Switchboard, from NRDC › Deron Lovaas's Blog

Ranking state oil addiction

2010-03-17T20:43:17Z

Pulling up to the gas pump nowadays, I can't help but notice that prices are creeping upwards again and be reminded of the amazing price trends of 2008, our 4/11 moment when gas prices breached the $4-per-gallon mark.

With this as the backdrop, we decided to take a look at the burden this poses for households. NRDC has been benchmarking this for the past few years, as you can see here, here and here. Our new analysis features a ranking of all 50 states based on the vulnerability of household budgets to gasoline prices. This is especially relevant nowadays, in spite of prices that eased compared to 2008, because household budgets have sadly shrunk as well. This means that the squeeze on budgets is undiminished.

And we looked at a hypothetical price spike scenario, gauging the burden if prices jumped to their July 2008 peak (not out of the realm of possibility if, for example, there's a terrorist strike in the Strait of Hormuz and/or the massive Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia is bombed).

In the case of the spike, the percentage of household budgets going to gasoline would be around ten percent for most of the states in the top ten most vulnerable.

Hypotheticals aside, the list of states with drivers paying the most as a percentage of income (from most to least) is:

Mississippi
Montana
Louisiana
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Kentucky
Texas
Maine
Georgia
Idaho

Those spending the least on average are:

Florida
Washington
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Colorado
New Hampshire
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
Connecticut

In short, this remains a pressing issue for a lot of us across the country. Fortunately, new federal policy can move us forward to a world where we have more choice, in vehicles, in fuels and in mobility. Specifically, NRDC urges Congress to:

• Pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions, helps us break our oil addiction, and helps create millions of clean energy jobs here in the United States; and

• Fundamentally reform federal transportation policy to support smart, transit-oriented development; assist states and regions in saving oil; and provide ample funding for energy-efficient transportation alternatives including rail and bus lines, bike paths, sidewalks, and other alternatives to driving.

For the full analysis, click here.

Delivering Mobility Choices

2010-01-11T20:57:31Z

The Transportation Research Board’s annual meeting is underway here in D.C., with thousands of transportation experts gathering to hear presentations and participate in sessions exploring technical and policy issues. One blogger overheard talk of a drafting process going on within the new Administration from a top DOT official. I hope this is a real sign of progress, given that the unacceptable status quo law has been in place far too long.

How long, you ask? One could argue that it’s been in place since 1956, the year the Interstate System of highways was launched by Congress and the Eisenhower Administration. That law was dubbed the “National Interstate and Defense Highways Act,” and helped launch an era of economic growth and prosperity in the U.S. But the more precise answer is that it’s been in place since 2005, when the Safe, Affordable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), was enacted. This was the latest in a series of multi-year transportation authorizations that built on the architecture of the 1956 law.

The end result is a teetering mass of more than 100 programs lacking a clear overarching set of objectives. But that may not be the worst of it. The latest law was signed into law just days after a huge energy bill. And then two years later, a new energy bill was passed. And now, less than three years later, we are debating another energy bill. This legislative activity since the turn of the millennium is partly aimed at tackling what President Bush called our “addiction to oil” in his 2006 State of the Union, and rightly so.

What drives that addiction? Transportation is responsible for the lion’s share of our oil consumption and is almost entirely dependent on oil-derived liquid fuels. So it’s logical to assume that policymakers would be intent on aligning our transportation policy with our national policy goal of energy independence (or as some prefer to call it, energy security).

Think again. Saving oil is not a goal of our national transportation policy, putting it potentially at odds with energy policy. That’s unacceptable, since both environmental quality and our nation’s security is at risk (for more details, click here, here and/or here for a newer, thought-provoking analysis co-authored by Amy Jaffe of Rice University).

That’s why I’ve joined a rather unusual group to push anew for choices for consumers. I’ve collaborated with some of these advocates and experts before, pushing for more vehicle choices at dealerships and more fuel prices at the pump. Now, with the transportation law up for renewal, is the time to boost investments in more mobility choices.

The principles that underpin our platform are: 1) Alignment of price signals to consumers closer to a full and transparent reflection of costs; 2) End federal bias for any particular transportation mode by basing investments on performance criteria and allocating costs based on use; 3) Push responsibility down to the metropolitan level; and 4) Aggressively deploy technology to improve operations in each transportation mode.

From these principles, we derive a ten-point plan for federal transportation policy:

1) Ensure the price of fuel better reflects oil’s security impact;

2) Deploy “HOT” lanes and congestion pricing;

3) Allocate transit dollars to optimize oil savings;

4) Increase insurance choice;

5) Provide transit vouchers for low-income households;

6) Make telecommuting more frequent and widespread;

7) Return gas tax revenue to areas with the most traffic and oil savings potential;

8) Liberalize local land-development rules;

9) Deploy smart traffic management; and

10) Deploy electric rail if justified by cost efficiency and oil displacement potential.

Next we plan to gauge the oil-saving potential of our plan. Stay tuned, and please fan the effort on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

The Air Force Gets It

2009-10-23T22:16:09Z

For a long time, the United States Air Force was keenly interested in liquid coal. But as time went on, the disadvantages became increasingly obvious. This week, we were pleased to discover that the Air Force was no longer pursuing this short sighted technology. We applaud its decision as one that is good for taxpayers, the environment, and national security.

The decision was a long time in the making as the technology's deep inherent flaws came under increasing scrutiny. Environmentally, these fuels are disastrous, emitting nearly double the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as conventional fuels. Thus, commercializing liquid coal would stymie our efforts to mitigate global warming. The ecological implications are equally severe. A commercialized liquid coal industry would require coal mining to increase by up to 50%. Mining is already responsible for numerous environmental problems such as mountaintop removal, habitat loss, groundwater contamination and loss of scenic beauty. For these reason, NRDC and other organizations have strenuously opposed liquid coal development in Congress and on the ground.

Liquid coal has also drawn criticism for its extravagant cost, running as high as $125,000 per barrel of daily production capacity. Understandably, private markets have roundly rejected these proposals and it is unlikely that any will move forward without substantial government intervention.

But perhaps most significantly, global warming has drawn the attention of military planners, veterans and security experts because of its profound impacts on national security. Climate change, they agree, will intensify resource competition, humanitarian crises, and tension in the world's most volatile regions. The National Intelligence Council notes that the "demands for potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations." Given the bleak outlook, it is easy to see why the Air Force would abandon a self defeating fuel technology that makes global warming worse. And it is highly reassuring to know that our leaders in the armed services are making the right decisions on energy policy. By dropping liquid coal, the Air Force can fully focus on sustainable energy resources that mitigate the security risks of climate change.

Green Business in Baltimore

2009-10-22T23:09:48Z

October is conference month, it seems. This week I spoke at two conferences, and next week is bookended by two more. First up is one that may be of interest to you, if you live or work in the Baltimore-Washington region.

The B2B Green Forum is being held at the gorgeous Engineering Club in downtown Baltimore (I used to live near there and there is really nothing comparable to its beautifully designed interior), and attracts participants interested in green business practices and the policies that support them.

Among the speakers will be leaders of sustainability from Johns Hopkins and Delaware Universities, the head of sustainability for Baltimore County (one David Carroll, for whom I worked many moons ago at Maryland's Department of Environment), someone from Baltimore City's Sustainability Office, as well as officials from the environmental protection departments in Maryland and Virginia and the EPA, and a host of business entrepreneurs.

I'll be talking about green fleets policies, including President Obama's remarkable new Executive Order requiring that federal fleets cut oil use by 30 percent, saving as much as 65 million gallons of fuel a year by 2020. There are several other sessions covering recycling, green building design, and current federal and state programs and policies that can help businesses in the mid-Atlantic to make a difference while making a profit.

What About the Other Energy Bill?

2009-09-23T15:30:00Z

Heading into the fall, the Congressional debate is rightfully focussed on the landmark energy and climate bill as action moves from the House to the Senate. And part of that debate, thanks to NRDC, should be about the pincer move that this bill would put on oil imports by saving oil and increasing domestic production (see John Steelman's excellent post on this). The challenges of reliance on this resource haven't abated in spite of the drop in prices at the pump, as various contributors discuss in the new issue of Foreign Policy.

Yet little attention is paid to a bill that allocates hundreds of billions of dollars of public investment towards transportation (which drives our oil dependence, accounting for 2/3 of our oil thirst). The important federal transportation program expires just a week from today (on 9/30), yet the debate about it is limited to one depressing question: How long should we extend current law? That's not the right question! Everyone recognizes the current program must be overhauled, as described in excruciating detail in recent reports here, here and here.

One thing the new bill should tap is more oil-savings potential in the transportation sector, and a new report from Environment America shows that public transportation (such as commuter rail and buses) can help deliver results. The past couple of years have seen remarkable drops in driving and jumps in transit use, and the report quantifies some of the energy benefits. One of the more eye-popping findings is buried in the impressive table of state-by-state gasoline (and therefore oil) savings due to transit use in 2008: Savings of nearly 100,000 barrels a day in New York and more than 36,000 barrels a day in California. Those are real savings.

And looking forward, the groundbreaking Moving Cooler study found substantial potential to save oil by deploying more transit options along with complementary policies such as tolling of roads, better community designs and fuel-efficient driver education programs (teaching us, for example, to adopt habits like those featured in hilarious homemade videos at this site). A comprehensive set of strategies would yield about 1.5 million barrels of oil saved by 2030, more than we currently import from Saudi Arabia.

Check out our new fact sheet about Moving Cooler, as well as the report itself. Myself, I'm off to convince my friends in the public transportation industry that railcars should start sporting a version of former CIA Chief Jim Woolsey's famed "Bin Laden Hates this Car" bumper sticker: "Bin Laden Hates this Train."

New Oil Vulnerability Report: Rising Gas Prices Increase Threat of Oil Dependence

2009-08-11T19:33:28Z

While last summer's gas price spikes have finally faded in the rearview mirror, I was reminded this morning of how quickly things can change. At my local station, gas is creeping up to $2.62 per gallon. Nationally, in the last 20 days, gas prices have gone up by 19 cents, peaking around $2.60 per gallon on average. Especially with the economic recession - which has put millions of people out of work and hit everyone's wallets - these fluctuations have a direct impact on our daily lives.

Looking further back, gas prices aren't what they used to be. Ten years ago the average price for regular was a measly $1.20 according to the Department of Energy, and an online inflation calculator tells me it should cost just $1.55 now. The fact that it's much higher, especially when wages are headed in the other direction, means it still pinches most of us.

NRDC just released our third annual report about states based on their vulnerability to gasoline price hikes and the policy solutions they are applying to reduce the burden, and the report found that some feel the weight more than others. Last year Mississippi drivers spent almost three times as much as Connecticut drivers on gasoline, as a percentage of their income. Almost one-tenth of the average driver's budget went into the gas pump in Mississippi last year.

In 2008 drivers in every state saw the percentage of their income that went to gasoline go up since our first annual report in 2006. Next year's report will show the 2009 results, and while prices have eased somewhat they remain high by historical standards and stagnating incomes mean they remain onerous.

The top ten most vulnerable states featured in our report tend to be in the South and South Central regions of the U.S.:

1) Mississippi
2) Montana
3) South Carolina
4) Oklahoma
5) Louisiana
6) Kentucky
7) Texas
8) New Mexico
9) Georgia
10) Arkansas

We also rated states based on the policy solutions they deployed in order to reduce oil dependence and thereby to help shield consumers from price hikes and spikes at the pump. Policies reviewed would spur proliferation of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, gasoline alternatives, as well as fuel-efficient transportation choices such as commuter rail. Specifically, we gave credit to states for:

Hybrid and plug-in hybrid incentives;
Vehicle GHG emission standards;
State fleet efficiency programs;
Idling restriction programs;
Grants for research and development on clean cars and fuels;
Low-carbon fuel standards;
Renewable fuel standards;
Driving reduction targets;
Having an agency to coordinate land-development and infrastructure investments;
Growth management acts; and
Transit investments as a proportion of their transportation budget.

The highest ranking states (i.e., those that have adopted the most solutions) are:

1) California;
2) Massachusetts;
3) Washington;
4) New Mexico;
5) Connecticut;
6) New York;
7) New Jersey;
8) Pennsylvania;
9) Oregon; and
10) Florida.

Congratulations to these states. We hope that others will follow their lead. You don't have to believe what some say about how high prices might go to think we haven't seen the end of $4 a gallon gasoline. Governors and legislatures should take steps now to protect those of us who consume gasoline by adopting better policies.

However, states can't do it alone. Congress can help, particularly by enacting two big policy packages expeditiously:

1) Comprehensive climate and energy legislation that caps and cuts carbon dioxide emissions, includes a low-carbon fuel standard, and requires regions to adopt oil-saving blueprints for future infrastructure and development. Establishing national global warming pollution limits that get tighter every year will guide federal and state policies to reduce our oil dependence. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide captured from powerplants and other sources can be used to enhance oil recovery from existing fields by billions of barrels, putting downward pressure on world oil prices and increasing our domestic production capacity.
2) Fundamentally reformed federal transportation policy. Since the Interstate Highway System was completed, there has been no compelling, binding vision for federal transportation policy. Congress must enact national transportation legislation that includes: incentives for smart, transit-oriented development; assistance for states and regions to save oil; and ample funding for energy-efficient transportation alternatives, including rail and bus lines, bike paths, and sidewalks.

I hope you take a look at the report, and let us know what you think.

Moving Cooler: Solid Research, Right Direction

2009-07-30T20:33:42Z

As analysts review this new analysis of transportation measures that can save fuel and cut greenhouse gases, they will be pleased to see that it is truly comprehensive and even-handed.

Highway capacity expansion? It examined that. Freight strategies? That too. Operational strategies to improve traffic flow? Yes. Regulatory strategies? Yes. Car- and ride-sharing? Yes. Public transportation? Yes. Bicycle and pedestrian projects? Yes. Land use policy? Yes. Pricing strategies? Yes.

Almost 50 measures, assessed for their potential effects independently, in three different implementation scenarios varying according to geographic coverage, time frame and intensity.

And then the measures were combined in different strategically targeted strategies to determine how they might complement or conflict with one another:

One focused on achieving early results;
One on maximum results over the long-term (sort of an "everything but the kitchen sink" package);
One on a combination of land use policy changes and investments in transit and nonmotorized ways of traveling (bicycle and pedestrian or what Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar half-jokingly calls "the carbohydrate economy");
One on System and driver efficiency, focused on improving traffic speeds and driver habits;
One on facility pricing to gauge the effect of those signals and the infrastructure investments the revenue would fund; and
One on low-cost means for reducing emissions.

In addition to assessments of fuel savings and greenhouse gas emission cuts, the authors - a team of analysts at Cambridge Systematics -- examined issues such as costs of implementation, consumer savings due to reduced vehicle operating costs as well as economic equity considerations.

The quality of the report has drawn praise from a number of quarters, including state officials:

"State and local air agencies are committed to cutting global warming pollution from transportation, and Moving Cooler should be a useful resource as they develop strategies for getting the job done." - S. William Becker, Executive Director, National Association of Clean Air Agencies

"This groundbreaking assessment of strategies for cutting heat‐trapping pollution from transportation is a great guide for state legislators as we hammer out plans to tackle climate change." - Maryland Delegate James Hubbard, President, National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

Unfortunately, one dissenting bloviator - Alan Pisarski -- blogged about the report yesterday in a heated entry that betrays a misreading (or not-reading) of the report. He builds a straw man, claiming the report is anti-car. And then, paradoxically, after casting himself as a defender of the car he shows appalling ignorance about vehicle technology, claiming the study understates the potential of energy-efficiency of the vehicle fleet. And yet the baseline of the study assumes a tripling of new light-duty vehicle fuel economy by 2050, a decent-sized jump by anyone's standards. He also takes aim at the land use measures analyzed, shoving aside the fact that this is but one of nine categories of strategies examined. Would he not look at them at all? He also claims that carpooling was overlooked, when in fact it was treated quite seriously. In sum, this particular critic singled out some items he disliked in the report and then blew them out of all proportion. This yearlong endeavor spanning 200 pages deserves better, more informed treatment.

But what's really galling is his ad hominem attack on the report authors, specifically regarding their interest in energy security and climate change. As someone on the Steering Committee for the report I take offense. Along with many colleagues and friends I have been working on energy and climate issues for the better part of a decade, and poured heart and soul into advocacy for the long-sought boost in fuel economy standards Congress finally enacted in 2007 (which will save millions of barrels of oil daily). I can't help but wonder what if anything Mr. Pisarski has ever done to benefit either the climate or the nation's energy security.

Moving Cooler: How to Drive Down Oil Dependence and Pollution

2009-07-29T15:30:00Z

Since at least President Nixon, our leaders have been calling for energy independence. And yet our reliance on imported oil keeps rising, and while our top trading partners are friendly countries like Canada we also rely on unfriendly regimes such as Russia and Venezuela. How to tackle the threat?

The short answer, boring as it sounds, is public policy, specifically policies that drive vehicle fuel economy standards, alternative fuel development and transportation infrastructure investments. Policy establishes many of the ground rules that determine transportation's role in economic growth, energy use and environmental protection. And given its importance, solid research and analysis should underpin all policy.

Thankfully vehicle technology and substitute energy sources for vehicles (such as biofuels and electricity) have been examined by groups including NRDC for years. In fact, my colleague Luke Tonachel and I recently co-wrote a chapter on plug-in hybrids for a book by newly-minted Assistant Secretary of Energy David Sandalow.

What's been missing is a comprehensive assessment of techniques for saving fuel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond car technology. Until now.

I'm happy to report that a new book was just unveiled yesterday, called Moving Cooler: Transportation Policies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see especially the great PowerPoint presentation link at the lower right of the new web site). This is the culmination of nearly a year's worth of work, led by NRDC and involving a diverse group of about a dozen sponsors including the American Public Transportation Association, the Federal Highway Administration, and Shell Oil.

Thanks to all this effort, this first-of-its-kind study looks at nearly 50 measures and combinations thereof, assessing their potential to save fuel, reduce heat-trapping pollution and save consumers money. While there is ample material to occupy researchers and policymakers as they hammer out plans to combat climate change, three bullets sum up the reports most interesting findings.

Provide consumers with an estimated average savings in direct vehicle costs of up to $112 billion annually over a 40-year timeframe, with five of the six policy combinations examined in-depth averaging $72 billion in savings annually. We all know that our cars and trucks are expensive, requiring many painful trips to the gas pump and repair shop over their (and our) lifetimes. Less wear-and-tear on our vehicles translates into massive savings, cumulatively in the trillions of dollars.
Reduce fuel consumption that translates to a savings of at least 110 million barrels of oil a year. At maximum levels of deployment, these savings could yield as much as 660 million barrels per year, or about 1.81 million barrels of oil a day (more than we import currently from Russia and Venezuela combined).
Achieve annual GHG emission reductions of up to 24% below baseline levels in 2050, by changing current transportation systems and operations, travel behavior, land use patterns, and public policy and regulations.

This analysis helps fill in a huge gap in our knowledge and understanding about the fuel-saving and emission-cutting potential of transportation infrastructure policies, helping to bring it up closer to the level of analysis of potential for vehicle tech and alternative fuels. I hope you check it out, and that it spurs much additional research, and more important that its lessons show up in the both the climate and transportation bills making their way through Congress right now.

Biggest Provision of Recovery Bill Infrastructure $ Can Be Used for Fuel-Efficient Rail Projects Too

2009-03-04T15:15:52Z

The single biggest pot of money provided to states and local jurisdictions for investments in transportation infrastructure -- a $27.5 billion shot-in-the-arm -- is more flexible than many realize, and President Obama and the recovery.gov web site should remind governors and mayors of that fact. Unfortunately, his remarks yesterday, and the recovery web site, have done little to clarify this fact. For more click here to see my post on infrastructurist.com.

Changing Direction: Another Hopeful Sign with Appointment of Roy Kienitz

2009-03-02T21:21:16Z

A couple of weeks ago I noted some of President Obama's statements about transportation and land-development which showed that he cares about, and understands, important but oft-overlooked policies that have a huge influence on how much oil the nation consumes.

Today we have more evidence that this Administration is serious about transforming transportation policy: The appointment of Roy Kienitz as Undersecretary of Policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I met Roy about a decade ago when Congress was working on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and Roy was a thoughtful, strategic director of the premier organization lobbying for better policy, the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP). While there, he and a team of capable colleagues produced top-notch and novel analyses of transportation issues (the title of this entry is actually taken from a particularly useful report) and led a big-tent coalition through a tough reauthorization of federal transportation policy. Previously, he worked in the Senate including for Senator Moynihan, and helped to pass landmark changes in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Since leaving STPP, Roy has directed the planning department in Maryland under visionary governor and smart-growth champion Parris Glendening and is now Deputy Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

President Obama, Secretary LaHood, and the nation are very fortunate that this is the next big step in Roy's impressive career path. He can help the Administration take advantage of what could -- and should -- be a pivotal moment for federal transportation policy. I look forward to working with him again.

Transportation For America: Building A Cleaner, More Fuel-Efficient Future

2009-02-26T23:30:01Z

A big-tent coalition of groups running the gamut from the National Association of Realtors to the American Public Health Association to NRDC unveiled a new platform for federal transportation policy today as part of the Transportation for America Campaign. Check out the press release here.

While there are several planks in the platform, an overarching purpose is to build out the second half of our transportation system: Intercity rail as well as public transportation and bicycle and pedestrian connections within metro areas. This is very much aligned with public sentiment. The National Association of Realtors released its new national survey of consumer views on growth and transportation. Here's the key paragraph from their press release:

When asked about approaches to addressing traffic, 47 percent preferred improving public transportation, 25 percent chose building communities that encourage people not to drive, and 20 percent preferred building new roads. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed believe the federal government is not devoting enough attention to trains and light rail systems, and three out of four favor improving intercity rail and transit.

This platform is also aligned with two key national priorities: Reducing our perilous oil dependence and cutting global warming pollution. The options that Americans demand are more fuel-efficient and cleaner than having to drive everywhere, all the time. And guess what? These investments will make life easier for drivers too by moving traffic off congested roads and highways.

Policymakers who are serious about unshackling America from foreign oil and tackling the global warming threat should support the Transportation for America program, so we can get to work building a better future for ourselves and our kids.

Charging for the Use of Our Roads?

2009-02-24T20:10:15Z

Ah, Washington. This is a lovely town, but it has its quirks. When, for example, taxes are the topic. Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana had a funny saying about the national aversion to the sticky issue of generating revenue: "Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that man behind the tree."

This is why it was a bit of a surprise when new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood brought up the idea of charging drivers based on mileage driven in order to generate revenue for transportation infrastructure: "What I see this administration doing is this - thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America..."

It was less of a surprise when the Administration's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the idea in his press briefing. What was a bit jarring was how quickly, and how thoroughly, he dismissed it: "it is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration."

And in Congressional Quarterly the key Congressman charged with writing transportation policy -- Congressman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota -- pushed back, saying "I've got news for you...transportation policy isn't going to be written in the press room of the White House."

Ouch.

When the dust settles from this scuffle, this policy should receive serious consideration, because as Rob Puentes of the Brookings Institution and I write in an infrastructurist.com piece, while there are valid concerns about program design, the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water. It deserves a look as part of the federal transportation policy debate.

Connecting the Dots: President Obama Begins Laying Out a Vision for Transportation

2009-02-19T01:30:23Z

Last week was a remarkably revealing week regarding this new Administration's transportation policy. First, on February 10th at a Florida town hall meeting, President Obama declares that

I think a lot more people are open now to thinking regionally in terms of how we plan our transportation infrastructure. The days where we’re just building sprawl forever? Those days are over.

Click here to read all about it on a fantastic new blog you should bookmark, www.infrastructurist.com.

Three days later infrastructurist reports on a rumor that -- in spite of what you may have heard after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada speculated that the money could go to build a rail link from L.A. to Las Vegas -- the White House was responsible for quadrupling the high-speed rail investment included in the proposed Senate recovery bill. And then on Tuesday Politico confirms the rumor, quoting Obama's right-hand man Rahm Emanuel admitting that he proposed a fivefold increase:

“I put it in there for the president,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future.”

And then the Transportation for America campaign reports on some amazing quotes in a wide-ranging interview with five columnists aboard Air Force One last week, in which our President really shows a commitment to smarter, more energy-efficient regional transportation investments:

I would like to see some long-term reforms in how transportation dollars flow, and I’ll give you just a couple of examples. I think right now we don’t do a lot of effective planning at the regional level when it comes to transportation. That’s hugely inefficient. Not only does it probably consume more money in terms of getting projects done, but it also ends up creating traffic patterns, for example, that are really hugely wasteful when it comes to energy use.
If we can start building in more incentives for more effective planning at the local level, that’s not just good transportation policy, it’s good energy policy. So we’ll be working with transportation committees to see if we can move in that direction.

These words point in a new direction for transportation policy, one that bodes will for energy security and climatic stability. We stand ready to work with the President to flesh out the vision, and hope it will include bold proposals like the National Association of Railroad Passenger's map of new intercity rail lines, construction of which would double the nation's passenger rail capacity and put the mileage almost on par with our world-class 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System.

Thank you, President Obama.

Roadmap for a Secure, Low-Carbon Energy Economy

2009-02-11T13:56:47Z

Are the goals of energy security and climatic stability fundamentally at odds? Or can we in the U.S. forge ahead toward a preferred future in which we address both these threats?

These are valid questions. While we must be wary of “false choices,” there are real tensions here. Thankfully, a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) takes a sober and informed look at this issue, and offers what the authors call a “roadmap” to a better world (I was happy to serve as a reviewer for the project, although NRDC would not necessarily endorse all of its contents).

This new report, which is available here, examines the colossal challenges ahead, and then proposes a three-step program for breaking free:

Establish a vision for the future
Put the energy system on the right path by “resetting it”
Manage the transition

A PowerPoint presentation on the CSIS site is the quickest way to dive a little deeper into each of these steps.

I want to highlight two items in the report in this blog post, which are relevant to our advocacy here at NRDC. First, there’s this paragraph on page 13:

High-carbon unconventional forms of energy are not viable replacements. The Western Hemisphere, for instance, is rich in unconventional fuels such as oil sands, oil shale, and extra-heavy oil deposits, as well as coal, which can be used to make liquid fuels. From an energy security point of view, the presence of these unconventional reserves adds some comfort for the U.S. But these supplies will be costly to develop, and present sizeable environmental challenges, including significantly higher carbon dioxide emissions relative to conventional fossil fuels.

Potential energy substitutes present a choice for us. What are the tradeoffs? The current high-carbon drift of the transportation fuel industry puts us on the wrong path, trading away far too much. There’s an urgent need for a policy framework guiding it onto a higher road, the resetting of the system referred to by the authors.

The authors also recognize an opportunity to build that framework by reforming transportation policy, which is refreshing and unusual for a report on energy and climate. They connect the dots in this recommendation (the format includes a first step for each recommendation):

Recommendation: Invest in infrastructure and technology necessary to transform the transportation system while promoting denser, more transit-friendly land use patterns.
First step: Ensure 2009 federal transportation bill adopts performance targets and post-project evaluation measures to assess the impacts of transportation system projects on energy security and climate change.

Achieving both energy security and climate stability is a monumental, generational challenge. We must not shirk it, and given the scale we must take advantage of every policy lever available, from the stimulus bill, to energy bills, to the climate bill, and the transportation bill. Aligning federal policies in this way will put us on a safer, cleaner path.

Thank you to CSIS and WRI for proposing a roadmap for getting us there.

Un-stimulating Debate on Transportation in the Senate

2009-02-04T01:06:30Z

Watching the Senate debate on the economic recovery bill, I am reminded of a remarkable event in 2001. The Surface Transportation Policy Project held an awards dinner to celebrate the tenth anniversary of ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

One of the award recipients was former Senator Patrick Moynihan of New York, who chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee when ISTEA was hammered out. His most memorable comment in his acceptance speech was about what transportation departments planned to do after the Interstate Highway System launched in 1956 was completed: They would simply build another one. When a big project is launched, especially if it involves federal policy, it develops a momentum of its own. And at some point, it may well get into a rut. That's where federal transportation policy was in 1991, and despite ISTEA's remarkable reforms, it is arguably still in a rut.

While in its debate about the recovery bill the House easily adopted an amendment adding public transportation investment and rejected an amendment that would strip intercity rail investment out, the Senate is instead faced with amendments that would tilt federal assistance into the same old rut. And there are some surprising supporters. Thankfully, Grist's Muckraker is on the case.

I urge you to contact your Senators to let them know that now is the time to put Americans to work on our next big transportation project: Building the second-half of the system, the low-carbon, oil-efficient public transportation and rail network the nation needs and deserves.