisdiction and emission reductions under EPA's jurisdiction) gives us an idea of how to move forward: DOT and EPA must collaborate if we are to succeed in reducing the transportation sector's oil intensity and carbon emissions.

Forging a way forward on fuels will be difficult. There are infrastructure issues involved with a transition to a carbon-constrained world (For example: How to deliver low-carbon biofuels at the retail level? Should there be rapid-recharge stations available for plug-in hybrid vehicles traveling our interstates? What about refueling should the fleet shift to more diesel-powered cars?). And of course the big issue is carbon-intensity of the new energy mix for light-duty vehicles: It must provide low-carbon, sustainable options for consumers. A performance standard -- specifically, a low-carbon fuels standard -- could be a useful tool here, as with vehicles.

Shifting travel activity is more complicated, although here too there may be the opportunity to deploy means-neutral performance standards. One idea is being tried in California right now -- SB 375. This bill requires the adoption of regional greenhouse gas reduction plans for transportation. Targets must be set for the 18 metropolitan planning organizations in California by September of 2010 (a colleague is part of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee which is working on methodological recommendations for target development). That's the performance bar. As for the means of achieving the targets, that's left to the regions. Thankfully, there is a large basket of measures available for reducing a region's carbon footprint: Road pricing, investments in bus and rail transit, intelligent traffic management technologies and land-use policy reforms to name just a few. This, it seems to me, is the analog to vehicle and fuel performance standards: Performance standards for regional planning.

As to who handles the program, collaboration makes good sense. And so does division of labor based on comparative expertise. EPA should develop the models and methods for gauging success, as well as establishing reasonable targets (the California Air Resources Board or CARB in California is charged with this task under SB 375), in consultation with DOT. DOT, however, has a much larger staff who work with states and regions (okay, mostly states but this would have to change in order for the program to succeed) on a day-to-day basis. Therefore DOT should implement the program, in consultation with EPA.

Oh, and as with vehicles performance standards aren't likely to be enough. In the case of vehicles, public investment -- in the form of tax incentives for consumers and direct assistance for producers (for better or for worse) -- will help the new standards succeed. In the case of travel activity, new infrastructure investments are needed, and consumers need incentives. So I agree with other contributors that taxes or fees (on gasoline, diesel, VMT, and/or roads) are another necessary ingredient for success. If designed well, this would also help sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles. And to be consistent with the regional approach described above, the additive revenue should go to regions not states.

This is all a huge challenge, I realize. But based on what we've learned about carbon emissions and oil dependence since the turn of the century, I thinks it's clear that new policy -- especially performance standards and infrastructure investments -- is long overdue.

Collapse

A simple way for Washington to reduce the transportation sector's oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is to move more freight and passengers by rail. Greater use of rail offers a simple, inexpensive, and immediate way to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions. Because freight trains are, on average, three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, railroads have a smaller carbon footprint. Just as freight rail provides significant environmental benefits to Americans, so too will the expansion of passenger service.

The Association of American Railroads supports legislation like the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 recently introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg. The proposal would reduce VMT and GHG emissions while increasing the use of non-highway freight transportation by 10 percent and reducing freight transportation delays and congestion.

Another proposal, introduced by Congressman Blumenauer, is also supported by our industry. The Clean Low-Emissions Affordable New Transportation Equity Act, or CLEAN-TEA, would dedicate ten percent of the revenue from a comprehensive climate bill to creating a more efficient transportation system by supporting green infrastructure expansion that reduces our nation’s carbon footprint. CLEAN-TEA recognizes the tremendous advantages of rail and sees it as part of the solution to meeting both our transportation and environmental challenges.

Incorporating proposals, such as these, that promote environmentally friendly transportation modes into the upcoming highway reauthorization and climate change legislation would begin a fundamental movement toward a cleaner and greener transportation system.

Collapse

This continues to be an interesting debate on a fascinating and important topic. I wanted to respond to a few of the good points made by my colleagues.

The provisions in the ACESA bill provide some much-needed direction to our infrastructure policies, which have tremendous impact on transportation-related GHG emissions. With or without price signals, such direction is absolutely necessary for meeting our climate change goals, and the provisions of ACESA offer an effective framework for accomplishing this. Additional policy changes that thoroughly integrate GHG accountability into our transportation policies will be needed in the transportation bill, and I look forward to that process.

That said, there are plenty of regional and local examples across the country, such as the flagship community of Portland, Oregon, as well as around the world, which show these strategies to be effective at reducing GHG while enhancing mobility and increasing economic development.

First, I agree with John Krieger that offering people more transportation options only means that people can make better travel choices to accomplish their daily tasks. It provides more freedom, not less. As Secretary LaHood noted recently, the behavioral impact of transportation investments is mode-neutral. The location of offramps and transit stops, the width of sidewalks and interstates, and the timing of stoplights or passenger trains all affect how people travel.

Further, while better mobility generally benefits the economy, as John also points out, there is not a causal relationship specifically between auto use, or VMT, and the economy. It was also once thought electricity use was directly linked directly to economic growth. However, states like California have shown that enhancing the efficiency and diversity of the electricity network can reduce consumption while sustaining economic growth (until recently at least...). The same is true for transportation, as shown in the relatively wealthy Virginia county of Arlington, where 8 percent of the county's land are accounts for 33 percent of its real estate tax revenue with a fraction of the VMT typical of similar areas.

The data also shows that increasing efficiency and choices benefits our wallets. Owning, maintaining, and operating a car is expensive. Owning the two or three or even four cars necessary for mobility in areas with more homogenous transportation systems exerts a financial burden on American families, especially as our communities have sprawled farther away from jobs, schools, and services, and gas prices have risen.

A study by the Center for Transit Oriented Development of several metro areas found that families in the most auto-dependent, least transportation-diverse areas were spending an average of 25 percent of their household budgets on transportation. Households in more livable communities with more transportation options spent as little as 10 percent of their budget on transportation.
Innovative work by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, including the pioneering Housing + Transportation Affordability Index, has led to similar findings. It’s a fair criticism that housing in more livable communities can be expensive, but as Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institution has shown, this is due to a shortage of supply.

Finally, in response to Steve Van Beek’s question regarding examples of clean air attainment, while great progress has been made in cleaning our air as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and transportation policy changes in ISTEA (though more needs to be made, for example in ozone hotspots near highway facilities), this is beside the point. As I said in my original post, neither the transportation planning process or NEPA require consideration of GHG reductions, much less systematic reduction.

I disagree that the existing planning process is adequate to effectively reduce emissions, even if GHG emissions are incorporated as a planning factor. It must be strengthened to include thorough comparisons of regional investments scenarios and outcomes. Moreover, DOT will need to implement a truly performance-based accountability mechanism that offers strong incentives for achievement of GHG goals (and other critical outcomes) to ensure that there are real incentives to aggressively reduce GHG emissions.

Collapse

To say that most Americans would reject transportation strategies that make it easier to drive less is naïve at best. But don’t take my word for it. Today, over 140 major national, state, and local organizations, with a collective membership somewhere in the millions, wrote to Congress to say the exact opposite. (www.uspirg.org/uploads/sM/pK/sMpKponYMb87E1tYXtCp-Q/HR2724-letter-FINAL.pdf) These organizations, who represent a truly broad spectrum of politics and geography (I haven’t been in DC long, but long enough to recognize that a letter signed by The Friends of the Earth, The Friends Committee on National Legislation, and The Free Congress Foundation is rare), have come together in support of 10 critical objectives for the federal surface transportation program, as iterated in legislation recently introduced by Representatives Holt, Inslee, and Carnahan. Chief among the 10 objectives is a 16 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce the transportation‐generated carbon dioxide level by 40 percent by 2030.

Has this large and diverse community of advocates come together to promote federally-mandated behavior modification? No. The thing that so many transportation stakeholders, including environmentalists, land developers, protectors of public health, and local community leaders, have recognized is that a coordinated effort at all levels of government is needed in order to develop and build a more energy-efficient and environmentally-sustainable system that makes it easier for people to drive less. That is exactly the goal of HR 2724 – The National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009.

But will Congress hear the millions of voices that are calling out for this new direction or the singular misleading argument that somehow reducing driving would hurt the economy, which is like arguing that a reduction in caviar consumption would shrink the upper-class. It’s reverse-causation. The fact is that travel increases when the economy is strong and decreases when the economy is weak, because so much travel is dependent on disposable income. The fluctuation in driving is a result of the current strength of the economy, not the cause of it. The reason that travel is so closely tied to driving is because we have not developed sufficient alternatives. If they were provided more widely, high-speed rail and transit ridership would also spike in a strong economy. The difference, though, is that individual oil consumption and carbon emissions wouldn’t spike also.

Highways are congested, oil demand is high, and the Earth is warming. In order to address these major challenges, while also improving quality of life, we must make it easier for people to get around without driving. But that is not some kind of a tough pill for all of us to swallow. It’s the medicine that so many in the public are crying for, and again you don’t have to take my word for it - www.uspirg.org/uploads/sM/pK/sMpKponYMb87E1tYXtCp-Q/HR2724-letter-FINAL.pdf.

Collapse

We have an extraordinary capacity for self delusion.

While there are many good ideas embedded in earlier responses to this question, there is one overriding reality that some acknowledge and others ignore. The United States consumes a disproportionate amount of the world’s petroleum, which is a major contributor to our deepening financial problems, represents a national security risk and drives greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to spend less on petroleum and more on improving and maintaining our transportation infrastructure. And unless we propose to ignore our environmental responsibilities, we must reduce transportation related emissions.

Unhappily, despite the fact that our fuel taxes are much lower than those in most other countries, and in the face of very clear evidence that higher prices reduce gasoline usage, we refuse to raise fuel taxes or take steps to make big cars and high speed driving socially unacceptable.

Cars, trucks and buses are not the only source of transportation fuel uses and emissions; airlines must also find ways to reduce fuel usage and cut emissions, and I don’t know of anyone in the industry who denies or seeks to avoid that reality. Substantial savings can be realized by accelerating development of an improved Air Traffic Control System and by appropriately regulating scheduling practices to eliminate congestion at busy airports and encourage use of the most efficient planes. Over time, further improvements will flow from improved aircraft design, new and more efficient engines and the use of alternative fuels.

None of this is really very complicated – it’s just that politicians refuse to say anything unpleasant, however dire the circumstances. Thus, we put off needed change because of the never ending mantra that higher fuel taxes, infrastructure investment and appropriate regulation are all “politically impossible”.

That response assumes most Americans do not understand reality. I don’t believe it. I think most Americans understand that our circumstances have changed and that we need to drive smaller cars fewer miles at more rational speeds, develop and use lots more public transportation, do a much better job of maintaining the transportation infrastructure, and optimize transportation system efficiency.

It’s time for leaders to do their jobs, and lay out the kind of responsible transportation plan our present circumstances demand.

Collapse

Right now the transportation sector is responsible for nearly one third of all carbon emissions in the United States. At the same time, more than half of American households lack transportation options that will help them reduce their individual CO² emissions and stem climate change.

The clean energy bill currently moving through Congress makes significant advances on long overdue legislation to address the impact of transportation on our climate. The bill advocates for coordination between individual states and the Environmental Protection Agency for the creation of transportation-related greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. States and metropolitan areas are encouraged to utilize transportation demand management strategies, expand transit service, update land use plans, develop complete street networks, and expand smart commuting options for drivers.

These efforts will save taxpayers money and give them a break from high gas prices, which make transportation the second highest household expense for American families.

But if we expect to give families cost saving transportation options and successfully combat climate change, we must create a clean energy bill that offers meaningful financial incentives for states and metropolitan regions to design and implement the most visionary plans possible to reduce CO² emissions, while modernizing our national transportation program.

The upcoming surface transportation authorization must also build on these strategies and offer a new vision with objectives and performance targets – including climate protection – for our federal transportation program. With this new vision in place, U.S. DOT must follow through by holding state and local transportation agencies accountable for demonstrating progress toward goals that include safety, access, efficiency, health, equity and the environment.

We can effectively reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector, create a smarter and more efficient transportation system, and protect American taxpayers at the same time. Both the EPA and U.S. DOT have important roles to play. This is not an either/or solution, but a case where both agencies must work together to set national CO² goals for the transportation sector. Both agencies must provide the capacity building, technical assistance, and funding to states and local governments to make it happen. And they must cooperate and work together to make it happen in a way that ensures the transportation sector contributes its fair share toward national climate change goals.

Collapse

Gee, let's think. A year ago gasoline consumption fell, vehicle miles traveled declined for the first time since the Biblical period, people began carpooling and using public transportation and the sales of more fuel-efficient cars soared. All these things brought with them reductions in CO2 emissions from the personal transportation sector.

What might have accounted for this? The Waxman-Markey bill? The Obama administration's proposed more stringent CAFE standards? DVD sales of "An Inconvenient Truth? None of the above. As we all know, these significant signs of progress were due to the fact that gasoline prices had risen to $4 per gallon across the country (more in some places).

It's no mystery how we can regain that momentum--enact policies that will, once again, send gasoline prices upward. A cap-and-trade program will do this, of course, even if its principal boosters are slow to acknowledge it. A carbon tax (either a straightforward one or one in stealth armor like the cap-and-trade) should be augmented with a modest increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline. This is because gasoline consumption not only results in CO2 emissions but also macroeconomic risks from possible oil supply disruption.

We know how to reduce CO2 emissions from the transportation sector. Let's take our admittedly bitter medicine and get on with it.

Collapse

First, it is worth noting that changing the trajectory of carbon-dependency cannot be viewed as the responsibility of EPA and DOT alone. Other federal agencies can and must play a central role. Treasury, for example, is not only helping to oversee the re-structuring of America's auto industry, but even more importantly, leads the formulation of the nation's tax policy which goes a long way towards setting the rules that change the incentives for the behavior of firms and individuals alike. Since this is fundamentally an energy policy question, we need to broaden the focus of the US Energy Department to become a far more aggressive player in the debate, especially when it comes to dealing with the national power grid whose weaknesses must be addressed if the nation is to access and distribute any new forms of non-fossil fuel it can create. The Commerce Department -- and the US Trade Representative -- play important roles in setting ground rules for trading partners that make and buy so much of what the US economy needs. There's a reason the new administration established a strong national policy-setting mechanism around these issues in the White House -- now is the time take advantage of it.

While in the short-run there are certainly a variety of plausible strategies available to us to make changes, at least on the margin -- from tougher CAFE standards to increased use of bio-fuels -- now is also a good time begin thinking about a far more aggressive strategy that addresses not only the need to dramatically reduce emissions but the equally important matter of increasing American energy (and geo-political) security by weaning the nation from its dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil. Further, new policies have to be shaped in the broader context of increasing economic opportunity and resorting some modium of social and environmental justice.

Here the government must play a central role since the public benefits far outweigh the private benefits in the short-run, meaning market forces will be inadequate to address them for quite a while. First, supporting research in non-carbon fuels -- including hydrogen, solar, and compressed air -- must be an even more important focus for the government that it has been to date. Whether calling for a new Manhattan project to create economically viable, non-carbon-based vehicles within five years, or simply increasing US funding for research, DOT, EPA, DOE and Commerce must work together to change the underlying technological model for transportation in America in ways that will create jobs for our workers and opportinity for communities.

Once the research begins to create new technologies, the government needs to play a role in stimulating the market's transfer of the new science into commercially-viable products. That means using its own purchasing power, for example, to create the scale of demand that will bring prices for new technologies down 9rather than the piecemeal approach now in effect where different states and federal agencies choose their favorite new technologies to support). It may also mean using tax strategies to encourage research, development and even experimentation with new engines.

Just as in so many other arenas, this topic again proves why we should not leave the drafting of the upcoming surface and air re-authorization bills to the transportation communities alone, but rather use them as opportunities to engage policy-making accross the government in ways that will leverage our investments.

Collapse

In my view, a carbon (or gas) tax would be the best way to reduce CO2 emissions from the transportation sector. Such a tax is not only more efficient and direct than the traditional regulatory CAFE approach or the complicated cap and trade scheme currently under consideration by Congress, but a gas tax would raise badly needed revenue to reinvest in our aging transportation infrastructure.

The immediate objection raised to a carbon tax is that it is not "politically possible." I continue to be frustrated by this line of thinking. It is certainly possible for OPEC to raise the price of gasoline and keep the extra revenue for their member regimes. They do it all the time. Why isn't it possible for U.S. elected officials to raise the price of gasoline and keep the extra revenue here at home to build better roads, bridges, and transit systems to benefit the motorists paying the tax?

President Obama’s new clean car standards are a bold step in the right direction to curb our nation’s oil dependence and reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. According to a UCS analysis, by 2020 the standards will, compared to staying at current fuel economy levels, reduce oil consumption by about 1.4 million barrels of oil per day, save consumer $30 billion annually, and slash heat-trapping emissions by 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of taking 34 million of today’s cars and light trucks off the road.

The Environmental Protection Agency -- in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT) -- should take the lead in crafting new regulations for the standards. At the same time, it’s critical that states retain their right under the Clean Air Act to establish more stringent standards than the federal government. The Obama plan would not have happened without California’s aggressive action, which prompted more than a dozen other states to follow suit when Congress and the administration in office were sitting on their hands.

Automakers have an even greater responsibility to produce cleaner cars and trucks now that they are receiving so much taxpayer assistance. More fuel-efficient cars and trucks will save motorists money, protect public health, and help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change. We’re underwriting the industry, and we deserve those benefits.

Finally, with the reauthorization of a federal transportation bill around the corner, Congress should establish heat-trapping emissions accounting requirements for any new transportation projects DOT funds.

Collapse

Colin et al:

You indicate that current "US surface transportation policy is ill equipped to address energy and climate issues." Indeed it is. But even a cursory review of the Policy and Finance Commissions' work, together with the BPC's Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy," released just today demonstrate that there is a sustainable transportation policy community that is seeking changes in authorization to bring the three together. In my view, those decisions do not need to be outsourced to EPA, which has its hands full already.

Just as EPA changed with the release of the new CAFE standards, I suspect the USDOT will change to reflect and incorporate the Obama Administration's priorities toward energy and climate (the early actions and words of the White House, OMB, and Secretary LaHood are quite encouraging on that score).

My own direct experience with planning of transportation projects (and I suspect that of many of my transportation blog colleagues) actually shows a great degree of coordination on environmental issues required under NEPA. As you undoubtedly know, It is actually required when building significant transportation infrastructure in maintenance or non-attainment areas under the Clean Air Act. If you could give some concrete examples where this has failed in maintenance and non-attainment areas I (and perhaps my colleagues) would be interested.

Now that EPA has changed their view about GHG emissions, I suspect that GHG emissions will join the other criteria in the planning process. Therefore, saying that the current DOT is incapable of taking the lead on addressing GHG emission impacts in project development is a premature assessment (the previous Administration rejected it, so of course DOT is not doing it or requiring it in planning). Several of the states and local transportation agencies have actually done good work already in this area notwithstanding the lack of a federal mandate.

In sum, I think DOT is in a much better position to develop the guidance for planning and modeling given the nature of state and metropolitan area planning and the organizations already set up to accomplish it. Many of us recognize that planning needs to be taken to the next level, whether it be better inclusion of freight, enhanced coordination between maritime and aviation with surface, or in the megaregions. Much of the work in the policy community today is focused on just that.

I do agree, similar to today on many other criteria, that DOT and EPA (and DOE) should work collaboratively. In that regard, Secretary Browner, the OMB and the White House are there to help if one of the agencies proves obdurate.

Steve Van Beek

Collapse

Thoughtful integration of surface transportation policy and energy and climate change policies is essential to achieving overarching national energy and climate goals. Our transportation sector is responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption and 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Moreover, surface transportation is one of our fastest growing sources of oil consumption and GHG emissions.

Efforts to address transportation energy use and GHG through technology—more fuel-efficient vehicles and lower-carbon transportation fuels—are important. However, even the most realistically aggressive technological policies will not adequately reduce transportation energy use and GHG. We must also work to achieve reductions through smarter infrastructure and system management policies. It is critical, therefore, to coordinate energy and climate policy with efforts to improve our nation’s surface transportation system and its operation.

Unfortunately, current US surface transportation policy is ill-equipped to address energy and climate issues. Reduction of GHG is not a factor in the transportation planning process, and minimizing fuel use, although cited as an objective of the federal transportation planning process, is only minimally considered in most regions. Regional transportation planning does not require comprehensive analyses of alternative investment scenarios that could provide effective mobility solutions with a lower energy and climate impact. At the project level, the U.S. Department of Transportation has repeatedly declined to consider GHG emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other environmental review laws. Finally, transportation policy generally favors higher-GHG projects; for example, major highway expansions require far less oversight and receive a greater proportion of funding assistance compared to similar public transit projects.

Absent necessary accountability for reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, our current transportation policy has the potential to undermine necessary progress on energy and climate change. Fortunately, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ASCEA) begins to address this issue. Under Section 222 of ACESA, states would establish goals for reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and states and associated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) would develop short- and long-term plans for aligning their transportation investments with these GHG goals.

As part of this process, ACESA suggests several proven (though underutilized) strategies for reducing transportation GHG. In addition to cutting GHG and energy use, these strategies yield numerous co-benefits, including reduced consumer transportation costs, less municipal infrastructure costs, increased public health, reduced air and water pollution, more equitable transportation access, especially for Americans who are older, lower-income, or disabled, and in need of increased mobility options. A recent white paper by the Center for Clean Air Policy shows that these combined benefits yield a net benefit for society; the strategies outlined in ACESA offer GHG reductions at a net negative cost per ton.

As with previous emissions reduction policies, reducing transportation-related energy consumption and GHG will require U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to work collaboratively. As a result of its Clean Air Act authority, U.S. EPA may be better-positioned than DOT to take a lead role on developing guidance for planning and modeling, assessing actual and projected GHG reductions, and certifying emissions reduction plans and programs, considering such factors as induced demand and land use impacts of investments and policies. U.S. EPA’s Smart Growth Implementation Assistance program has helped dozens of communities across the country—large and small, urban and rural—update and redesign their comprehensive regional plans to foster economic growth, protect environmental resources, enhance public health, and plan for development. Given additional resources, this program could help many more communities to plan transportation investments that improve mobility, while meeting goals for both economic development and energy/climate.

While jurisdiction to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act clearly rests with U.S. EPA, as we move toward the reauthorization of the transportation bill, a clear role for U.S. DOT leadership in reducing emissions must also be outlined. Specifically, reduction of GHG through project selection, design, and management should be integrated as a planning factor in a reformed and strengthened planning process in the next transportation bill. This reform would allow US DOT to retain its oversight of a single transportation planning process, making it easier for the agency to begin to align the many federal infrastructure grant programs with GHG reduction goals.

Moreover, a strengthened regional and state transportation planning process that includes GHG reduction goals has the potential to expedite project delivery. Procedural safeguards of NEPA project review (with opportunities for notice and comment, hearings, draft impact statements, etc.) could be included in regional and state plan updates, where it is appropriate to consider alternatives that can minimize GHG fuel use, and other adverse environmental impacts. By linking planning with Tier I NEPA decisions for major investments, project reviews could be focused on timely and efficient consideration of more detailed project alignments and operational options for major investments, or rely on programmatic categorical exclusions linked to environmental mitigation programs, resulting in faster approval of transportation projects that reduce GHG and energy use.

Overall, reducing transportation GHG will require a collaborative, systematic effort between federal, state, and local governments and policymakers. This effort will not only lead to a more effective federal energy and climate change policy, but a more effective surface transportation policy. Though such integration and collaboration will not be simple or happen overnight, it is our best hope for protecting our climate and achieving energy independence.

Collapse

Ms. Callahan makes some great points but I challenge her position that we should try to limit travel as a means to achieve emissions targets. The goal should be to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost to individuals and the economy at large.... behavior-modification strategies are inefficient, costly, and require a controlling form of government -- it's something Americans will reject. At the macro-scale VMT is extremely closely correlated with gross domestic product (http://www.highways.org/pdfs/vmt-gdp-chart.pdf)

As for impact on individuals, mandatory VMT reduction schemes would have a particularly damaging effect on low-income Americans, for whom car ownership and mobility provide the key to many more job opportunities, shopping and recreation than could be accessed along a transit line or by alternate modes of travel. For many, the best way out of a life of poverty is behind the wheel of a car. Policies that make mobility more expensive hurt the poor hardest. For more on how auto-mobility combats poverty read here: http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/FamilyEconomicSuccess/~/media/PDFFiles/dvd_guide_cars.pdf

The federal government (and state & local governments) should not develop intrusive policies in an attempt to alter behavior and personal transportation choices.

Collapse

When Congress takes up transportation reauthorization this year, its decisions will have a lasting impact not only on the shape of the nation’s transportation policies but also on our environmental profile. The transportation sector is the source of more than 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and vehicular pollution degrades local air quality and exacerbates respiratory ailments. And of course our nation’s outsized dependence on imported oil leaves us vulnerable to political unrest in unstable countries and compromises our national security.

President Obama’s accelerated deadline for achieving average fleet-wide fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2016 means that in that year alone, consumers will save $22 billion as our oil consumption and carbon emissions drop, respectively, by 1.1 million barrels per day – half of current Persian Gulf imports – and by the equivalent of taking 28 million cars off the road. Those are quite notable achievements from one stroke of the president’s pen.

But these critical improvements in vehicle fuel economy are necessary but not sufficient to halt or reverse the growth of transportation-related GHG emissions. Success at that level requires policies that will cut vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – the number of miles traveled in a year by all the vehicles on the road. VMT shot up 50 percent per capita between 1980 and 2005, from about 6,700 miles to more than 10,000 miles per year. Given that the population also grew by 30 percent during that period, our vehicles would have needed to be 95 percent more fuel-efficient in 2005 than they were in 1980 to outweigh the increased number of drivers who were driving more.

So how can national policies incentivize consumers to lower their transportation energy use? We need to incorporate into the price of gasoline the externality costs of gas consumption (GHG emissions, national security concerns, etc.) so that the higher price reduces demand for fuel – and thus for driving – while also providing a revenue stream to help deal with those costs.

Some have suggested that charging drivers a fee for every mile driven would be the best way to reduce VMT. The Alliance to Save Energy agrees that pricing is an effective way to reduce transportation emissions, and we are not opposed to a VMT fee or tax.

However, we think that increasing the gasoline tax – an existing mechanism that raises funds to repair the externality cost of wear and tear on roads – would be a more direct way to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing transportation-related emissions. Increasing the gas tax would “bill” drivers for the full cost of driving, and those who wish to lower their gasoline costs could choose either choose driving fewer miles or driving a more efficient car – or both.

If the government charges drivers for the full cost of their transportation emissions, it also should provide them with access to less carbon-intensive modes of transportation such as mass transit. Other worthy approaches include policies encouraging employers to allow workers to telecommute, funding ride-sharing and carpooling programs for workers, and incentivizing local governments to rezone land for multi-use development. Finally, we urge the federal government to develop metrics to measure the success of these and other efforts to reduce GHG emissions, so we will know which programs and policies work.

####

Collapse

Updated at 3:22 p.m. on June 8.

From an economist's perspective, and from the perspective of someone who cares about the environment, the economy, and the effects of both on people it is clear that the market is not yet taking care of the problem of the carbon impact of transportation.

Increasing taxes on carbon-dense fuels used in transport could be part of the solution, but this needs to be done in a wise way that does not cause significant inflationary pressures, or cause even larger numbers of people to lose their jobs. Phasing in these changes as other changes, such as in technologies, happen may be one of the best ways of making these costs changes effect the C02 output without effecting the lives an livelihoods of people to much and too quickly. If people find the costs too high then politics will run against many policy changes that could otherwise occur.

There could also be the carrots set up for the ailing auto manufacturers to invest more people and more money into more environmentally-friendly cars, and into lighter weight vehicles with better aerodynamics. Building and inventing cars that can use the lost energy from breaking could also help.

The winners in the next product cycles in automobiles will be those who push the envelopes reducing the costs of cars not only to the consumers, but also to the environment -- because most governments are going to have heavier environmental regulations on transport in the next 2-10 years.

Building and inventing cars that are more than just the "hybrids" we have now can get us to another level of thinking. The hybrids we have now are baby steps toward what we really need. Greater R&D toward new automobile technologies, and even driver behavioral technologies could move us in the right direction. The way we drive cars today is a lot like the way we still type with QWERTY keyboards. We are caught in a legacy system of driving that has no real logic to it, other than we have been doing it for decades, and we train drivers to drive that way. Transport inertia is not just in technology. It is also in behavior.

Sometimes inventions and innovations can make a much bigger impact on the problems we face than simple taxes and user fees. Large prizes could be developed for the goal of getting to the next levels in super-green auto technologies.

DOT and EPA can be part of the solution, but the real and full solutions can only be found in joint interagency and international efforts toward the goals we seek. DOD can also be a player in all of this. In many ways DOD is a vanguard in many transport and energy technology changes.

Some the most effective answers may lie in the merging of the electricity industry with the transport industry, and in making cleaner and less C02-emitting electricity through the technologies that exist today, and will exist in the future.

Biofuels and hydrogen fuels could be part of the energy fuel mix, but those fuels also have to be produced in ways that are carbon-offsetting from what we have now and even more carbon offsetting as time goes on. Biofuels made from corn in the US is a bad way of approaching this. A lot more research needs to be done to get to the most effective biofuels of the future. My guess is that these have not even been invested yet, but there are lots of smart people thinking about the potentials.

The joint interagency and international efforts would also have to look at truck transport and the many improvements that could almost immediately be done given the technologies already available. Concurrently, we could go about inventing, innovating and diffusing the technologies yet to be discovered into and around the trucking industry.

One transport type that is an often neglected source of C02 is shipping. It added about 4.5% of all global emissions of greenhouse gases, until the global downturn. As the world economy picks up again, and the huge number of ships sitting at anchor off places like Singapore start to transport huge quantities of goods within the huge sets of conveyor belts called the shipping lanes, then the C02 contributions will come back, and may even surpass this percentage as other transport methods are focused upon by the authorities and others. Shipping is a big deal in the world economy. It is a big deal in the world environment, and not just because of its seldom-mentioned additions to C02, but for the other environmental costs it brings.

Shipping brings massive overall benefits to the world economy and society and is the major driving force behind globalization, but its environmental costs need to be brought into the policy mixes to help mitigate global climate change. Shipping may be one of the industries most affected by global climate change over the coming decades so they may just see the benefit of adding to some mitigation solutions. There are some very smart, world-wise and sophisticated people in the shipping industry who likely see where the future might bring them. Some of that future may include making ships differently (such as those that cut through waves and weather more efficiently) and making ships that are powered differently.

Another part of the C02 problem in transport in this interagency and international program would involved rail transport. Pound-per-pound rail transport produces less C02 in transporting cargo and people than trucks and autos. Light rail in cities and within and across other highly populated areas could add much to the solution. Powering those rail engines with LNG, CG, electricity (mostly light rail) and the like could also add to the solutions.

Another curious way to reduce the C02 output of transporting cargos by just about any method is to package our good differently and in lighter ways. How many times have you bought something at a store only to find out that a good part of the weight of that something was the packaging? We are still in the 1950s when it comes to the technologies of packaging of many of our products. A lot of environmental policy success on C02 could be found in simply thinking up new ways of boxing things.

Getting to the solutions needed to make super-conducting batteries, lines, and other material, and getting to the solutions of making fusion electricity work could be massive breakthroughs in transport CO2 reductions. However, those solutions are likely a long way in the future. Nevertheless, don't rule out private sector or public-private partnerships making huge positively disruptive breakthroughs in the not-to-distant future.

As one can see there are many angles to the answer to this question. If we look at this in department-by-department and country-by-country manners we are, literally, thinking inside the boxes.

We need to forget the boxes and move to more fluid, long-run, creative, inventive, collaborative, and, yes, revolutionary answers for many of the interconnected problems associated with energy production, transport, and the environment. Also, don't rule out the profit motive driving the new energy and transport futures. There is a massive amount of money to be made in the changes that could arrive a lot sooner than some might be thinking today.

(All opinions expressed are those of the author alone.)

Collapse

Incorporating Climate Priorities into Transportation Decision-Making (and vice-versa)

The Obama Administration deserves great credit for releasing new rules that promulgate a single standard for fuel-efficiency, that is a good start. The new rules for fuel-efficiency will help define the future supply of new vehicles that are made available in 2012 and beyond. While economists are concerned about the "rebound effect" of increasing fuel economy (i.e., cheaper costs on fuel through greater efficiency might incent additional use), if we pay attention to both supply and demand we can address that concern. So, how can we incentivize drivers, fliers, and riders to use transportation more efficiently with GHG emissions being a consideration?

Current USDOT surface (and aviation) programs use fuel taxes to pay for infrastructure projects. Raising those taxes provides the incentive to use transportation more sustainably and makes available new resources for infrastructure development (the trust funds that underlie both the surface and aviation authorizations are in dire need of additional resources given unmet mobility and transportation needs). The policy and finance commissions endorsed sensible long-term strategies migrating our funding system from fuel taxes to use taxes that would be even better at incentivizing good transportation use, reducing GHG emissions, and providing needed infrastructure funding.

While it is positive to internalize the external effects of GHG use in transportation decision-making, and this should help in meeting our 2020 goals for reducing 1990 levels of GHG emissions, we should also recognize the substantial costs of transportation infrastructure investments, especially when considering the aggressive goals for 2050 (cutting GHG emissions by 83%). This means that transportation's share of revenues generated from a cap and trade system and all revenues generated by transportation fuel taxes should flow back into transportation investments to help with the conversion of our industry. These new investments will address mobility needs and, by reducing congestion, will also address climate concerns. No doubt reforms should also require new ways of priortizing investments in transportation with criteria that factor in better planning, including with GHG emissions (joining local air quality, clean water, the Endangered Species Act and others). This reinvestment will be a critical criterion to getting the transportation community's support for a strong climate policy (whether it be for transit, to reduce congestion on the highways, to increase the role of freight rail, or to help modernize air traffic control).

The USDOT's planning mechanisms, while not perfect, are the preferred place for incoporating GHG emissions and climate decision-making--a separate EPA track as in the House Energy and Commerce legislation is unnecessary and would only serve to unnecessarily slow down transportation projects. This is an example where we must be careful not to layer on new requirements but incorporate our new priorities into our existing mechanisms.

This is a time when those concerned with transportation and those concerned with energy and climate need to come together. By focusing our attention on how we use resources more efficiently and how we can reinvest our dollars into more sustainable transportation, we will meet our collective goals and design processes to make wise decisions into the future.

Steve Van Beek

Collapse

Washington can take sustainable action to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on feasible solutions from all sectors that do not exceed a cost of $50 per metric ton of CO2 removed. This is the generally accepted ceiling as discussed in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment report.

Constraining costs to less than $50/ton removed is necessary to develop solutions that are environmentally sustainable, financially sustainable, economically sustainable, and politically sustainable over the long term.

Solutions that are ideologically desirable to special interest groups and urban planners but unreasonably costly to society take resources away from more effective solutions. Given the fact that many scientists suggest catastrophic global consequences of global warming, it is critical that the money raised through cap-and-trade be carefully spent on the most cost-effective solutions.

There are cost-effective ways to reduce transportation emissions at a cost of less than $50/ton. As with the impressive air quality improvements made in the U.S. since 1970, these changes will occur through improvements in vehicle, fuel, and transportation operations technology, NOT through changes in human behavior.

Unfortunately, some legislators and policymakers have an obsession with changing behavior and insist that coercive behavioral-change programs are necessary for progress on GHG emissions. These approaches were ineffective and unnecessary for the progress we have made in cleaning the air and they remain ineffective and unnecessary for progress in GHG reduction.

The behavioral-change solutions pre-date the current concern about global warming and have been repackaged for this issue. Yet it is the same old desire for more government control and social-engineering at work. In the view of anti-car, anti-highway ideologues, private vehicles and their users are somehow “less virtuous” than alternative modes and their users. Of course this is ridiculous! But the policies that constrain personal freedom that emanate from this logic have the potential to damage future generations’ quality-of-life and prosperity – and the environment itself.

As for EPA’s role in transportation planning: Transportation planning is a very slow and comprehensive process that requires a single lead federal agency to manage it and approve state plans. That lead agency is the US Department of Transportation and this authority should remain fully in its hands. USDOT considers the views of EPA to make sure that transportation plans are consistent with air quality plans. But DOT also considers other factors impacting states and metropolitan areas including the need for efficient commerce, safety improvements, congestion relief, and access to growing communities. This comprehensive view is absolutely necessary for good decisionmaking.

Given the rush June 19^th deadline imposed upon House committees to contribute their piece of the House climate change bill, it is clear that this bill is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to revise transportation planning practice or contemplate a more expansive role for EPA.

Instead, the House T&I Committee and Senate EPW Committee should develop an extensive hearing record on transportation planning. If changes need to be made, they should be incorporated into transportation authorization bills and every effort should be made to ensure the changes do not slow an already tortuous process.

The current transportation planning requirements in the Waxman-Markey bill are a perfect illustration of why the T&I Committee should assert its jurisdiction. The Waxman-Markey transportation planning requirements omit the most cost-effective highway solutions from consideration (such as improved operations and removed of bottlenecks), slow the planning process, create duplicative reviews and multiple review authorities, and will undoubtedly lead to freight and passenger mobility problems.

The transportation provisions in Waxman-Markey need to be stripped out of the climate change bill.

Collapse

There is no doubt that the nation's current approach to reducing fuel consumption, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE), is an effective way to get manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. What isn't as clear is whether those standards have affected overall fuel consumption. That's because even as cars became more efficient over the past 30 years, Americans drove significantly more miles. Realistically, CAFE probably is a lot more effective at inspiring new technologies and limiting the growth in fuel consumption than it is at changing consumer's driving behavior or appetite for larger and faster vehicles.

The lesson from CAFE is that mandating standards alone is not enough to truly reduce fuel consumption. If the goal is to reduce fuel consumption, Washington needs to embrace measures that will encourage Americans to drive fewer miles, purchase more fuel efficient cars, and reduce the amount of fuel wasted during those drives. Since Americans have a healthy disdain for mandates and the unintended consequences they bring, the best way to achieve all three objectives is to rationalize existing and new highway user fees.

As we saw last summer, the best way to encourage less driving and boost demand for fuel efficient cars is to increase the cost of fuel. Increasing the nation's now almost static excise on gasoline and other fuel sources will certainly encourage American's to reduce the amount they drive each year while helping boost demand for more efficient vehicles. It also will generate needed revenue that can be invested in easing the pervasive urban congestion that forces commuters to waste billions of gallons each year idling in traffic.

Similarly, high speed variable tolls and charging by vehicle miles traveled also have proven effective in managing demand for highway travel, cutting congestion and boosting demand for public transit. As with the motor fuels excise, these measures also help generate sorely needed revenue that can be invested in reducing highway congestion and making transit systems a better, more convenient alternative.

While increasing user fees may be seen as politically challenging, it is certain to be a far more effective, and ultimately popular approach, than telling Americans what to buy, when to drive or where to build. As we have seen time and again, mandates in this country are often really good at doing what they aren't supposed to do, and really bad at doing what's intended. As we debate and craft our future energy policy, Washington needs to avoid the temptation to mandate a greener future, for example by transferring transportation planning responsibilities over to the EPA. Such measures will make extremely good headlines and exceedingly bad policy.

Collapse

The federal government has the ability to take multiple actions to reduce carbon emissions and oil consumption by the nation’s vehicle fleet. Here are just three:

First, EPA can approve the use of higher ethanol blends. Increasing the amount of ethanol included in each gallon of gasoline both reduces emissions – carbon and toxic – and displaces imported oil. EPA itself has calculated a 61% reduction in carbon emissions by using ethanol over gasoline. EPA has the ability to make an immediate move from the 10% ethanol cap imposed today, to 12 or 13% immediately. The science and existing statute stand behind such a move. In addition, EPA should conduct its due diligence and then approve the formal request to allow gasoline marketers to blend up to 15% ethanol in each gallon of gasoline.

Second, EPA must revisit its proposed rule for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The RFS is currently the only government program aimed directly at reducing emissions and oil consumption by motor vehicles. Unfortunately, EPA has overreached on the directive given to it by Congress and has included the very uncertain and wholly unproven theory of international land use change. ILUC hypothesizes that an acre of land use to produce a biofuel feedstock must be made up for elsewhere around the world, often from virgin land and rainforests. This theory has come under intense criticism and scientific scrutiny and is far from finding any consensus within the scientific community. EPA is right to look at indirect effects of biofuel use as it pertains to the United States, where data and causality are more factually verified. But, to penalize biofuels – and no other fuel source including oil – with this highly speculative and uncertain theory is putting policy before science.

Third, DOT, EPA, USDA and DOE can continue to partner with private fuel providers to encourage the installation of higher level ethanol blending infrastructure. Using fuels such as E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) replaces a far greater volume of oil used for gasoline and the harmful emissions associated with that fuel. Tax incentives, fleet purchasing requirements, and other initiatives can help deploy a larger renewable fuel infrastructure that would go a long way to reducing carbon emission and oil consumption.

As I noted, there are a number of other options that must be explored: increased R&D in alternative fuels, hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies, greater investment in public transportation, etc. All of these are important but will take years to mature. Biofuels like ethanol offer both an immediate option and a longer term solution to lowering carbon emissions and displacing imported oil.

Collapse