Colin Peppard's Blog: Living Sustainably

Saving Oil = Saving Money

2010-04-26T17:25:34Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Vision for Sustainable Transportation

2010-04-21T20:46:58Z

Today is Earth Day. With that in mind, the National Journal Transportation Experts Blog asked this week whether transportation projects need a sustainability rating system like LEED, which is used to evaluate buildings, or EPA's Energy Star program.

Unfortunately, as I noted in my response to the National Journal question, an environmental rating system would only tell us what we already know: that our transportation system remains unsustainable.

Climate and energy aren’t the only environmental concerns with transportation, but they are a good place to start. Transportation was responsible for 27% of total US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008. This makes transportation the nation’s second largest end-use emissions source—larger than any other nation’s economy-wide emissions, with the exception of China.

Over the past two decades, transportation has also been the nation’s fastest growing GHG source, responsible for 47% of the net increase in emissions between 1990 and 2007. (Transportation also accounts for close to 70% of US oil consumption, but that’s for an energy security post.)

Fortunately, we can choose a different course. Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a major new study on transportation, energy, and climate change. The Secretary, on his blog, cited a few of the top line findings of the report. To start with, the report confirmed what many of us already knew:

The ingenuity of transportation planners and engineers has produced a vast network of transportation infrastructure and services to support the mobility and economic vitality of the Nation. However, our historic approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-intensive system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.

On the other hand, the report was optimistic about the future:

[H]ybrid vehicles could reduce emissions 26 – 54% for 2030 and beyond, and more direct and efficient airline operations could reduce aviation emissions 10% by 2025. Livability initiatives also play a role, with improved public transportation, land use strategies, and greater opportunities for walking and biking bringing reductions of 5 to 17% by 2030.

NRDC is equally optimistic when it comes to transforming transportation so that it is truly sustainable, while continuing to support America's prosperity. We can achieve this if Congress passes a new vision for transportation policy that considers the climate and energy impacts of our transportation plans and investments in a meaningful way, informing what we build and where we build it.

A new transportation program that achieves this is our best hope for making sure that our limited transportation funds are spent in the best interest of both local areas and the nation at large, at once supporting both prosperity and sustainability.

Google Bikes There!

2010-03-10T16:56:43Z

Biking is one of the most efficient ways to get around. It's cheap, it's clean, and it's good exercise. Which is probably why Americans are biking more than ever.

photo from BikePortland.org

Unfortunately, cycling isn't always the easiest way to travel. Have you ever tried to bike across town, only to find yourself on a road with lots of traffic, no bike lanes, sidewalks, or even a shoulder to speak of (aka an Incomplete Street)? Or maybe faced with an imposing intersection, or other similar obstacles? For many riders, unfriendly streets can be a big obstacle to cycling more often, whether for running errands, commuting, or recreation.

Fortunately, more areas around America are working to build Complete Streets by incorporating features into their transportation network to accommodate cyclists. As progress is made and more people are cycling, it is important for them to have information about the best and safest routes to ride. Sure, many local governments or bike groups provide both paper and online maps of bike facilities. But that's not always practical or convenient, especially on the fly. And with the rise of smartphones and GPS, something better is needed.

Corresponding with the kickoff of the National Bike Summit today, information giant Google launched a new feature in its Maps application that displays bike lanes, paths, and trails. It also offers travel directions by bike, in addition to car, by foot, and on public transportation.

What's really cool is that Google pulled out all the stops in designing the application. They included bike lanes and bike-friendly streets in 150 cities across the country, as well as 12,000 miles of bike trails (thanks to a partnership with NRDC's clean transportation ally Rails-to-Trails Conservancy). Dark green lines are dedicated bike-only trails. Light green shows a dedicated bike lane in the road. And dashed green lines represent routes that are safer and more convenient (avoid hills, narrow shoulders, etc.) for bicycling. To calculate the best travel route by bike, Google Maps takes all these factors into account. That means safer, easier, and hopefully more, cycling in the US.

Public demand for this feature has been intense, channeled through a dedicated website and Facebook pages. So we're expecting lots of riders to start testing these tools this spring! And since Bike Maps is still in its beta version, you can help Google improve it with your feedback.

Visualizing Sustainable Commuting

2010-02-22T21:38:58Z

For those interested in both sustainable transportation and cool information visualizations, there's this:

Martha Kang McGill uses data from the 2008 American Community Survey to illustrate commuting patterns in 8 US cities.

(via Infrastructurist)

The (Transit Policy) Change We've Been Waiting For!

2010-01-13T18:59:20Z

Well, one of them anyway...

Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a big move toward putting transit on a more level playing field in federal transportation funding decisions, while encouraging communities to work to maximize the "livability" benefits of transit investments. This would be a significant change in federal transit policy, helping many communities around the U.S. to initiate new transit projects, while improving the way that these projects are planned, designed, and built, with an eye toward environmental benefits.

For years, sustainable transportation advocates have highlighted how public transit is put at a distinct disadvantage in federal transportation funding decisions. Public transit projects receive only 50 cents on the dollar in federal matching funds, compared to 80 cents of federal money for highway projects.

Adding insult to injury, proposals for public transportation projects must also clear a series of high bureaucratic hurdles. Among the most vexing is a "cost-effectiveness" thresh hold that is used as the primary consideration in making project funding decisions. No similar standards - or many standards at all, beyond safety, really - exists for road and highway proposals.

Cost-effectiveness basically works like this. The reduction time savings for transit users that would result from the proposed project are divided into its cost. Only those projects that show significant time savings move forward. While such time savings and congestion relief are certainly important considerations in transit decisions, they are only a small piece of the puzzle.

The many other benefits transit investments bring to local communities are all but ignored. I helped to write a report on these "co-benefits" with the Center for Clean Air Policy last year. The case studies presented very clearly illustrate the real benefits that accrue to communities that choose to invest in public transit.

Sec. LaHood's announcement formally begins the process of figuring out how to count these benefits in a fair way, and incorporating them into funding decisions. This means that transit proposals will no longer seek to arbitrarily reduce travel times (often by limiting intermediate stations or choosing less-than-ideal routes that limit other benefits) or cut costs (by eliminating important design features that can better integrate a project into that community or make it more accessible and convenient for passengers) just to improve its chances of receiving federal support.

Rather, communities can design projects to maximize environmental benefits, convenience to riders, and local economic development potential to increase the chances of federal support. The ultimate outcome will be better transit projects that serve communities and riders more effectively while enhancing the local economic, social, and environmental co-benefits.

Obama Was Moving Cooler in 2009...Where Will 2010 Lead?

2010-01-06T16:56:54Z

To ring in the new year in true NRDC style, last week we released an assessment of the Obama administration's 2009 environmental record. Since then, fellow NRDC staff have been lighting up the Switchboard with a deeper look into key issues from they past year, as well as in the year ahead. They've been posting on everything from our oceans to smart growth to coal mining in Appalachia.

A lot has happened in clean transportation this year. So while my colleagues over on the National Journal Transportation Expert's Blog continue to weigh in on their federal transportation policy 'best-ofs' for 2009 (as well as 'to-dos' for 2010), I wanted highlight a few of President Obama's key sustainable transportation policy accomplishments according to NRDC's transportation team that are in the report.

Accelerating Development of High-Speed Intercity Rail

President Obama has made high-speed rail one of his signature transportation issues, launching the first new visionary transportation infrastructure investment program since the Interstate Highway System was conceived 50 years ago.

Improving the Livability of Communities

Seeking to break down barriers impeding collaboration between federal agencies, President Obama created a "Livability Partnership" with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This effort is based on laudable principles, including providing more transportation choices, reducing emissions and pollution, and improving affordability of transportation. The partnership has ambitious goals, and is likely to expand to include other federal agencies.

Adopting Stringent National Vehicle Standards for Carbon Pollution and Fuel Economy

President Obama announced the first-ever joint fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks in May, modeled on the California Clean Car standards. The new standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program with a fuel economy gain averaging more than 5 percent per year and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions. In June, the EPA also granted California its long awaited waiver, which allows the state to implement its Clean Car standards (also known as the "Pavley" standards).

A Top Notch DOT Team

We also gave President Obama high marks for appointing several of the best minds in transportation policy to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is elevating sustainability and livability as top priorities within the agency. The All Start DOT team starts with Secretary Ray LaHood, former congressman from Illinois (and Streetsies Policymaker of the Year), and goes right down through the ranks.

So, with 2009 behind us, what should be looking for in 2010?

On Green Jobs and Clean Transportation

2009-12-29T00:17:19Z

It's been a rough year for Americans. Rough enough that many seem eager to let 2009 fade into the past before it's even over, with hope for a better 2010.

Congress seems just as eager to do its part to move toward better times, as it ramps up to kick off the new decade with a big jobs initiative . Building on one of the successful pieces of the Recovery Act, the initiative will likely invest significantly in transportation projects.

Transportation for America co-founder Smart Growth America has done great work showing the benefits of clean transportation to a robust American economy. They have taken a deep dive on the multipiers, co-benefits, and positive externalities that we can expect from federal investment in modern, efficient transportation, as well as a superb report on how the money is really being spent.

But charts and graphs only take us so far. Nothing beats real world experience, in my book, and just such a story is taking place in California's Central Valley.

"SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec 23 (Reuters) - The U.S.-based transport arm of Siemens AG has ramped up production to feed growing demand for urban light-rail systems and also has its eyes on a nascent U.S. push for high-speed rail... [The Siemens] plant just outside Sacramento, California, which produced about 25 light-rail cars annually five years ago, made 58 this year and is set to build about 200 more over the next three years -- with capacity for more."

The demand for clean transportation projects is out there, and it's growing. However, a smarter transportation policy - one that can improve mobility, make transportation more affordable, cut pollution, and reduce traffic - can't be cobbled together through jobs legislation and stimulus packages.

The article goes on to say:

"A major obstacle to light-rail growth, however, was a lack of coordination between municipal and state authorities when tackling transport problems..."

Major businesses are looking to invest in U.S. infrastructure. This will create jobs here at home, improve our communities, and help us cut dependence on oil. But we need Congress to move our outdated transportation system into the 21st Century. If we do, we can fill those factories in Modesto, and more around the country, with workers building the wheels of the clean energy economy.

Remembering the "Other" Energy & Climate Bill

2009-09-30T20:59:40Z

If there were legislation that directly impacted the source of nearly 70 percent of our oil consumption, wouldn't you call it energy policy?

If there were a bill that covered almost 30 percent of our global warming pollution, would you call it climate policy?

I would, but in the U.S. Congress, this bill is called surface transportation policy a.k.a. the Highway Bill...

Today, Senators Boxer and Kerry released the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. As my colleague David Doniger points out, this is a major step toward addressing our nation's energy and climate change challenges. It will create millions of green jobs, make us more secure, and help stabilize our climate.

Senator Kerry and Boxer's Clean Energy Jobs bill will address energy use and carbon emissions in nearly every corner of our economy - electricity, industry, buildings, efficiency.

For transportation, though, while this bill starts the ball rolling, the majority of work remains to be completed when Congress renews our federal surface transportation policy - the "other" energy bill.

Today, while hundreds were rallying for clean energy jobs outside of the Senate, the lawmakers inside were debating how long to extend our existing, outmoded federal transportation policy. One month? Three? Eighteen?

However long Congress decides to wait, it won't change the fact that a reformed Transportation Bill has major potential to reduce carbon pollution and cut oil use. Even better, it can accomplish this while saving consumers billions, creating millions of clean transportation jobs, relieving congestion, and enhancing our communities.

So let's celebrate a big step toward addressing climate change. Then let's get back to work on a new vision for a clean transportation future that offers every family efficient, convenient, affordable transportation options.

Getting Our Money's Worth...

2009-09-21T22:15:27Z

The Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) coalition, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will hold a press conference at noon today to call for quick renewal of our federal transportation program. As part of this, ATM supports a gas tax increase to grow the size of the 6-year federal transportation program from $286 billion to somewhere in the neighborhood of $450-$500 billion (as journalist Michael Grunwald noted after the last transportation bill passed, the coalition's acronym is probably not accidental...).

Yesterday, the New York Times' Tom Friedman proposed a gas tax hike as well, to help reduce oil consumption. As an outspoken opponent of action on climate change, the Chamber and Friedman might seem like strange bedfellows. But each only get half of the transportation policy equation right.

On one hand, ATM's call for greater investment in the transportation system should be heeded. Compared to other wealthy nations, the U.S. invests relatively little in transportation, as a percentage of GDP. On the other hand, America can't afford to ignore Friedman's call to arms on energy and climate security.

Fortunately, we can accomplish both, if we take the chorus of calls to reform our transportation policy seriously. A federal commission, the state departments of transportation, and several respected transportation policy groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, and Transportation for America, have each noted that our transportation policy must be fundamentally reformed. If we fail to see such reform, any increased investment in our broken transportation program would be throwing good money after bad.

The connection between energy, climate, and transportation is obvious. Of the 20 million barrels of oil America consumes each day, more than two-thirds of is used to fuel our cars and trucks. As Friedman has argued for years, meeting this demand for oil leaves America dependent on other nations, making us less secure. Meanwhile, our oil-fueled transportation system accounts for nearly a third of our total global warming pollution.

To get to both halves of the transportation policy equation, we need to increase investment in transportation in a way that also promotes our energy and climate security. A comprehensive new study sponsored by NRDC, Moving Cooler, shows exactly how we can cut oil use and greenhouse gases from while investing in transportation to benefit our communities, enhance efficient mobility and increase convenience. (See our Moving Cooler factsheet)

The report finds that we could cut transportation emissions up to 24 percent by 2050 and reduce oil use by 1.81 million barrels a day by 2050-more than we now import from Saudi Arabia each day. What's more, as a result of the policies studies in Moving Cooler, consumers would save an average of $72 billion annually--nearly twice what the federal government spends on transportation each year.

Meanwhile, we'd be investing billions more in clean transportation: public transit and livable communities to make travel more convenient; freight rail and intermodal facilities to move goods more efficiently; intelligent transportation systems and other road improvements to provide congestion relief.

Less congestion, more convenience. Less pollution, more performance.

Until we have a smarter transportation program that delivers for our communities, our economy, and our energy and climate security, maybe Friedman's proposal for investing gas tax revenue - deficit reduction, health care, and tax credits - isn't such a bad idea. At least we might be getting our money's worth...

Real Men Tax Gas AND Build Transit

2009-09-21T19:43:01Z

Today, Tom Friedman writes in the New York Times about the politics of gas taxes and energy security.

Coincidently, yesterday, Friedman played golf with Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday. (I wonder what they talked about...)

Friedman makes some good points about the need to have a clear price on carbon in the transportation sector. As analysis in our recently-released report Moving Cooler shows, a price signal can be one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions in the transportation sector, especially when paired with investments in clean transportation alternatives, congestion reduction, and other measures.

We don't even need to go to $1 per gallon. A price signal of as little as $0.82 per gallon - equal to a 3 cent per mile increase - could cut transportation emissions by 3.3 billion metric tons by 2050 - equivalent to 7.7 billion barrels of oil.

However, Friedman's recommendations for how to spend the revenue from such a price signal miss the mark:

...a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. If I had that money, I'd devote 45 cents of each dollar to pay down the deficit and satisfy the debt hawks, 45 cents to pay for new health care and 10 cents to cushion the burden of such a tax on the poor and on those who need to drive long distances.

The uses Friedman identifies are certainly important, but is it really wise to divert this money out of the transportation sector?

Consider:

Our transportation system desperately needs investment: The American Society of Civil Engineers has calculated that our dirty, aging transportation system needs more than 1.2 trillion dollars in new investment over the next 5 years.
Our transportation system is getting dirtier: Between 1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represented almost one-half (47 percent) of the increase in total U.S. GHGs, according to EPA.
Clean transportation creates green jobs: A study from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst found that climate-friendly transportation investments such as public transportation projects or repair and maintenance of existing roadways created more jobs per dollar of investment than new highway building, which can increase transportation emissions.
Clean transportation boosts local economies: Leading local economic indicators - income levels, private investment, local GDP and tax revenue, commercial vacancy rates, etc. - often significantly improve after efforts to increase livability, including development of clean transportation facilities, according to 8 community case studies from around the country.
Clean transportation boosts housing prices: Homes in livable communities, especially those nearby to transit, have held their value as the housing market has plummeted. One study found that homes in walkable neighborhoods commanded a $700-$3,000 price premium, controlling for proximity to city center, housing size, and income level.

Friedman's investment scenario neglects to consider that these items are a critical use of transportation fuel taxes, which have not been increased since 1994.

Moreover, as Moving Cooler makes clear, substantial GHG emissions reductions are available in the transportation sector. While most of the emissions reduction strategies studied in Moving Cooler would yield substantial consumer savings - $671.7 billion per year in the scenario above - they all require up front investment.

I can think of no better way to invest the revenue from Friedman's gas tax than clean transportation projects that will boost our nation's mobility, make our transportation system cleaner, create millions of green jobs, boost local economies, and stabilize housing prices. That's truly a win, win, win, win, win.