Guest Blogger: Michael Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund

High Performance Transportation Management

With today's gas prices, America cannot afford to spur added driving and sprawl instead of high performance transportation, public transportation, and smart growth. America's transportation systems are both broke and broken.

Transportation accounts for a third of America's greenhouse gas pollution. Forecast fuel economy improvements and lower carbon fuels won't solve the problem, with traffic growth countering these gains. 

It's time to hold public agencies accountable for greenhouse gas and health impacts of transportation plans, investments, and operations.  It's time to tie transportation spending to cutting traffic growth and greenhouse pollution. Let's align how we raise revenues for transportation with broader system goals and use pricing to shape choices and boost transportation equity.

Cities from Singapore to Portland show how we can decouple vehicle miles driven from economic growth and boost the greenhouse gas efficiency of mobility systems, cutting emissions and congestion. The keys to success are smarter growth, improved transportation choices, and intelligent pricing and management of infrastructure and mobility services.

A 2007 Urban Land Institute study found that shifting two-thirds of new U.S. growth to compact development patterns would save 85 million tons a year of carbon dioxide by 2030. New regional blueprints, high gasoline prices, and new financial incentives like those adopted in California’s San Joaquin Valley are encouraging developers to design subdivisions that reduce the need to drive.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) can often deliver high speed, high capacity, flexible public transportation at a fraction of the cost and time it takes to develop new rail lines, offering direct services between many destinations. Both BRT and rail improvements have a key role to play in spurring transit-oriented development.

If tolls are used just to build new roads faster, it yields more sprawl, traffic and pollution. But time-of-day tolls on existing roads can slash congestion and pollution while funding better public transportation. Global experience shows people will accept tolling on free roads if they get better travel choices and improved system performance. 

Emission based truck tolls in Germany and recent tests in Oregon and Washington show that satellite-based toll collection is practical. The Netherlands will adopt emission-based distance-weight road user fees by 2012. America should transition to such a system in the coming decade to curb congestion and global warming, and fund transportation. 

Pay-as-you-drive insurance, which sets premiums based on how much, when, or how people drive, could cut miles driven by 10% and cut greenhouse emissions by up to 15%. A forthcoming Brookings study shows two-thirds of households would save an average of $270 per vehicle each year with PAYD insurance, especially benefiting low and moderate income households.

Improving mobility while minimizing the environmental footprint of travel will take green infrastructure policies, better travel choices, and new incentives for wise consumption and stewardship of scarce resources. 

-Michael Replogle

Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund

Comments

[David Marks]

This is a very thoughtful piece. It is proof that innovative ideas can span groups that might otherwise by separated by an ideological divide.

[Aaron Antrim]

Excellent piece. Market-based pricing can help us make efficient, fast transportation, and meet environmental and social goals.

[free bets]

yes i agree david

[Recycling Mike]

I'm not sure what went wrong, and why America seems to have lagged behind European and some Asian countries in building efficient mass transport systems, and I don't think there's any point dwelling in that. I'm just glad that people, and most importantly, public transportation authorities in both the federal and state levels are now waking up to this reality and doing something. The high-speed train system being planned now that would traverse California is definitely a good step in the right direction. If government and the private sector could just get our act together and start building contiguous mass transport infrastructure, not only will be able to reduce our greenhouse emissions drastically but also reduce dependence on onrenewable fuel resources. Thanks.

[mrbview]

I have high regard for Michael Replogle. And he is aiming to tackle some pretty tough long-term policy questions. With that in mind, the following context for the debate:

1) Transportation accounts for 31.2% of U.S. CO2 emissions according to EPA data. Passenger cars + light trucks (vans, suvs, pickups) account for 19.2% of U.S. CO2 emissions. Too often, environmental advocates say "transportation accounts for a third" right before launching an anti-vehicle argument. However, if the point is vehicle pollution than the correct figure is 19.2%. It is disingenuous to refer to all transportation pollution when making a point about driving.

2) A related misconception pushed by public transportation advocates is that by changing commuting patterns we can substantially reduce emissions. However, just 5.2% of U.S. CO2 emissions is from driving to/from work. [ Of the 19.2% of U.S. emissions people are driving to do a lot of different things. 24.5% of driving is "social & recreational"; 18.7% is "other family & personal business"; 14.5% is "shopping"; and 27.0% is driving to/from work. 27% of 19.2% is 5.2% ].

3) Missing from Mr. Replogle's blog post is any mention of technology. Today's Toyota Prius (4.0 tons of CO2 per year according to fueleconomy.gov) is 32% more environmentally efficient than a comparable car (Corolla 5.9 tons of CO2 per year). By promoting new technology and/or funding technology development we can have a 30% impact without impeding Americans free choices. Imagine if we took the 15-20% of gas tax revenue paid by drivers and diverted to public transportation and instead used it for vehicle technology. The type of car we drive causes emissions; driving does not cause emissions.

We need to combine Mr. Replogle's good ideas about pricing with true free market principles. If drivers pay a toll, drivers should benefit. Pricing should not be used as a new form of government tax to take money from drivers to use for government purposes. Also, developers should not be allowed to dictate how and where people live based on environmental principles. People should, and can, be trusted much better than government to make the proper choices. Public transportation, "smart cities", and highways with cars should all compete in the free market without too much government interference.

Marcus Bowman
IAC Transportation

[Robin Rapport]

Michael Replogle is a brilliant and admirable man. Following his suggestions would prove beneficial to the environment, as well as to the country.

[Robin (the real one) Rapport]

I like Replogle's globes a lot more.

Whether catastrophic weather conditions due to "global warming" occur in 2100 or "30% later" should not be the question. The question should be: "How is it possible to change the way the population of the world thinks?" Because without such a change, our choices are death from antibiotic resistant diseases, atrophied genetic development from haphazard pollution of drinking water, gradual starvation from progressive death of primary food chain links, profound disabilities from chemical diets, or war related casualties.