Switchboard, from NRDC › Rich Kassel's Blog

What the Stimulus Means for New York

2009-03-12T21:49:43Z

After a four-month hiatus, my monthly column at the Gotham Gazette is back up and running. If you don't know the Gotham Gazette, it's a great place to read about NYC's political and policy debates, with columns on just about every issue getting attention in New York City and State.

This month, I wrote about what the Stimulus package means for New York. It's worth taking a look at if you are wondering what the Stimulus package means in your own state, even if you don't live in New York.

R.I.P. Durango, Tahoe, and Suburban...

2008-10-28T16:40:40Z

This morning, while I was reading latest from the auto world (no, not just the possible merger of GM and Chrylser), I learned that several of the icons of the full-size SUV world, the Dodge Durango, the Chevrolet Tahoe, and the Chevy Suburban, are soon go the way of the Checker Cab.

It's a passage that's worth noting.

Blame it on higher fuel prices this past summer and projections of future high prices to return in the future, blame it on the changes in the credit and leasing market, blame it on declining assets everywhere causing people to reevaluate their need for a multi-ton, steel-framed family vehicle, but the story is now out: last May, GM pulled the plug on its plans to introduce new versions of the Tahoe, the Suburban, and other large SUVs in 2011 - and the company may not even keep selling those vehicles until then.

In related recent news, Chrysler announced that the iconic Dodge Durango and its close cousin, the Chrysler Aspen, would be discontinued by the end of the year, even in its hybrid versions.

What's interesting to me is the point raised by the folks at autobloggreen.com: even hybrid technology can't save these super-sized vehicles in today's rapidly-changing car market. Sure, if you must drive a Durango, you'll actually save more fuel and carbon by switching to the hybrid version than your neighbor saved by switching from a standard Camry to the hybrid version. That's because the standard Camry was already quite fuel-efficient and because the standard Durango is, well, an inefficient truck.

But we are now living in a time when Americans are increasingly looking to cut back. For this moment, it seems that buying a full-sized truck for the once-a-year task of hauling a boat to a lake vacation is just not how most people want to spend their money.

Sure, there were exceptions. My 6'7" brother-in-law found his Suburban to be the only vehicle that really fit his frame, and when we had family get-togethers, it was a blast to have all of grown-ups and all of the kids in the same car. Just last month, we had four adults, four kids, and about a dozen pumpkins in the car after a near-sunset hayride in rural Pennsylvania - the music was blasting, the cousins were laughing, and it was one of those great times that make family visits special. And, no doubt about it, that 1989 Suburban was the only car that could have handled it.

But for most of us, and for most of the time, smaller vehicles easily fit the bill - and we're all voting now with our wallets in favor of those vehicles.

Because, as it turns out, you really can fit all the kids and their soccer gear in most of the smaller SUVs and sedans out there.

New Global Pact to Dump Dirty Diesels at Sea

2008-10-10T21:01:09Z

Good news on the Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign front today...

Yesterday, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted new fuel and emissions standards for large diesel-fueled, ocean-going ships. When fully implemented, this will help reduce pollution by 80 percent or more from even the largest, dirtiest, sootiest cargo ships on the high seas, including those that are foreign-flagged operating in U.S. waters.

Cleaner ships will be good news for anybody who breathes air that is downwind from any of our nation's ports.

And, that's a lot of people: according to the U.S. EPA, more than 87 million Americans live near ports that don't meet EPA's federal health standards for ozone or particulate matter, the key pollutants linked to dirty ship pollution. Millions more live downwind, since the toxic particles can travel for hundreds of miles.

There are two steps to the new IMO program. First, in countries that establish "emissions control areas" (ECAs), large ships will have to use fuel that contains 98 percent less sulfur than the current global cap (1,000 parts per million (ppm) vs. 45,000 ppm). Plus, ships operating in ECAs will have to install pollution-cutting equipment to ultimately achieve reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 80 percent, particulate matter (PM) by 85 percent, and sulfur oxides (SOx) by 95 percent, compared to current emissions levels.

Second, all ships in international trade (i.e., even those not in ECAs) will be required to use fuel with no more than 5,000 ppm sulfur by 2020. That's still a 90 percent reduction from today's global cap. Even for these ships, new engine standards will cut NOx emissions by 20 percent and will apply to new engines and to existing engines (as certified low-emission kits become available) beginning in 2011.

Of course, to get the cleaner fuels and ships at our ports, the U.S. must now move forward to establish an ECA for all U.S. coastal areas: east, gulf, and west. This will require an EPA rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, which should start right away.

As regular Switchboard readers know, ship emissions have been a big concern at NRDC for years. My colleagues in California have created some of the most effective, innovative programs for the ports there. Their report, "Harboring Pollution: Strategies to Clean Up U.S. Ports," was the kick-off for a slew of important programs in California and elsewhere.

But even the best local programs have been stuck with a basic truth: no amount of alternatively-fueled cargo handling equipment and dockside electric power for ships unloading their cargo can offset the impact of the world's huge ships belching black particulate soot at uncontrolled levels.

And, as emissions decline from other transportation sources, ship emissions will become a larger part of the nation's pollution inventory. According to EPA, in 2001, oceangoing vessels contributed only about six percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx), 10 percent of particulate matter (PM), and roughly 40 percent of sulfur dioxide (SOx) to the nation's air pollution from mobile sources. Without further controls, pollution will increase to about 34 percent of NOx, 45 percent of PM, and 94 percent of SOx emissions by 2030.

To sum it up, this global agreement will help people breathe in port and other downwind communities in years to come. But to have the maximum benefit, EPA needs to adopt an ECA for our coasts.

Luckily, since EPA staff were the key catalysts in moving the IMO agreement from concept to final agreement (here's a shout-out to Margo Oge and her team at EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, which carried this agreement from concept through years of tough negotiations), I'm extremely hopeful.

Back to School Special: Free Diesel Fumes in Class

2008-09-03T22:43:46Z

An important, new study just came out that addresses the effect of urban planning and road development on the health risk of students attending schools near major roadways.

Researchers at the University of Cincinnati looked at the proximity of public school students and major highways in nine large Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) around the country. In sum, they found that more than 30 percent of the students in these MSAs went to schools that were within 400 meters of a major roadway and more than 10 percent went to schools that were less than 100 meters than a highway. For some MSAs, almost half of the student population attended schools near major roadways, resulting in a potentially increased risk for asthma and other chronic respiratory problems.

The authors concluded that proximity of major roadways should be an important factor in considering sites for new schools and developing policies for reducing the exposure in existing schools.

I think this is only half the story.

Sure, we need to do a better job coordinating future urban development, transportation and environmental policies. We must do this.

But we also have to speed up the replacement or retrofitting of the older, smoking diesel buses that service these schools and the trucks that pass by on all of those nearby highways.

Here’s why:

Despite one EPA rule that lowered smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 40 percent in 2004 (and a consent decree that required most engine makers to start selling those engines in October 2002) and another EPA rule that reduced diesel NOx by another 40-50 percent and particulate soot by 90 percent in 2007, more than half of all of the trucks and buses on the roads predate both of these rules and the consent decree.

From the perspective of eliminating the diesel soot particles that can trigger asthma attacks and other emergencies, the picture is even worse. We don’t have bombproof data yet, but it’s safe to say that at least 80 percent of the trucks and buses on the roads today lack the particulate filters that became standard equipment in 2007, thanks to the latest EPA diesel rule. These filters are the only technology that removes almost all of the fine particulate soot from the tailpipes of today’s diesel engines.

And, here’s another important piece of information: According to EPA and other studies, every dollar spent to retrofit an existing diesel engine with a particulate filter yields $12-16 in health benefits. It’s hard to find an example of a more cost-effective pollution expenditure.

As we look to ensure that the diesel problem actually gets solved anytime soon (as compared to waiting 30 years or more for all of today's dirty-yet-durable diesels to die a natural death and be replaced by engines that meet the 2007 or upcoming 2010 standards), as we think about how to best spend transportation and air pollution-related moneys in the next transportation funding bill that Congress will consider next year, and as we think about how to incorporate what we know about diesel exhaust into what planners, governments and developers are doing with smart growth and related land use issues, accelerating the clean-up of the existing diesels should not fall off the radar screen.

Help Dan Save Traffic

2008-08-21T22:02:53Z

Sorry that I’ve been out of the Switchboard loop for awhile. While I was away, my friends at USPIRG held a “21st Century Transportation” video contest and you can watch the winner here. (Kudos to Streetsblog for highlighting this today, and for their continued great work covering the NYC sustainable transportation scene).

The video is about Dan. Dan loves “Sweet Lady Traffic,” loves everything about it. His greatest fear: in next year’s transportation funding bill, Congress will take money away from building highways and spend it on trains and buses. This will, according to the video, “suck the lifeblood out of traffic.”

Take a minute and 41 seconds and watch:

There is, of course, a serious side to this issue.

In response to high gas prices, Americans are turning to transit to get to work and school in numbers that have not been seen since the 1950s. Unfortunately, in too many cities, high diesel prices and transit funding cuts (in part due to lower gas tax receipts) are adding up to overcrowded buses and long delays at exactly the wrong time.

Here are just a few examples: In New York, the transit system faces its worst fiscal crisis since the 1970s, cutting services and facing a 5-year capital funding gap that could be as high as $20 billion; in California, there’s a proposal to cut $1.4 billion from the state’s transit fund for next year; in Cleveland, San Diego and many other cities, services are being cut to fill a budget holes despite record ridership levels. The list could go on and on – according to the American Public Transit Association, roughly one-fifth of the nation’s transit agencies cut services over the past year.

Responding to this transit funding crisis, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, by a vote of 322 to 98 in June. The Act authorizes 1.7 billion dollars to transit agencies across America to expand services and reduce fares.

When the Senate returns to work in September, will it take up a similar effort? Thankfully, Senator Clinton has introduced a Senate version of H.R. 6052, but that’s a long way from passing a bill for the President’s signature.

The bottom line is that we cannot break our addiction to oil, we cannot solve our global warming problems, and we cannot give Americans clean, health air without investing in transit and other alternatives to driving. Support increased funding for transit.

High diesel prices...

2008-06-23T22:28:46Z

With all of the stories being written about the increase in gasoline prices lately, it’s only a matter of time before reporters and producers start writing and taping stories about the increase in diesel prices and what that means for the prices of so many products we use every day.

Over the past year, diesel prices have risen even faster than gasoline. According to AAA, gasoline costs, on average, 4.07 right now, up from 3.00 a year ago. Diesel costs, 4.77, up from 2.89 last year. That’s a 65 percent increase!

Think about it: at this time of the year, diesel fuel is usually cheaper than gasoline, thanks to the price pressures created by the annual peak driving seasons of spring and summer. That, along with the better efficiency, durability and reliability of diesel engines usually added up to a summertime win-win-win-win for truckers, transit operators and others who relied on diesel fuel and engines.

Now, fuel costs are up by two-thirds to our nation’s truck operators.

This is really tough, especially in an industry known for long hours, thin margins, and plenty of ups and downs. (A personal aside: I spent several summer vacations in high school and college loading and unloading refrigerated trucks hauling meat from the Midwest to New York, so I have some sense of how hard the trucker’s life can be and how little margin there is for dramatic changes in operating costs).

Recently, CNN really blew it by implying that cleaner diesel fuel was the culprit. They could not have been more wrong. Sure, today’s ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is 97 percent cleaner than it was two years ago. As a result, every diesel truck and bus is operating 5-10 percent more cleanly, and new engines are 90-95 percent cleaner, thanks to new pollution-cutting filters and catalysts that can only use the new fuel.

But guess what: there’s no appreciable difference in the price of this cleaner, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and the older, higher-sulfur fuel (which you can still buy for farm, construction, and industrial uses). In fact, you’d see more price differences driving any stretch of U.S. 1 or Route 66 than you’d see between the two diesel fuels. For examples, take a look at the fuel prices at the Flying J nearest you.

So what’s causing the price hike?

There are a few factors worth noting. Obviously, most of the reasons for high gasoline prices are true for high diesel prices also. These factors include high petroleum commodity prices; record high profit margins throughout the oil industry; the declining dollar and the increasing trade imbalance; rapidly increasing demand in China, India, and other emerging economies; commodity speculators (and their regulators); and so on.

The diesel story is further complicated by the fast-increasing demand for diesel fuel and other so-called “distillates” (like home heating oil) in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In Europe, more than half of all new car sales are diesel-fueled, up from only 28.4 percent of the new car market in 1999 (In the US, it’s about 1 percent. This market will certainly expand as numerous new diesel cars enter the market in the next few years, which may create even more supply constraints for diesel). In Asia and Middle East, diesel vehicle sales are surging—especially for the diesel-fueled construction and industrial equipment that is critical to building all of those new buildings, roads, airports, and other huge projects that typify many growing cities in those regions. You can read more about this on the Diesel Technology Forum site.

But, in the meantime, what can a diesel truck or bus operator do?

Just like car owners, truck operators can trim their costs by doing some simple things more often.

First, cutting unnecessary idling should be a no-brainer, for starters. Every year, unnecessary idling wastes 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel—that’s almost $5 billion wasted, yet recoverable if we cut unnecessary idling.

Second, keeping tires inflated at the proper pressure and performing regular maintenance is critical to ensuring that diesel engines operate as efficiently as possible. As with cutting idling, this will save fuel, cut costs and reduce pollution in the long run.

And, of course, investing, whenever possible, in more efficient technologies will be helpful to cut costs in the long run. EPA’s Smartway Transport Partnership offers many more ways to cut fuel consumption, including on the three quick ideas I’ve mentioned above. This website is a must-look for anybody who want to invest in more fuel-efficient trucking.

In future posts, I’ll detail some key policy options and report on political responses to these higher diesel fuel prices.

Stay tuned.

The Copenhagen Consensus and Diesel Pollution

2008-06-02T21:43:40Z

Over the weekend, I read, with great interest, Andy Revkin’s recent dotearth blog post about the Copenhagen Consensus. The Copenhagen Consensus is shorthand for a research effort by a group of 8 leading economists, including 5 Nobel Laureates, which attempted to create a menu for resolving some of the world’s most pressing challenges in the most cost-effective manner. Run by writer and gadfly Bjorn Lomborg (author of such controversial books as Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming), this project is bound to spark controversy.

Three of the top thirty issues are related to NRDC’s work to “Dump Dirty Diesels” in the U.S. and abroad.

This got me thinking…

Here’s why:

Over the past year, I have started to notice that many people ask me what I’m up to, now that “we’ve cleaned up all of the diesels.” I’m usually at a loss when asked this question, because I see dirty diesel trucks and construction equipment all over New York City, on the New Jersey Turnpike when I visit family in Pennsylvania, and on the tarmacs of every airport I visit while traveling for NRDC. And when I have travelled to Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Delhi, or elsewhere, I am stunned at urban pollution levels that are several times as high as the most polluted day in New York City--pollution levels that are dominated by staggering levels of diesel particulate soot pollution.

So, on one level, the job of cleaning up the toxic soup of diesel emissions seems quite far along. Certainly, the regulatory story of cleaning up diesel pollution in the United States is one of the few, truly bright stars in the mostly dark sky of the Bush environmental record.

In 2007, new diesel truck and bus engines eliminated at least 90 percent of their particulate soot pollution, thanks to an EPA rule signed by President Clinton in 2001 and then implemented by President Bush’s EPA.

In 2004, President Bush went against stereotype when he signed another EPA rule that would ensure that future construction equipment, farm engines and industrial diesel engines would be comparably clean.

Earlier this year, the Bush EPA did it again, finalizing a comparable rule to clean up locomotive and marine diesel engines.

Together, these rules will eliminate more than 21,000 premature deaths and more than $160 billion in health costs every year, once all of today’s dirty diesel engines have been replaced by new engines that meet the new EPA rules.

No question, these are major steps forward.

On the other hand, most of the diesels in use today are still the dirty type: so, we have to advance policies, programs, incentives and other mechanisms to accelerate the retirement, retrofitting, or replacement of these dirty diesels. And, on this score, we have a long way to go.

Here in New York, most of the transit buses are clean. The clean-up of the MTA New York City Transit fleet has been a smashing success: today’s fleet emits 97 percent less particulate soot pollution than it did in 1995, when NRDC successfully sued for the right to place ads on the buses that read “Standing behind this bus could be more dangerous than standing in front of it.”

New York's air seems less diesel-clogged, and we're beginning to see long-term data trends to confirm this. (Come back for more on this point in a few days, readers).

But, most diesel fleets have not followed the MTA’s lead. For example, 90 percent of New York’s construction equipment and school buses (two fleets that have had a great deal of attention in recent years) still lack meaningful emission controls, despite city and state laws that require their clean-up.

Plus, we need to find more and more ways to adapt our programs (and other successful programs from around the world) to clean up the staggering numbers of dirty diesels in use around the world. After all, the thick plumes of black soot from diesel buses in Mexico City, Sao Paolo, or Nairobi would be unrecognizable to New Yorkers who are now used to the MTA’s hybrid-electric buses.

So, what’s the connection between the Copenhangen Consensus and the questions about diesel pollution being a solved problem?

It’s this:

The U.S. is on the path to clean diesels that will provide almost soot-free, efficient service in years to come. But for most of the world’s population, diesel pollution will continue to be a major pollution problem, especially in urban areas. It’s a key part of an urban pollution problem that is linked to 865,000 premature deaths annually, according to the World Health Organization. The vast majority of these deaths occur in developing counties. In fact, according to the Copenhagen Consensus folks, roughly three-quarters of these deaths occur in 15 counties, with 45 percent in China and India.

Diesel pollution is a solvable problem, and, without opining on anything else the Copenhagen Consensus covers (especially its reliance on some very controversial and problemmatic cost-benefit approaches), the Copenhangen Consensus outlines some of the most important steps to solving it: switching to cleaner, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels; retrofitting buses and other key urban fleets with soot-busting filters; adapting U.S. or European emissions standards to developing country contexts; and creating systems to ensure that vehicles that leave the factory at low-emissions levels stay that way throughout their useful lives. In short, closing the gap between the developed and the developing world’s diesel vehicles.

Is the diesel job done?

Unfortunately, despite the great progress in creating a regulatory framework to reduce diesel pollution in the U.S., the global answer is still, regrettably, “no.”

Click to read more about biking in NYC during National Bike Month

2008-05-27T18:22:59Z

Just a short note today…my monthly Gotham Gazette column has my latest thoughts on biking in New York City during this great National Bike Month.

A quick preview:

4 reasons why this is a good time to write about bicycling to work in NYC
A review of the NYC Department of Transportation’s Sustainable Streets plan from a cyclist’s perspective
A couple of ways that Mayor Michael Bloomberg (and his successor) can make our city even more bike-friendly.

Want to read more? Just click here.

Happy Bike to Work Day!

2008-05-16T17:37:02Z

Happy Bike to Work Day!

Sorry that I haven’t kept up with this series. I thought I’d have time to write about biking in the City every few days during this “bike month,” but work has gotten in the way.

And the weather.

In fact, it’s raining cats and dogs in the City right now.

So, in honor of Bike to Work Day, I left my bike safe and dry at home, and took the subway to work. My friends at Transportation Alternatives will, hopefully, forgive me.

Let’s face it – biking to work can be hard. In fact, Wired has a great article today with five tips to make bike commuting easier.

On the subway these past couple of days, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about Robert Rauschenberg, who died earlier this week at age 82. In today’s Times, NYC biker (and musician and artist) David Byrne wrote a piece that captures some of Rauschenberg’s appeal.

I’ve been a fan of Rauschenberg for years, ever since I was an associate at O’Melveny & Myers and spent hours exploring the huge Rauschenberg photo collages in a couple of the conference rooms. O’Melveny was a great place to start a legal career, full of interesting and smart people. But suffice it to say, corporate law was never going to be my life’s work. Gazing at the Rauschenbergs in the 53rd floor conference room in O’Melveny’s old offices in the Citicorp Center often made some of the seemingly endless meetings much, much, much more enjoyable.

Rauschenberg had an amazing ability to find beauty and value in the most mundane things (even David Byrne’s old sneakers, apparently). I always admired that in his art.

What’s that got to do with biking in NYC during Bike Month?

Well, for starters, one of the reasons that I like to bike in the City is that it opens up the streetscape in a way that enables me to find beauty and value in the most mundane moments, in ways that riding the subway simply cannot.

One day this month, I found some of the best samosas I’d ever had at a cabbie hangout on lower Ninth Avenue. Only on a bike.

Another day, I bumped into a farmers’ market that I’d never seen before, and bought a week’s worth of organic, New York State apples for my kids. Only on a bike.

And, every day, I watch the gradual transition of New York’s trees from bare branches, to colorful flowers, to full green leaves. I watch the incredible expanse of humanity passing by on the streets and the sidewalks as I pedal. And, I gaze at the ragged, industrial beauty of a long-abandoned Hudson River Pier as I pedal in the shadows of the West Side Highway. (I’ve been watching that pier decay for years. I’m always entranced by it, and in the course of writing this post, have now learned that the City actually wants to preserve it). Again, only on a bike.

Here in the City, we’re celebrating bikes all month long. So, don’t worry that it’s raining today. When the sun comes out, hop on your bike. Maybe you’ll find those samosas, some flowers, a rotting pier, or something else that’s just as beautiful to you.

Happy Bike to Work Day.

Happy Bike Month!

2008-05-01T21:47:34Z

Happy Bike Month, Switchboard readers!

Today starts Bike Month in NYC. So, for the next few weeks, I will be writing about biking issues every few days.

How come?

First of all, biking is part of how I got involved and interested in urban environmental issues. I’ve been biking in Manhattan since 1985, and am a periodic bike commuter (let’s face it: many days, NRDC lawyers have to wear suits to meetings, and most of the year, business suits and bicycles don’t add up to a sweat-free entrance to a meeting or hearing in New York City).

Biking to work in Manhattan is a key part of the story about how I got interested in cleaning up the City’s diesel pollution in the first place. Back in the early 1990s, I used to commute through Central Park on a bike lane, and then enter the clogged, soot-filled corridor of Fifth Avenue at 60th Street, for my ride down to NRDC. By the time I got to our office on 20th Street, whatever joy that I got from cycling in Central Park was replaced by the stress of surfing between cabs, buses, and everything else.

But it was the buses that finally got me. In those days, there was no ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel; there were no effective particulate filters; and the City’s buses were old, noisy, and awful to bike around.

So, during the summer of 1993, I joined Renee Skelton, a former NRDC colleague, to draft and release “End of the Line for Dirty Diesels,” which kicked off our Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign and ultimately led to the state-of-the-art Clean-Fuel Bus program that we have in NYC (as I’ve written elsewhere, today’s NYC Transit bus fleet emits 97 percent less particulate soot pollution than it did in the mid-1990s, reducing street-level pollution throughout the City).

Bottom line: biking is intertwined in the story of how the Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign began.

Second, biking can a key part of how we reduce congestion in New York, and how we reduce the carbon footprint of the City’s transportation system.

After all, New York City is mostly flat, the climate is pretty good for riding most of the year (although I rarely commute in the winter, thanks to our 5 pm darkness), and there are so many other bikers that one is rarely alone on a bike. And, thanks to Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030, the City plans to facilitate biking by creating an 1,800 mile bike network. Indeed, bike lanes seem to be popping up everywhere. During my 7-mile commute to the office, I am on a dedicated bike path or bike lane for almost all of it, except for one single block.

Sure, bike commuting isn’t for everyone, and it isn’t for every day for most people. But for me, it’s a great way to see the City as I come to work, it’s a great way to get some exercise when I’m too busy to get to the gym. And yes, it’s carbon-free.

Oh, and it’s fun.

Over the next month, I’ll cover a whole range of urban biking issues, so I hope you’ll stay tuned.

In the meantime, see you on the Hudson River Park bikeway.

Cleaner diesel fuel - at no extra cost

2008-04-24T18:38:21Z

Recently, a good friend asked me about last year’s transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). fuel. More specifically, he wondered about the price differential between ULSD and the prior low-sulfur diesel fuel (yes, in the jargon of the policy world that I travel in, it’s commonly referred to as “LSD”), and how that affected the overall diesel market.

It struck me that the successful transition to this new, cleaner diesel fuel is one of the most uncovered environmental stories out there.

But it’s a real success story.

Here’s the story: in late 2000, then-President Bill Clinton signed an EPA rule that required oil refiners to cut the sulfur levels in their highway diesel fuel (i.e., all diesel fuel used by trucks, buses and cars) from 500 parts-per-million to 15 parts-per-million. This 97 percent cut would eliminate sulfate-based soot pollution overnight, and would open the door to advanced catalysts and soot filters that would reduce particulate emissions and nitrogen oxides from new diesel engines by more than 90 percent. More recently, EPA rules have adapted this approach to farm, construction, industrial and other nonroad equipment, and to locomotive and marine diesel engines.

(A quick primer on why this matters: Soot particles trigger asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, heart attacks and tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Nitrogen oxides are a key component of acid rain, summertime smog, and even contribute to more particles in the air. Both the black carbon core of a diesel soot particle and the nitrogen oxides are contributing to global warming’s impacts too).

Of course, environmentalists were thrilled, and the various oil and trucking industry groups were alarmed.

As we’ve often heard from industry, these changes would drive up prices, hurt consumers, and wreak havoc throughout the industry in unforeseen ways.

But the reality turned out to be much different: the anticipated price hikes due to the transition to ULSD never happened (yes, diesel prices are sky-high, but that’s principally because of high refinery margins and the escalating price of a barrel of petroleum, not because of the cleaner diesel fuel).

So, what’s the reality?

Industry had four years to gradually phase in ULSD, yet almost all diesel fuel (well over 90 percent) switched right away. The price differential between LSD and ULSD (where you can find the dirtier fuel) is meaningless in almost every case.

Today, according to the folks at Travel Centers of America, who track retail diesel prices in all of the states where they sell fuel, the differential between these two fuels is 3/10 of one cent in almost every station they have. At more than $4/gallon, I’d say this is a pretty meaningless differential.

The bottom line: the transition to cleaner, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has been a mostly-uncovered success story. Today’s diesel fuel is cleaner than it’s ever been, and at no noticeable incremental cost to the old, dirtier diesel fuel.

And that’s a story worth telling.

Congestion pricing fails, but the goal of sustainable transportation remains

2008-04-10T09:11:34Z

By now, of course, anybody who has followed the saga of congestion pricing in New York knows the outcome: on Monday, the New York State Assembly failed to vote on the congestion pricing program, ensuring that it won’t go forward, at least for the time being. Various reports said that the plan, in the end, had fewer than 20 positive votes in the entire Assembly Democratic conference.

Uugghhh.

I haven’t been on such a losing side since I worked on Walter Mondale’s campaign staff in 1984.

I am not going to join the blame game, as easy as it would be to do so. As Switchboard readers (and my NRDC colleagues) may know by now, that’s not how I play the game.

Rather, I will point out that I cannot think of a major environmental issue in New York that was resolved in a single year. It took seven years to convince the MTA to clean up their buses; more than one City Council speaker had to oversee the revamping of the City’s solid waste plan once the Fresh Kills landfill was slated for closure; and safeguarding the NYC watershed is an ongoing venture that won’t ever be fully completed. And so on.

So, I will use a sports analogy to point out that this is just the first inning of a game that will continue in various City and State forums for some time.

The game, of course, is ensuring a sustainable city for the future.

The goal of this game to ensure that we are ready for the one million new residents of New York City—and the three million new members of our region—who will live here by 2030. This includes ensuring that we figure out how to reduce congestion so the City and the region work better, whether we’re measuring “better” through the lens of elbow room on the subway, the cleanliness of our buses, getting a seat on the morning train from Lynbrook or Yonkers, or our region’s ability to handle the ever-increasing pressures of growing goods movement through our port and the demand for on-time deliveries throughout the City and the region.

Another goal of this game is also to figure out how to handle all of these people and all of these goods, while also reducing air pollution to levels that are safe enough to breathe, every day of the year. Yes, every day.

Of course, another goal of this game is to find a fair, equitable and sustainable way of financing the billions of transit and other transportation investments that will be necessary to build and maintain all of what’s needed to create a sustainable city and region for the future.

And, last but certainly not least, another goal of this game is to create sustainability models that will be adaptable to other big cities in the U.S.—and around the world—so all of our cities are more sustainable in the long run (I’m actually writing this from Beijing, where particulate levels are often six times those in Manhattan.).

This game is not about a single vote on a single bill about congestion pricing.

We lost a few runs in the first inning. But this game ain’t over. And the goal of this game is too important to give up after just the first inning.

Stay tuned.

Congestion Pricing in the 9th inning...

2008-04-06T15:14:09Z

Mariano Rivera is taking the mound now, trying to do his magic to pull out a win...

Crain's, the Washington Post, the NY Daily News, the NY Post are all telling various stories of last-minute negotiations, hallway discussions, and everything else that goes into creating a bill that the majority of NYS legislators can support.

Here at NRDC, we're hopeful that the legislators will succeed in crafting legislation that enables congestion pricing to be tried in New York City...and legislation that provides as much environmental protection as possible during the program.

Issues include having the program start as a pilot project of 3 - 5 years (the original idea, BTW), enhancing the environmental review provisions to ensure the best possible final decisions on what the ultimate program will look like (stronger environmental review is always a good idea, of course), and others.

There are lots of good ideas flying around, and we're hopeful that the state's leaders can throw enough strikes to get the job done.

Stay tuned.

NY City Council Passes Congestion Pricing!

2008-04-02T23:03:36Z

On Monday, the New York City Council passed, by a margin of 30-20, the congestion pricing bill, kicking off an intense week of lobbying for its passage in Albany.

This was a huge victory for Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, of course, since the Council was the first legislative body to vote on the proposal.

It was great timing for NRDC, too—it came on the eve of our annual “Forces of Nature” gala in NYC. This year, we honored Mayor Bloomberg for his environmental leadership, and he used the occasion to welcome Speaker Quinn to the podium and thank everybody who has worked hard to pass congestion pricing.

The City Council’s vote sends a strong message of support to the State Assembly and Senate, both of which must vote on the congestion pricing bill by next Monday, April 7. As Mayor Bloomberg said at our event, passing congestion pricing in the City Council is “like getting 95 percent across the Grand Canyon…it doesn’t mean anything unless you get all the way across.”

So our attention is now wholly on Albany, where Assembly members are conferencing on congestion pricing as I write.

But while they do, I want to point out that many of the “yes” votes in the Council came from all five boroughs. In contrast to what some observers expected, there were some real leaders from Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx who were willing to step up and vote yes—despite coming from car-centric districts.

These include:

Maria del Carmen Arroyo (Bronx)
Maria Baez (Bronx)
Simcha Felder (Brooklyn)
Eric Gioia (Queens)
Sara Gonzalez (Brooklyn)
Letitia James (Brooklyn)
Oliver Koppell (Bronx)
John Liu (Queens)
Michael McMahon (Staten Island)
Hiram Monserrate (Queens)
Annabel Palma (Bronx)
Dominic Recchia (Brooklyn)
Joel Rivera (Bronx)
James Sanders (Queens)
Larry Seabrook (Bronx)
Kendall Stewart (Brooklyn)
James Vacca (Bronx)
Al Vann (Brooklyn)
Thomas White (Queens)
David Yassky (Brooklyn)

Elizabeth Benjamin, whose Daily Politics blog on the New York Daily News website is covering congestion pricing as it unfolds, published a full list of the votes that you can see here.

This was also a major step forward for the more than 150 civic, labor, environmental, business and other organizations working around the clock this month to pass congestion pricing. The folks who make up the Campaign for New York’s Future and the Empire State Transportation Alliance are doing incredible work this month to pass congestion pricing. (NRDC is a member of both organizations).

Everybody’s tired, everybody’s swamped, but everybody was totally pumped after the vote.

Want to help? Go to our coalition's website and take action now!

Stay tuned.

Thanks for your comments, here's some answers...

2008-03-26T16:39:11Z

In recent comments on the blog, a number of readers have expressed concerns about the cost of delivering goods in the City, as well as other aspects of the congestion pricing proposal being debated in New York this month. Today, I’ll address a couple of them—and thank you all for keeping Switchboard a lively discussion spot.

First, several comments came from people concerned about the impact of congestion pricing on the cost of doing business in New York City.

As somebody who grew up in New York’s now-mostly-gone wholesale meat business, I understand how critical it is to get deliveries to the customer, on time and under budget. And, having worked on diesel pollution issues for more than a decade, I am certainly aware of the thin profit margins in most trucking businesses, which makes any cost increase an important issue.

So, what does that mean for congestion pricing?

Reader Nick Vlahos shared his concern about added costs to his flower business due to congestion pricing. Nobody likes added costs (especially given what’s happening to our gas and food bills lately), but reduced congestion should speed up his deliveries. If this happens, his $21/day investment in congestion pricing should lead to higher productivity. (Important clarification of how the charge will work: congestion pricing is a once-a-day charge, no matter how many deliveries in and out of the congestion pricing zone are made).

That’s the example of the London congestion pricing system, where many businesses prefer paying the charge for less crowded streets.

The bottom line: today’s traffic costs businesses a lot in terms of lost time and uncertain delivery schedules, and if congestion pricing reduces traffic, that should help many delivery-oriented businesses.

Reader Larry Dwyer (and others) suggested that congestion pricing is a regressive tax on the middle class. As I’ve written in prior posts, I don’t think this is the case. After all, the data is clear: car commuters to lower and midtown Manhattan make at least 30 percent more, on average, than transit users. And, less than 5 percent of New York City workers currently drive to work in the congestion pricing zone.

In other words, a small percentage of people who make more, on average, than most New Yorkers will be paying a fee to drive at certain hours, which will create the funding to benefit all New Yorkers (including the drivers who will benefit from cleaner air and less congested commutes).

But he and others implicitly have raised an important point: there will be some drivers who need to drive, and who aren’t rich. That’s the problem with relying on average incomes.

So, let me be clear on this: NRDC supports policies that will ease the burden on lower-income workers.

As the debate approaches a vote and a final bill is negotiated, we will be supportive of measures that aim to solve this issue.

Reader David Li has suggested mandated car pooling, nighttime truck deliveries and taxi stands as ways to reduce congestion. Leaving aside some enforcement and practicality issues, I agree with him that these ideas have merit.

I’ve been in European cities that have mandatory nighttime deliveries, and the streets are quieter and less congested during the daytime as a result. (But a cautionary note: in mixed-use communities, nighttime deliveries might be a nightmare for those who are trying to sleep near the businesses accepting deliveries).

I would respectfully suggest that each of David’s ideas is complementary to congestion pricing, and not a suitable replacement.

Why?

Because they don’t generate the $4.5 billion in revenue to rebuild and expand the transit system, which is equally important for today and tomorrow’s New Yorkers.

Reader Larry Stouder has asked, “what about the outer boroughs?” Others have asked similar questions.

Well, if congestion pricing was just about Manhattan south of 60th Street, neither I nor NRDC would be much impressed. But what gets us onboard are the projections that show that traffic will drop throughout the City—by 39 percent in Western Queens, 20 percent or more in northern Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn communities.

Why?

Because car commuter who doesn’t drive in Manhattan also won’t drive on the Van Wyck, the FDR, and the Gowanus, or on side streets in Astoria, downtown Brooklyn, and other neighborhoods en route to their Manhattan destinations.

As for Larry’s and other’s concerns about people using Queens neighborhoods as “park-and-rides” by commuters trying to avoid the charge, I suggest that somebody who currently pays $50 or more to park in Lower Manhattan is unlikely to cruise the streets of Jackson Heights to find a spot and take the subway.

But here’s another, perhaps even better answer: the Traffic Mitigation Commission recommended (based in part on NRDC advocacy) that community monitoring be conducted throughout the 3-year pilot project, and that if unforeseen traffic or other impacts are found, that that the City must mitigate them. We’ll be working hard to make sure that mandatory mitigation is in the final bill.

Readers Kate and Catherine raised some strong points in favor of congestion pricing as a way to fund the MTA’s capital needs. I especially like the idea of reducing congestion now, and continuing to work on all of the other infrastructure needs that will be necessary to prepare for a City with an extra million people, a region with an extra 3-4 million people, and a port with double or even triple the amount of incoming cargo by 2030.

Whether you agree with me or not, I appreciate your comments. Thanks for writing.