Switchboard, from NRDC › Colin Peppard's Blog

Senate Accelerates Toward Transportation Reform: The Devil's in the Details

2011-05-25T15:32:59Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

After 18 months of dead ends and false starts in Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee renewed hope that lawmakers might soon take action to overhaul our outdated federal transportation policy. The committee's leadership - two Democrats and two Republicans - have agreed on several key principles for a new bipartisan transportation bill titled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).

This small but important step offers Americans the hope that our elected officials might soon engage in a real debate over a bill that affects critical issues such as traffic congestion, transportation affordability, air pollution, and oil dependence. Since our last transportation law expired in 2009, committee leaders on both sides of Capitol Hill have sought a path forward for renewing our federal surface transportation policy, only to be met by one obstacle after another.

All the while, millions of Americans sit stuck in traffic each day with few if any alternatives, resulting in big costs in lost productivity and wasted fuel. And the transportation sector continues to drive our oil addiction, causing dangerous levels of air pollution in regions around the country.

Real reform of our federal transportation policy can address all of these problems. Investment in state of the art highway management systems and new public transit service can cut road congestion and reduce emissions. Smarter transportation planning and performance-based transportation programs can help families and businesses reduce transportation costs and oil use.

To accomplish this, new legislation must establish national goals for our transportation investments and set clear performance measures to gauge success. Such a policy would invest limited tax dollars wisely in new projects that enhance the efficiency of our transportation system, while prioritizing repair and rehabilitation of the network we've already built. (See our factsheet on Building Transportation Infrastructure 2.0)

Besides promising to "...focus resources on key national goals..." the committee's statement offers few specifics on these items, which have been supported by dozens of public and private commission, transportation experts, policymakers, and advocates. These details will determine whether any bill fulfills the major potential to make American more competitive, secure, and sustainable through sound transportation investments. Moreover, Congress must take care not to undermine bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which have served Americans well for 40 years.

But that's a discussion that can only happen if we actually have a debate. The committee's agreement on key principles takes as a step closer.

Header photo by taberandrew, used under a Creative Commons license.

Myths and Facts About High Gas Prices

2011-03-25T14:54:08Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

The Washington Post offers a helpful set of myths and facts about what's driving oil prices upward.

Two key points:

1. Developing domestic supply won't bring down domestic prices.

Even if domestic supplies were developed, American presidents couldn’t really control oil prices. The U.S. government has estimated that there are 18 billion barrels of oil in the outer continental shelf of the lower 48 states that are off limits to development. That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 2 and a half years of supply for the United States, and it would take several years to allocate leases and drill exploratory wells. Even if the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were available for development, today’s policy decisions will have no impact on gasoline supplies for as much as a decade. Obama can’t dictate what you’ll pay for premium tomorrow.

2. We have options available to save money on gas (though Congress could give us more).

The United States, built on cheap oil, is much less densely populated than the Old World, with more wide-open spaces to traverse. But that doesn’t mean we can’t embrace some of the things that have helped Europeans keep their gasoline bills down — such as high-speed rail, public transportation and green energy.

In fact, Americans have shown that they can adjust their behavior when faced with sticker shock at the pump. As gas prices rose from $2.31 per gallon in 2005 to $3.30 per gallon in 2008, sales of the Toyota Prius eclipsed those of the Ford Explorer, and public transit use reached a 50-year high. When it costs $30 to fill up a Geo Metro with regular, all options are on the table.

Header image by ezioman, used under a Creative Commons license.

Cheap Gas? Where?

2011-03-21T19:22:37Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Gas prices across the country are rising, and that has most Americans concerned. And rightly so - the painful impacts of rising gas prices are very real for families and businesses across the country.

However, while gas is more expensive than we are used to here at home, looking across the globe, Americans pay far less for gasoline than people in nearly any other nation. And we're not just talking about the wealthy western European countries like England or Germany.

Gas in the U.S. is cheaper than it is in places like:

Brazil: $5.99
Bulgaria: $6.63
Canada: $5.89
China: $4.47
Estonia: $6.57
Hong Kong: $7.67
India: $4.57
Lithuania: $6.89
Portugal: $8.20
Russia: $3.68
South Africa: $4.78

And contrary to popular belief, gas is not expensive in these places due to a lack of supply: According to CNN:

Norway is awash in oil because of its thriving oil industry in the North Atlantic. The United Kingdom also has access to the oil fields in the same region.

Italy has deep corporate ties with Libya. Its oil production company, Eni, is the largest producer in Libya. But even in the best of times, without civil war in Libya, gas in Italy is expensive when compared to the U.S. Italians on average paid $7.77 a gallon at the end of February, according to the most recent data from the IEA.

"The difference between countries comes down to taxes and subsidies," said Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst for Oil Price Information Service. "Prices are incredibly high in Europe because of the stiff taxes that EU countries put on fuel. The same holds true for many other countries."

As I've said before, on the global market, pre-tax oil prices are set largely on the basis of demand. And there's little any one country can do to lower that base price. So which countries do pay less than we do in the U.S.?

Bolivia: $2.26
Iran: $1.47
Iraq: $1.44
Venezuela: $2.62

These countries and others that are paying less for gasoline tend to have several things in common - massive oil reserves relative to population, a state-owned domestic oil industry, often as a main driver of GDP, and, perhaps most importantly, some even subsidize gasoline for citizens.

All of this is not to say that Americans are paying either too little or too much, and in the short term, rising prices will only hurt Americans who have few other options but to suck it up and fill their tanks no matter the cost.

What these numbers do tell us is that, for better or worse, the price of gas is largely out of our control.

What we can control is our transportation and energy policy, reorienting both to advance energy efficiency and alternatives to oil. This means making our vehicles more efficient, speeding the manufacture and deployment of electric vehicle technology, and implementing a 21st Century national transportation policy to offer people more public transportation options, better connect our neighborhoods and economic areas, and more successfully manage our road network.

All of these steps can ensure that Americans have access to affordable transportation options, no matter how high the price of oil goes.

Header image by dougww, used under a Creative Commons license.

A Different Kind of Demand Problem

2011-03-15T19:10:37Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Rising gasoline prices are driven by a demand issue, not a supply problem. But gas prices also influence the demand for different types of transportation. In particular, when gas prices go up, people drive less and use public transit more often.

So if gas prices continue to rise even beyond the record levels they hit in the summer of 2008 (when driving also dropped substantially), our public transportation network is going to see quite a bit more use.

How much more? The American Public Transportation Association took a stab at answering this very question. A report released by APTA yesterday found that [emphasis mine]:

if regular gas prices reach $4 a gallon across the nation, as many experts have forecasted, an additional 670 million passenger trips could be expected, resulting in more than 10.8 billion trips per year. If pump prices jump to $5 a gallon, the report predicts an additional 1.5 billion passenger trips can be expected, resulting in more than 11.6 billion trips per year. And if prices were to soar to $6 a gallon, expectations go as high as an additional 2.7 billion passenger trips, resulting in more than 12.9 billion trips per year.

But not so fast - here's the rub. As state and local budgets have strained under the weight of the recession, almost every transit agency across the country has been forced to cut service, raise fares, or both.

As the Transportation for America report Stranded at the Station documented, this has left millions of Americans without a transportation option they depend on. It's also resulted in thousands of lost jobs in the transit industry. Transportation for America has been mapping these cuts, showing their starting scope:

And as state and local budgets continue to take their lumps, more cuts are being considered. This calls into question whether transit agencies will be able to serve all these additional passengers safely and efficiently.

There's not much we can do about the rising price of gas. But there is plenty that we can do to accommodate the millions of potential new riders who could come depend on public transportation to get to work, school, or just across town for dinner or to pick up the dry cleaning. It's up to us - and Congress - to choose not to leave them stranded.

Header image by Oran Viriyincy used under a Creative Commons license.

High Gas Prices are a Demand Problem

2011-03-13T15:32:46Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Matthew Yglesias has is exactly right on the global nature of oil and gasoline prices:

Oil is produced and consumed in particular places, but there’s a single worldwide price of oil that’s determined by global supply and global demand. It’s not possible for one country to unilaterally alter the price its own citizens pay at the pump by altering the quantity of oil it produces. A new well in the United States has exactly the same impact on global prices as a new well in Norway or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia and thus the exactly the same impact on the price American consumers pay.

He's also right when he says, in an earlier post:

The United States leaves itself persistently more vulnerable to oil price shocks than any other country. And yet the technology to insulate ourselves...we’re just not deploying it thanks to a set of tax and regulatory policies based on an outmoded industrial policy from an era when American auto companies ruled the world and the US was a net oil exporter.

The bottom line is that there is very little we can do to the global oil supply to affect the price we pay for gasoline. But there's a lot that we can do as a country on the demand side of the equation. More efficient cars, accelerating electrification of autos, and more investments in public transportation and other transportation efficiency measures. All of these steps won't do much to lower the price of gas, but they sure will let us buy less of it.

Header image by richardmason, used under a Creative Commons license.

Cutting Back on Gas? Your Neighborhood Thanks You!

2011-03-10T20:44:24Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

When it comes to gas prices, it's not just how much you pay, it's how often you buy. And driving less saves you money - a lot of it, in fact. Driving is expensive, and oftentimes cleaner alternatives are also more affordable. That can be a big relief for strained household budgets (pdf). But the money that you save doesn't only benefit your own wallet. It can also be a boost for your local community economy.

The National Building Museum's blog The City lays this out clearly in a post accompanied by one of their top-notch infographics.

When you drive less, much of the savings you'll see is due to the fact that you don't have to buy as much gasoline. Not only do you and your family save this money, you also likely spend some of it elsewhere. Maybe it's a movie or dinner out. Or some home improvements. Or a shopping trip at local stores. The bottom line is that, rather than sending your money to an oil company that likely isn't even in this country much less your community, your dollars stay in the neighborhood, helping to power the engine of your local economy.

Economist Joseph Cortright at CEOs for Cities has been working with this idea for a while, applying it to the metropolitan area in a concept he calls the "Green Dividend". The premise is that the ability to access more opportunities - economic, as well as social and civic - and destinations with less driving increases welfare for residents in a given area.

This can be seen clearly in New York City, America’s most dens, diverse, and populous metropolitan region. Cortright calculated that New York’s extensive public transportation network and high number of walkable and bikable neighborhoods are key contributors to greater economic well-being for residents.

Very simply put, while the average New Yorker drives about 9 miles per day, the average resident in any U.S. city drives about 25. This yields about $19 billion in annual savings on vehicle costs for the residents of New York (assuming an average vehicle operating cost of 40 cents per mile).

These economic benefits are not specific to large dense cities like New York. Portland, Oregon, which is much smaller, less dense, and less urban than New York, also fared well in Cortright’s analysis. Residents in the Portland area travel about 20 percent fewer miles per day then the average. This translates to about $1.1 billion dollars per year in savings to area travelers, or about 1.5 percent of personal income earned in Portland in 2005.

These results are not unique to cities like New York and Portland. Indeed they can be expanded beyond your neighborhood or city to the whole country. At the national level, cutting oil consumption allows us to reduce the total amount of GDP we spend each year on foreign sources of oil. In 2008, that number stood at $357 billion worth of foreign crude oil, equivalent to 2.3 percent of GDP.

In 2009, NRDC sponsored a landmark study of the technical potential to reduce oil use nationwide with a set of 50 transportation policy measures, entitled Moving Cooler. As part of this, we looked at the costs of implementing these measures, and the projected consumer savings as a result of their use. The results were staggering – between $2.2 and $2.8 trillion in cumulative consumer savings over 40 years.

Coming back to my initial point, the impact of rising gas prices is not only about how much you pay, but how often you buy. Unfortunately, not many Americans live in communities that have the kind of transportation options that allow them to buy less gas. That not only deprives them and their families of the Green Dividend, it deprives their whole neighborhood of these potential savings.

More People are Driving, But People Aren't Driving More

2011-03-07T21:49:56Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Last week, I wrote about this year's uptick in nationwide driving rates. In particular, I asked whether the regions that had begun to invest more in expanding transportation options rather than ever-expanding highways might be bucking the broader trend. Especially paired with fuel prices that have been steadily increasing for weeks, people have more of an incentive than ever to moderate their miles.

The Brookings Institution's Rob Puentes and Adie Tomar, writing over at The New Republic, looked at the data a different way. As their graph above shows, driving rates have only gone up in absolute terms. If you take into consideration population increases, the amount that each person drives annually has stayed about the same -- which is actually about the same amount that it was back in 2000. (The graph also shows a pretty clear connection with aforementioned fuel prices...) To connect back to my original question about transportation options, data from the American Public Transportation Association show that, during a similar period between 2000 and 2008, per capita use of public transit rose about 7 percent.

What is most interesting is that this new flattening of per capita driving rates follows decades of per capita increases. Between 1977 and 2001, driving in the United States grew by 151 percent - about 3 times faster than population. The average length of car trips, the number of car trips per capita, and the proportion of drivers traveling alone all increased as well. All of which contributed to the steep rise in global warming pollution from transportation in the U.S.

Eric Morris at the Freakonomics website isn't terribly satisfied with the idea that changing infrastructure policies can have a major impact on driving so quickly, even combined with fuel prices and broader economic factors. He did link back to Lee Schipper and Adam Millard-Ball's provocative paper suggesting that there might be a level of "peak travel" associated with personal income levels.

Whatever the truth behind them, the trends don't lie. This is good news for advocates of transportation efficiency - investing in cleaner transportation options such as streetcars, bus rapid transit, car-sharing, and transportation management technology. It means that our baseline for transportation emissions won't rise as steeply as we thought, and if we move forward with proposals to reform U.S. transportation policies, it will allow us to further reduce emissions and oil consumption from U.S. transportation.

U.S. Driving Rates Are Up... But For How Long?

2011-03-02T16:50:59Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Auto use in the U.S. plunged during the record high gas prices we saw a few years ago. But driving has been steadily creeping back up, and the Department of Transportation announced today that American's drove about 3 trillion miles in 2010, marking a 0.7 percent national increase, and the 3rd highest number of miles driven on record.

The 8 states from Texas to Kentucky that make up the Federal Highway Administration's South Gulf region saw some of the largest growth, posting a 1.3 percent increase in vehicle travel in December 2010, compared to the previous December.

But these trends are not necessarily what are happening everywhere in the country. In the Pacific Northwest, the Sightline Institute finds that traffic is falling across the region. In Washington, for instance, traffic within Seattle has fell slightly in both 2008 and 2009, and highway traffic statewide has been either falling or growing very slowly as well. To the south in Oregon, statewide traffic has been falling since 2002, and in transit- and bike-friendly Portland, auto use per capita has fallen 12 percent since 1996.

Officials in both the Portland and Seattle metro areas, where much of driving in the Northwest occurs, have been at the forefront of taking a more enlightened view on transportation investments, focusing on more sustainable transportation strategies such as public transportation, biking and walking, and road management.

And as oil prices continue to increase beyond $100 a barrel, will we see more Americans reducing their auto use by turning to public transit or other strategies to manage the rising cost of driving? Recent news reports from Los Angeles and North Carolina indicate that this might be the case. However, if Congress chooses to cut transportation spending along the lines of the House Republicans' proposal, it's unlikely that most Americans will have access to high quality transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities, or well managed roadways to allow them to respond to high oil prices.

Image by Wonderlane, used under a Creative Commons license.

H.R. 1: What's at Stake? San Jose's Transportation Future

2011-02-17T21:17:00Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Since the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was being conceived back in the 40s and 50s, the public, businesses, and government leaders throughout the region have wanted to connect San Jose to Oakland and, across the Bay, San Francisco with a rail link. In 2000, Santa Clara County residents even voted to tax themselves an extra half-cent for 30 years to pay for the extension.

The transit link would create new jobs, connect the bustling economies of two major West Coast cities, reduce traffic on Interstates 680 and 880, and provide Californians a cleaner transportation option that would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions throughout Silicon Valley. What's more four new BART stations would provide significant opportunities for local economic growth, including new businesses, residential development, and office space that can help to bolster the state's flagging economy. Unfortunately for the people of Santa Clara County, funding concerns and the lack of a federal investment partner have held up the project for decades.

Whether it's a highway, rail line, or airport expansion, nearly all major transportation projects require a big upfront investment to get them off the ground. Our federal transportation policy has always helped to jump-start these projects by providing some of the upfront capital. For highways, often up to 80 percent of a project's cost that is covered by the Feds. For transit projects, this number is usually much lower - sometimes as low as 50 percent. And unlike highway projects, transit project must pass a cost-benefit threshold to receive federal funding. Resources are few, and competition is fierce.

So it was a big deal in San Jose this week when the Obama Administration announced as part of its transportation budget that at long last the BART extension to San Jose would receive the federal help it needs to get moving. But this progress could all come to a screeching halt if House Republicans get their way and eliminate New Starts, the federal program that would fund the extension.

This program has funded nearly all major new transit projects and expansions in the U.S. since it was created in 1976. Dozens of critical projects in states across country have relied on this program to get off the ground. These projects have improved our cities and suburbs, cut pollution, eased traffic, and spurred local economic growth. But we won't see many new transit projects in America if the House Republicans get their way.

That's what's at stake with H.R. 1, the funding bill that is currently being debated in Congress. And San Jose isn't alone. Our friends at Reconnecting America have identified projects across the country that would be in trouble if the cuts to transportation funding in this bill are approved.

Less congestion. Less pollution. More jobs. More growth. The attack on clean transportation just doesn't make sense.

Header image by Elaina's Blueprint, used under a Creative Commons license.

H.R. 1 Transportation Budget: Fewer Jobs, Greater Costs, More Pollution, Worse Commutes

2011-02-14T19:34:10Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Americans agree that we need to tighten our fiscal belt to deal with rising budget deficits. However, they also believe that cuts must be made strategically to ensure that we continue to invest in the future of our country. In fact, in a recent nationwide survey by Hart Associates, 4 in 5 agreed that transportation investments to improve and modernize roads, rails, and runways in America would spur local economic growth and create jobs. This is exactly the strategy that the Treasury Secretary outlined last week.

Unfortunately, the Republican spending plan unveiled in the House of Representatives on Friday doesn't reflect this value. Instead, the transportation-focused portion of the bill includes deeper cuts than nearly every other area of federal spending.

Not only would the Republican plan would cut transportation investments that Americans support, it targets programs that create the most jobs, lower transportation costs for families, reduce traffic to make commutes more bearable, and reduce harmful air pollution.

For example, the House Republican budget would cut the program that funds new transit construction by $430 million. But we know that, historically, investments in public transportation have generated 31 percent more jobs per dollar than new construction of roads and bridges. The cuts to key public transportation and passenger rail programs could put more than 198,000 jobs at risk, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

By cutting transportation investments, the Republican plan would also likely increase congestion and make it harder for many Americans to get to work. An annual analysis by the Texas Transportation Institute showed that investments in public transportation service also reduce congestion, saving 646 million hours of delay in 2007, equal to $13.7 billion.

And a Federal Transit Administration report shows that the majority of those savings accrue to drivers travelling similar routes, rather then to the riders themselves. Eliminating tranit investment means more cars, more traffic, and as a result, higher costs for drivers. Transit riders, who can save an average of $9,656 annually, would also likely see costs go up.

Our transportation system is critical to our economic success at home and around the world. Cutting investments in the engine of our economy will only serve to undermine the future of American growth and success.

Header image by nateOne, used under a Creative Commons license.

Minding the Gap: Deficit Spending and Transportation

2011-01-04T17:03:23Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Much has been written about the massive gap between what America actually spends on infrastructure, and what needs to be spent in order to keep the system we've built over generations in a state of good repair while also meeting future transportation needs.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the political leadership in Washington is planning to increase investment in transportation infrastructure any time soon. In fact, it may be more likely that we see reduced investment in transportation infrastructure over the next several years.

This would be particularly ironic, since it will likely be done in the name of budget deficit reduction. As Larry Summers, outgoing director of the National Economic Council, points out via Ezra Klein, we'd just be trading one deficit for another.

"You run a deficit both when you borrow money and when you defer maintenance that needs to be done. Either way, you're imposing a cost on future generations." A dollar in delayed road repairs and a dollar in borrowed money are not, in other words, that different: Both mean someone is going to have to spend a dollar later. In 2011, America should stop passing that buck.

But underinvestment is only part of the story of why we have such a large infrastructure deficit. A report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group tells another part of the story.

Do Roads Pay for Themselves? Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding demonstrates that fuel taxes, truck sales taxes, and similar fees dedicated exclusively to transportation have rarely paid for the full cost of building and maintaining our highway system. On the contrary, roads haven't covered their own costs with these so-called "user fees" since the inception of the federal highway system. Moreover, the amount of general revenues that has been used to supplement fuel taxes and other similar fees has been steadily rising for decades, almost without exception. Every mile of roadway we build is adding to the deficit. By assuming that it's not, we are digging ourselves deeper into a deficit hole.

U.S. PIRG's finding that roads don't pay for themselves with so-called "user fees" is well supported by other analyses. SubsidyScope.org, a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, found that in 2007, only 51 percent of the nation's road system was paid for by such fees. Even the Texas Department of Transportation (in a blog post that's now unfortunately been removed) copped to the fact that gas taxes don't come close to covering the cost of building and operating their roads.

The fact that highways don't pay for themselves is not necessarily a bad thing. Fares don't cover the full cost of transit service, and airline fees and taxes don't cover our nation's airport and air traffic control network. The reality is that very few transportation systems cover their full construction, maintenance, and operational costs. That's not the problem; these projects have benefits that accrue broadly to society, and therefore warrant government investment.

The problem arises we start comparing different forms of transportation based on characteristics rather than benefits or outcomes. This is especially troubling when those opposed to government support for certain types of transportation systems - public transportation, passenger rail, biking and walking facilities - trot out the false notion that highways are financially self-sustaining in order to justify deep funding cuts for other transportation options.

With Congress debating a potential cut in transportation investment over the next few years, if we must be more selective about the projects that we build, we should base our decisions on a full accounting of the benefits of each project weighed against others. And to honestly compare these benefits, it's important that we get our facts straight.

Header image by Pommiebastards, used under a Creative Commons license.

Getting Back on Track: States, Transportation Policy, and Climate Change

2010-12-14T16:30:00Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

While it's no secret that carbon pollution has risen steadily in recent decades, increasing 27 percent between 1990 and 2007, it isn't as well known that nearly half of that net increase has been due to increasing emissions from the transportation sector. As a result, transportation currently accounts for 32 percent of the total carbon emissions in the United States.

In the past, this blog has focused on what the federal government must do to address this problem. As important as the federal transportation bill is, we also must remember that the 50 states are in a unique position to bring down transportation-related GHG emissions. States have a major role in making transportation policy decisions, and are responsible for directing massive amounts of funding to transportation projects across the country.

Given the major influence states have over our transportation system, and the important role that transportation plays in climate change, a key question arises: how well are states aligning their transportation policies with the goal of reducing carbon emissions? Today, NRDC is releasing a report, developed with our allies at Smart Growth America, which is among the first analyses that look into this question in a way that allows us to compare which states are making the most progress.

To accomplish this, we looked at 17 different criteria related to both transportation policy decisions and transportation finance decisions in every state. Each criterion was weighted to account for its effectiveness at reducing carbon emissions. Together, these criteria offer a good picture of whether and to what extent each state is aligning transportation policy and climate change goals.

Unfortunately, the picture that emerges shows that most states do not currently have a transportation framework in place that will meaningfully reduce GHG emissions. Only three states—California, Maryland, and New Jersey—fell in the top tier of our scoring methodology, and 12 states fell into the bottom tier.

Of the most successful states in our analysis, those that scored a 75 or higher, which fell into the top tier of our ranking, are clearly heading in the right direction. Beyond that, the ranking shows a very mixed bag of policies.

While most states have some policies in place that will lead to cleaner transportation investment, they are often in conflict with others that will likely increase transportation emissions. These types of policies can have a reinforcing effect on each other; each additional policy that is implemented will often result in a greater level of GHG reduction than if that policy were to be implemented by itself. Very few states have recognized this by implementing policies to support clean transportation in a comprehensive and wide-ranging way.

What's more, by failing to put clean transportation policies in place, states aren’t just forgoing carbon emissions reductions; they are also missing opportunities to improve the affordability of transportation, support local economic growth, and reduce the public health costs of transportation. These missed opportunities make the fact that so few states are pursuing these strategies more troubling.

On the other hand, the good news is that there is a great deal of potential to reduce GHG emissions at the state level through transportation measures. Realizing this potential will require state officials to harmonize transportation policy with climate and energy policy in a coordinated way.

To best accomplish this, coordinated action is needed at both the state and federal level. As part of our report, we offered the following recommendations that can help states and federal transportation officials get back on track toward a cleaner and more effective transportation system

State Policy Recommendations

Set a course to reduce emissions by setting per capita transportation GHG or VMT reduction targets.
Balance state transportation investments by using state and federal resources to support robust public transportation service, prioritize highway repair and safety over new capacity, and support non-motorized transportation.
Manage traffic with road use pricing tools and incentives for low-carbon transportation options through comprehensive commuter programs.
Link transportation and land use in transportation plans, implement growth management policies, and promote development in areas with high quality transit service.

Federal Policy Recommendations

Set a national transportation sector GHG reduction target to reduce emissions, and require states and regions to set similar targets.
Increase funding parity for clean transportation infrastructure.
Require consideration of GHG emissions in the transportation planning process.
Reorient federal transportation programs to support greater implementation of clean transportation projects.

Transportation and Climate Change: States Hold the Key

2010-12-13T20:07:26Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Many of us are concerned with carbon pollution from transportation. It’s the second largest source of emissions in the United States, and it’s been among the fastest growing for years. Often advocates focus on the federal transportation bill as a key tool to reduce transportation sector emissions. Here at NRDC, we’ve been working in both the U.S. House and Senate to push a new, reformed federal policy that will cut waste and inefficiency on our transportation network to reduce carbon emissions and save oil, while also reducing traffic congestion, saving families money, and giving a boost to local economies.

While federal transportation policy is a powerful tool to accomplish this, we can’t forget that the states are equal partners in setting and carrying out our transportation policy. They have a great deal of influence over how billions of transportation dollars from the federal government are spent, in addition to their own state revenues and local dollars. They often have the most say in what type of transportation investments get made, and where. When a new interchange goes in, or a highway is built rather than a transit line, state officials are frequently the main decision-makers.

So as much as the federal government has a big role to play in setting transportation policy that will cut pollution, if we are to solve our climate change challenge, each state has an equally great responsibility.

That’s why, over the last year, NRDC has worked with Smart Growth America to evaluate how well each of the 50 states’ transportation policies support the goal of reducing carbon pollution. Tomorrow morning, we’ll be releasing the results of our research in a report entitled On the Right Track: State Transportation Policy and Climate Change. The report looks at a number of different actions that states can take to better align transportation policy with climate change goals. After assessing whether states are making the effort to accomplish this, we also make recommendations for what both state and federal governments can do to make more progress.

Check back here at 11:30 EST for a link to the report, and if you are interested in covering the report, please contact Suzanne Struglinski with NRDC at (202) 289-2387 or Alex Goldschmidt with Smart Growth America at (202) 207-3355 x112.

The American Power Act Invests in the Future of US Transportation

2010-05-26T14:00:00Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

With millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day, increasing scientific urgency for action on climate change, and a new study that shows how clean energy can create millions of jobs over the next ten years, it’s critical that we take action on a comprehensive energy and climate plan this year. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman recently released their American Power Act (APA) to great anticipation. As my colleagues look at various other elements of this bill, I want to focus on what the bill does for transportation.

Transportation is a major part of our energy and climate problem. It represents nearly 30 percent of our global warming pollution and 70 percent of our oil addiction. Transportation energy use and emissions are also growing incredible rapidly, and are projected to continue well into the future.

Unless we do something about it. Because transportation can also be a major part of the energy and climate solution. Below is a chart from an NRDC analysis that shows how we can reduce global warming pollution from the transportation sector by 80 percent in 2050.

Clearly, getting more efficient cars and trucks on the road and increasing the supply of low carbon fuels is key to this effort. But we also need to make our transportation system overall cleaner through travel efficiency strategies. Travel efficiency policies give people more transportation options and encourage more convenient and livable communities so that people don't have to use their car for every trip. And when people do travel by car, their trips will be less congested and shorter.

These strategies are highly effective for reducing global warming pollution and oil use. Last year’s landmark study Moving Cooler found that a broad package of such measures could reduce transportation sector carbon emissions by as much as 24 percent by 2050. Even higher reductions would be achieved when these strategies are coupled with the firm limit on global warming pollution included in the APA. The report found that these policies would also reduce transportation costs for consumers, saving billions of dollars over time.

Fortunately, the Obama administration has also recognized this potential. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently issued a Report to Congress on Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In this comprehensive report, DOT found that a range of federal policy options could be implemented by Congress and the states to reduce transportation’s contribution to global warming and energy use. A similar analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (pdf) found similar potential to reduce emissions and oil use in the transportation sector.

Considering all the potential for progress toward national energy and climate goals through transportation efficiency, NRDC was pleased to see that the APA invests significantly in such a vision for the future of transportation. The bill would dedicate more than $6 billion per year toward transportation infrastructure across the country. This amount is much more than any previous energy and climate legislation, and would represent the first new dedicated source of funding for transportation since 1993.

In addition to these major new transportation investments, the APA includes new policy tools to help guide and shape transportation projects to maximize their contribution to energy and climate goals. The bill would require US DOT to set a national goal for cutting global warming pollution and oil use in the transportation sector. States and large metropolitan regions would be asked to set similar targets and over time incorporate strategies to meet these goals into their transportation investment plans.

Part of the $6 billion in transportation investments would provide technical assistance to states and cities to help them develop these plans. Another portion would be allocated as performance grants to support those places that are developing the most aggressive strategies and making the most progress toward implementing them. This sort of performance-based approach is exactly what most transportation experts - including two congressional transportation commissions - have recommended to make the best use of our limited transportation dollars.

While the APA takes a big step towards a more efficient transportation network, like most important undertakings, additional steps will be needed to finish the job. Most of our federal transportation investments are guided by a bill that Congress passes every 6 years or so. Only such a multi-year transportation bill can unleash the potential for reducing emissions in the transportation sector all of the country, and only if such a bill builds on the foundation that would be laid with the transportation provisions in the APA.

In the mean time, the APA gets the ball rolling by offering a new policy tools and new financing to begin building a cleaner transportation system that can cut our oil use and prevent the next major oil spill from ever having the chance to occur,

Saving Oil = Saving Money

2010-04-26T16:25:34Z

Colin Peppard, Deputy Director, Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C.

Infrastructurist brings us another excellent infographic from Martha Kang McGill today.

The graphic shows gasoline consumption by state both overall and per capita.

The statewide numbers are not terribly surprising - more populous states obviously use more gasoline. But the per capita usage offers more interesting information about how we use energy in our cars throughout the country.

Those in large western states tend to drive more than those in smaller eastern states. But what about tiny New Jersey, which is well above average, or expansive Utah, which is well below? States like New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon have access to extensive public transportation systems and incentives for efficient vehicles that allow travelers to avoid pain at the pump. But that doesn't seem to have much of an impact in Maryland or Virginia.

While it is unclear what might be driving these numbers in states around the country, what is clear is the financial impact of these numbers on consumers. NRDC's annual report Fighting Oil Addiction: Ranking States' Oil Vulnerability and Solutions for Change (fact sheet; full report) looks at the impacts of a hypothetical oil price spike on drivers in each of the 50 states, as well what states are doing to protect drivers from taking such a hit.

Oil dependence affects every state, but drivers in some states would be hit harder economically than others. The trends in states' vulnerability to oil price increases over the past couple of years are not encouraging -- drivers in every state were more vulnerable to price spikes in 2008 than they were in 2006. Finally, while some states are pioneering solutions and many are taking some action, a fair number of states are still taking few (if any) of the steps needed to reduce their oil dependence and spare consumers from the rising cost of oil.

As my colleague Luke shows here, policies to reduce oil dependence through vehicle efficiency would also help cut consumers' transportation costs.

Similarly, the landmark report Moving Cooler found major consumer cost savings from policies to increase the efficiency of our transportation system and offer cleaner transportation choices.

Saving oil means saving money. With energy experts forecasting a summer of rising oil prices(though fortunately not as high as the record prices of 2008), both states and the federal government need to takes steps now to reduce our dependence on oil and spare us from the cost of our addiction.