Switchboard, from NRDC › Deron Lovaas's Blog

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.

Public Transportation Investment Recovered!

2009-01-28T19:47:50Z

The amendment I wrote about just a few hours ago was just passed by voice vote! That means little or no opposition against it. This is a good augury for public transportation, as I imply in the statement we just sent out:

"I am thrilled that the House voted to increase funding for our nation's public transit. Our nation's transit systems are experiencing the highest level of ridership in 25 years, and this extra funding will go a long way to improve our rail systems and maintain the jobs needed to keep them running. Congress is clearly catching up with public support for more and cleaner transportation choices."

A Recovery for Transportation Investment?

2009-01-28T16:50:09Z

As I’ve written about on these pages and in the Huffington Post, the transportation provisions in the recovery bill need to tilt more towards saving oil and cutting global warming pollution, meaning public transportation and rail. I’m not the only one who believes investments should have multiple payoffs: In a recent national poll, the vast majority (80%) of respondents said stimulus funds should not only create jobs, but also help the goals of reducing oil dependency, improving the environment, and increasing transportation options. This is especially important as transit and intercity rail systems across the country struggle to meet maintenance, repair and capital needs.

Fortunately we are working with the Transportation for America coalition to build support for an amendment offered by U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Steve Ellison (D-MN) and Michael McMahon (D-NY) to increase investments in public transportation back up to the level proposed by Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar a month ago.

This amendment would provide $1.5 billion in funding for transit capital improvement program and $1.5 billion for the New Starts program (aimed at getting new rail lines built), adding $3 billion of investment into the package. This money would be put to good use since U.S. DOT finds that $12 billion is needed every year to maintain and improve transit, and Transportation For America has identified more than $5 billion in new transit extension and rail projects that could be ready to go in 120 days, generating more than 178,000 new, good jobs.

I talked about the advantages of public transportation quite a bit in my testimony at a hearing on energy reduction and sustainability held yesterday in the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Among other things, I noted “…a wild imbalance in mode share for public transportation, especially compared to other OECD countries. According to a 2001 study, for every transit trip there are 44.5 auto trips. By contrast in Canada, Great Britain, and Germany the ratio is a much less lopsided 7.6, 4.6 and 3.1 respectively.” And that:

"The evidence is clear: Transportation alternatives save oil. A recent study found that it causes direct savings of 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline annually, and a followup analysis found that when coupled with indirect benefits (fewer and shorter trips due to more efficient land use and more walking and biking) the total savings jumps to 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year.Another analysis found that biking and walking avoids 70-200 billion miles of driving annually, saving billions of gallons of fuel and cutting tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide pollution."

The vote on this takes place TODAY. I urge the House to adopt the amendment, thereby improving a good bill in so that it creates more jobs, saves more oil, and cuts more global warming pollution.

Missing the Train on the Recovery Package

2009-01-20T00:55:57Z

Walking through a checklist of items needed for my trek to downtown D.C. from the suburb of College Park (by bicycle, no less!) for the Inauguration tomorrow, I keep reminding myself of a fact of life: After the dust has settled from this historic event, we can't relent in our advocacy for better federal policy. It may be a new dawn in Washington, but all of us must keep pushing so more people see the light.

One of the most urgent items on THAT checklist is investment in rail and transit, which is meager relative to the need (and to the highway spending) in the economic recovery package unveiled by the House Appropriations Committee last week.

My friend Paul Loeb and I wrote a piece on it in Huffington Post, which I urge you to read and comment about by clicking here.

What the Stimulus Package may have in common with Detroit

2009-01-08T23:00:00Z

My friend Barbara McCann, communications consultant and coordinator of the "Complete Streets" campaign, is my guest on Switchboard today, penning a terrific piece I'm sure you'll enjoy:

Right from the start, the US automakers looking for handouts on Capitol Hill were greeted with skepticism, reprimanded by Congress for being out of touch with America’s changing transportation needs. But Congress is preparing to turn around and hand out dollars to another sector of the transportation industry that seems to share the myopia of Detroit.

State transportation agencies are still dedicating most of their federal transportation dollars to churning out roads built only for cars, ignoring changing demographics, the drop in driving, and the clear preference that Americans have expressed for transportation investments that will bring them a greater variety of low-cost transportation options. A national survey by Harris Interactive fielded in December of 2007 found respondents would divvy up each transportation dollar with 37 cents for roads for cars, 41 cents for public transportation, and 22 cents for bicycling and walking projects. This mirrors the results of many local transportation surveys. Yet the federal transportation program now directs 79 cents of each taxpayer dollar to roads for cars, 20 cents to public transportation, and just one cent to projects that include safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

The stimulus package seems destined to make matters worse as state transportation agencies propose to focus most of the spending on old road expansion projects. These projects would add highway capacity for cars even though the amount of driving has now dropped for eleven months straight. Such single-purpose highway expansions would only increase our dependence on foreign oil while cutting off other travel options and doing little to spur associated economic investment.

For the package to really aid recovery, Congress needs to tell transportation agencies much of what it asked of the automakers: Look forward – and come up with a new plan. The projects funded by this recovery package should not simply replicate old spending patterns. They can do more than provide jobs: they can help provide Americans with transportation choices that are easier on their wallets while spurring economic growth.

These projects should build complete streets that are safe and comfortable for bicycle riders, transit patrons, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, so everyone has more ways to get around – while avoiding paying the going price for gasoline. All across the country, communities are ready to launch projects to pour sidewalks, paint bike lanes, and install curb ramps; improve bus stops and pedestrian crossings, and rebuild intersections with cutting edge features to improve safety for everyone. These projects are often labor-intensive and small enough in scale to ramp up quickly, and can transform formerly ‘incomplete’ streets into inviting corridors for the 40 percent of metro area trips that are two miles or less.

The stimulus can also be a down payment on completing our woefully under-funded public transportation networks. Americans may be shunning their father’s GM, but they are clamoring for more frequent and expanded bus and train service, evidenced by record ridership on systems across the country. Transit agencies have figured out how to deliver new products that consumers really want, such as light-rail and prioritized bus service. They need a higher level of investment to get the new infrastructure in place quickly. The infrastructure spending could help cities and towns across the country implement plans to create vibrant new live-work-play centers with transit access at their heart. Such transit-oriented development has proven a powerful model for growth in communities from Seattle to Denver to Charlotte, North Carolina.

As the potential size of the stimulus package has grown, so have the stakes. Congress could end up distributing one or two year’s worth of federal transportation investments through this package. This ‘shovel ready’ spending could dig the nation a big hole, producing more high-speed highways that endanger pedestrians, encourage greenhouse gas emissions, and lock Americans into paying too much for gasoline. Or it could invest in a future of greater safety, lower costs, and revitalized communities. Americans are ready for a new direction for the government, for the economy – and for our transportation system. The stimulus package should take us in that new direction.

Transit in New York: Green and Getting Greener

2009-01-08T19:38:48Z

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority for New York State just unveiled a remarkable report, Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions. It's the product of a Blue Ribbon Commission chaired by Jonathan Rose, an NRDC board member and President of the Rose Companies, a company that manages top-notch green development projects. Jonathan was joined by other friends from the fields of transportation and the environment, including Ashok Gupta of NRDC (my boss), Emil Frankel of the Bipartisan Policy Center and Janette Sadik-Kahn of the New York City Department of Transportation.

Many of the concepts in this remarkable report would yield improvements in transit service, energy-efficiency and environmental quality for the New York City region, and metro regions across the country should adopt similar ones. While I urge you to take at look at the nearly 100 in the report, these recommendations really stood out for me:

Capture 2/3 of all new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated in the region through 2030;
Promote clustered development throughout the region, seeking to draw 2/3 of new development to within 1/4-mile to 1/2-mile of transit access;
Draw 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050;
Adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards where possible, and develop new green design guidelines based on LEED where this is not possible;
Develop a climate-adaptation decision matrix to identify options for protecting infrastructure; and
Test and implement weight-reduction and regenerative braking technologies.

I saw the last recommendation in action on Copenhagen's Metro trains last fall, and the energy savings are substantial. And the first two are particularly noteworthy for other transportation agencies. I think all agencies should set lofty goals to get the competitive juices flowing, generating innovations that help shift traffic from cars to public transportation, and I think all agencies should realize that land development and transportation are de facto linked and so policy should also be linked by setting objectives for driving development with public transportation investments.

Last but not least, with this report MTA goes on record favoring strong federal policy, including calls for:

A $1 trillion green stimulus bill;
Authorizing and reforming transportation policy for 2010-2015 with a total of $1 trillion of investments;
Requiring greenhouse gas reductions by adapting California's new S.B. 375 law to the federal level;
Raising the federal gas tax 40 cents over five years and then shifting to mileage-based user fees; and
Establishing a carbon emissions avoidance market and dedicating 25 percent of revenues to transit.

All in all, this report is worth a read, and it's thoughtful insights and recommendations are worth serious consideration, both by metropolitan regions and by federal policymakers.

Stop the Secret Porkfest

2008-12-12T19:17:07Z

Heading home for the holidays, lawmakers will surely mull over the heated debate for an auto industry bailout. Regardless of how they feel about the outcome, at least it was discussed in broad daylight. Executives testified twice, submitted plans showing how they would commit to fuel savings, and agreed to other conditions such as a “car czar” to oversee their use of federal monies. The public was even polled about their position on a bailout.

Meanwhile, Congress has been working on the infrastructure component of an economic recovery package, and the process couldn’t be more different. State transportation departments – which not so long ago were merely highway agencies – have assembled lists that according the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the lobbying arm of state transportation departments, add up to about $64 billion. These wish lists – it is Christmas, after all – are being assembled into legislation.

However, in spite of the fact that the amount demanded is more than four times the size of the auto bailout package, the lists are not available to the public. Such secrecy may accelerate the legislative process, but history shows that legislating is best done in the public eye. These are public dollars, after all. We should have the opportunity to analyze and critique the lists to ensure they provide public benefits, as opposed to simply fulfilling the wishes of state government bureaucrats.

Equally disturbing is the lack of screening based on national objectives. What about concerns about oil dependence? And global warming pollution? And what about growing demand for public transit? This year we witnessed a remarkable trend, with driving down for 11 months straight and public transit ridership growing at record rates (6.5% in the third quarter alone). Transit clearly needs a bigger share, yet the overriding objective unfortunately appears to be “shovel-ready."

This is a recipe for bad policy and buyer’s remorse, with taxpayers funding the burden. Take, for example, the Missouri DOT’s wish list, one of the few I have been able to acquire. It includes an eye-popping $800 million worth of projects. More than 95 percent are highway projects. This clearly doesn’t adequately consider St. Louis or Kansas City, population centers that surely need more than just highways. Arizona DOT’s list isn’t much better, with less than ten percent of money going to public transportation.

The bottom line is that secretive legislating does not serve our nation. President-elect Obama has made clear that financing the economic recovery must be done carefully, with an eye to multiple national objectives (such as his stated commitment to save more than 3.5 million barrels a day of oil in 10 years). He is, of course, absolutely right. Congress should heed his words by unveiling proposed lists of projects to be funded, soliciting project lists from cities as well as states, adopting criteria such as energy efficiency and pollution reduction for financing projects, and tracking and overseeing spending pursuant to the legislation so we know if it has the desired effects.

Working to make rational policy will yield a package that provides a shot in the arm while setting the nation on a path to recovery while avoiding embarrassing boondoggles (like the infamous bridge to nowhere) that exacerbate our oil addiction and global warming challenges.

Avoiding Buyer's Remorse in the Stimulus Package

2008-12-08T22:30:04Z

I am now a part of the National Journal's transportation experts blog, and this week's question is about the stimulus bill: What should the transportation infrastructure portion look like? Here's my answer.

Frankly, it's refreshing to hear that question asked at all. On the radio this morning, I heard the President-Elect talk about shovel-ready road and bridge projects, as I have heard from many commentators. And then a story aired about soaring transit ridership, contrasted with an amazing 11-month-straight drop in driving, both big changes from recent trendlines. See a disconnect?

When talking new capacity, we should be talking public transportation. But having watched and listed intently to this debate for the past couple of weeks, I can name exactly two talking heads who mentioned transit, bless them: David Axelrod and E.J. Dionne.

Meanwhile, when talking about roads and bridges, we should be talking about repair (remember the Minneapolis bridge collapse?).

We need to pay attention, because while Washington is succeeding in getting the auto industry to change its product plans and accept other conditions in exchange for 20 or so billion dollars, here's the dirty little secret: Project lists are being collected from states for spending that could add up to ten times that much. And what stringent criteria to ensure worthy performance is Congress applying? I believe "first come, first served" sums it up.

American taxpayers deserve, and Congress can do, better. States should be required to have plans at least as robust as those required of the automakers, showing how these investments will contribute to energy security, climatic stability as well as economic prosperity.

Saving Oil, Cutting Pollution: How to Transform Transportation

2008-11-25T18:40:09Z

"If you do what you've always done, you get what you've always gotten." -Tony Robbins

When you think about transportation issues, what's the first thing that comes to mind? High gas prices and troubled bridges. There was the "bridge to nowhere," which after this election season is probably the most famous bridge in history. Then, there was the disastrous bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

And who hasn't coughed up some serious $ at a gas station, especially earlier this year (just a few years ago $3 was hard to imagine, but now...)?

It's pathetic that these are the first images that come to mind when we think of transportation in America, which is why NRDC has joined with several other groups representing millions of fellow citizens to create a list of ideas for President-Elect Obama and his team as they decide how to transition the nation into the 21st century.

I co-chaired the team that assembled recommendations for the Department of Transportation. Truth be told, transportation often plays second fiddle to other priorities, like energy and national security. This makes no sense, since transportation drives these other priorities. It drives up oil use, and consequently drives down national security as we become more dependent on imports. It also drives a lot of our economy: 35 percent of all of our national assets are in the built environment (including buildings and roads). Yet for decades we have had an aimless policy for shaping this cornerstone of our economy. Now is the time to change that.

We have three big recommendations for reforming the Department of Transportation (DOT) so that it is an instrument for achieving, not undermining, oil saving, climate and economic recovery goals: 1) Move to clean transportation technologies and fuels, 2) reform surface transportation policy and 3) establish a cross-departmental climate change priority. To achieve this, we recommend the following actions (see the bigger document for legislative and budget ideas too):

1) Clean transportation technologies and fuels:

Boost CAFE standards above the floor set by Congress in last year's energy bill, as is within the authority of DOT, to 42 miles per gallon by 2020, helping to achieve the President-Elect's goal of saving as much oil as we import from Middle East and Venezuela.
Maximize heavy truck fuel economy standards, as authorized by last year's energy bill, so they apply beginning in model year 2015, also saving a lot of oil.
Remove language from the Bush Administration rulemaking that mentions preemption of greenhouse gas standards, and instead make DOT collaborate with EPA in improving vehicle performance.
Form a low-carbon aviation initiative in lieu of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, the focus of which is too broad in some respects (studying high-carbon fuels) and too narrow in others (efficiency is not covered).

2) Reformed surface transportation policy:

Establish environmental and health performance standards, to take us away from the decades-old policy model of relaying billions of dollars of taxpayer money based on outdated formulas, digging us deeper and deeper into oil addiction and the pollution spewed by our fleet of vehicles.
Establish goals for scaling up use of alternatives to cars, which will require dramatically increased investments in commuter rail, buses as well as bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. There's increasing interest in diversifying our electricity portfolio so that consumers have low-carbon options like wind power; similarly we need to diversity our transportation portfolio to provide low-carbon travel choices like public transportation.
Revise planning guidelines for state and metro areas, so that projects address the needs of all users, not just drivers.
Require "complete streets," or streets that provide safe and easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists (how about more sidewalks, for example?).

3) Transportation as means for solving, not exacerbating, the climate challenge:

Create an "infrastructure czar" in the White House to align the use our taxpayer dollars so that we invest in low-carbon choices.
Reorganize DOT so that "intermodalism" -- connections between ways of traveling -- is a priority.
Create an Assistant Secretary for Climate Change, with real funding, responsibility and accountability.
Develop targets for cutting global warming pollution, and the tools to accurately measure emission reductions.
Create a national freight planning board, so that the we can handle growing goods movement without digging us deeper into oil dependence.

Making these and other changes expeditiously will take us into a future with a real array of clean transportation choices for Americans. This will be especially important for kids and aging baby boomers, since driving may not always be the best option and shouldn't be the only option. And by transforming transportation in this way, we will create new jobs (in fact, why not ask Detroit to make rail cars for the new system?) and secure both our energy and climate future.