Getting Back on Track: States, Transportation Policy, and Climate Change
Posted December 14, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Living Sustainably, Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming
While it's no secret that carbon pollution has risen steadily in recent decades, increasing 27 percent between 1990 and 2007, it isn't as well known that nearly half of that net increase has been due to increasing emissions from the transportation sector. As a result, transportation currently accounts for 32 percent of the total carbon emissions in the United States.
In the past, this blog has focused on what the federal government must do to address this problem. As important as the federal transportation bill is, we also must remember that the 50 states are in a unique position to bring down transportation-related GHG emissions. States have a major role in making transportation policy decisions, and are responsible for directing massive amounts of funding to transportation projects across the country.
Given the major influence states have over our transportation system, and the important role that transportation plays in climate change, a key question arises: how well are states aligning their transportation policies with the goal of reducing carbon emissions? Today, NRDC is releasing a report, developed with our allies at Smart Growth America, which is among the first analyses that look into this question in a way that allows us to compare which states are making the most progress.
To accomplish this, we looked at 17 different criteria related to both transportation policy decisions and transportation finance decisions in every state. Each criterion was weighted to account for its effectiveness at reducing carbon emissions. Together, these criteria offer a good picture of whether and to what extent each state is aligning transportation policy and climate change goals.
Unfortunately, the picture that emerges shows that most states do not currently have a transportation framework in place that will meaningfully reduce GHG emissions. Only three states—California, Maryland, and New Jersey—fell in the top tier of our scoring methodology, and 12 states fell into the bottom tier.
Of the most successful states in our analysis, those that scored a 75 or higher, which fell into the top tier of our ranking, are clearly heading in the right direction. Beyond that, the ranking shows a very mixed bag of policies.
While most states have some policies in place that will lead to cleaner transportation investment, they are often in conflict with others that will likely increase transportation emissions. These types of policies can have a reinforcing effect on each other; each additional policy that is implemented will often result in a greater level of GHG reduction than if that policy were to be implemented by itself. Very few states have recognized this by implementing policies to support clean transportation in a comprehensive and wide-ranging way.
What's more, by failing to put clean transportation policies in place, states aren’t just forgoing carbon emissions reductions; they are also missing opportunities to improve the affordability of transportation, support local economic growth, and reduce the public health costs of transportation. These missed opportunities make the fact that so few states are pursuing these strategies more troubling.
On the other hand, the good news is that there is a great deal of potential to reduce GHG emissions at the state level through transportation measures. Realizing this potential will require state officials to harmonize transportation policy with climate and energy policy in a coordinated way.
To best accomplish this, coordinated action is needed at both the state and federal level. As part of our report, we offered the following recommendations that can help states and federal transportation officials get back on track toward a cleaner and more effective transportation system
State Policy Recommendations
- Set a course to reduce emissions by setting per capita transportation GHG or VMT reduction targets.
- Balance state transportation investments by using state and federal resources to support robust public transportation service, prioritize highway repair and safety over new capacity, and support non-motorized transportation.
- Manage traffic with road use pricing tools and incentives for low-carbon transportation options through comprehensive commuter programs.
- Link transportation and land use in transportation plans, implement growth management policies, and promote development in areas with high quality transit service.
Federal Policy Recommendations
- Set a national transportation sector GHG reduction target to reduce emissions, and require states and regions to set similar targets.
- Increase funding parity for clean transportation infrastructure.
- Require consideration of GHG emissions in the transportation planning process.
- Reorient federal transportation programs to support greater implementation of clean transportation projects.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jamie Sutton — Dec 14 2010 08:43 PM
Colin,
i am in the midst fo a conversation with Jack Murray. I was the first law clerk for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and now the president of the largest vehicle donation program in the country. We represent 5000 non-profits across the country.
In the face of NRDC's transportation policy, does it not seem reasonable to support reduce, reuse, recycle practices.
i wrote a memo to Jack that discusses the interplay between Transportation Policy and vehicle donation. I would like to send it to you for your thoughts and ideas, and in the hopes of securing your support of NRDC advocating vehicle donation. 700,000 cars a year are donated to charity, largely to get a small tax break and not for the purpose of improving the environment. I hope to increase the visibility of that arguement and then make it a big part of these programs
Please contact me and let's have this discussion.
Thanks,
Jamie
Ed Tennysom — Dec 16 2010 10:41 PM
EXCELLENT REPORT. I have studied motor fuel consumption by state and get similar but different results. The New ersey Turnpike into N.Y. causes N.J. to burn more motor fuel by interstate travel but its transit system was first rate until they quit funding it. Maryland is not as good as it looks but it will be if plans materialize but there is no money for them. Arkansas and Mississippi are sure losers with extremely high motor fuel use per capita despite poverty.
Wash. D.C. is lowest fuel consumer per capita with N.Y. next but NY has no future policy. Mass. is very good with MBTA & Amtrak transit systems but does some bad things like BIG DIG and Bus subways.
Give some offset credit for coal use to make low cost electricity so electric rail operations can cut highway motor fuel use by 67 % when trips switch from road to rail. Electricity is need to get accept-able transit, Buses can't hack it but are necessary where rail is unaffordable because of low potential. Some buses have more fuel consumption per capita than autos because of poor public acceptance. FTA data shows auto gets 23 passenger-miles per gallon, bus = 31.5,
Light Rail 40, Rapid Rail 50 and Regional rail over 50 passenger-miles per capita.
Attractive service is essential to get use.
Over past 25 years bus service has increased 20 % but use zero leaving unfundable losses. Light Rail has attracted 300 % more riders, Rapid Rail 45 % mofre and Regional Rail 56 % more.
Rail averages 40 cents per passenger-mile operating cost, bus an unaffordable dollar in larger cities. Without money we can not solve much at all. Save money and fuel with rail transit, Make the FTA use their own data.