One year ago, as America prepared for the traditional summer-driving crush, op-ed pages nationwide fretted over a disturbing trend. Only a decade earlier, oil had plumbed depths near $10 per barrel, and dirt-cheap gas had allowed us to roll over the nation's blacktop in vehicles of monster-truck proportions. But now something odd was happening: In just nine short years, real oil prices had quadrupled. The steady upward march threatened all that we held dear, like Chevy Tahoes, the open road, and driving alone. How, the nation's pundits wondered in 2007, could America cope with oil at $60 per barrel?
With grim determination, as it turned out. Locked into habits formed over decades of pro-auto policy, motorists doggedly faced down rising prices. Oil has since doubled in price again, and for the most part, the American public continues to motor away. Having busied ourselves building horizontal cities and eight-cylinder engines for decades, we are now woefully unprepared to do otherwise. Better to swallow hard, fill the tank, and hope the whole mess goes away.
But behind our car addiction lies hopeful news. Americans drove 11 billion miles less this March than last March -- a 4.3 percent drop, and the steepest one-year reduction since 1942. In 2008, gasoline consumption is on pace to decline for the first time in nearly two decades. And transit ridership is up. Yes, in America.
In 2007, U.S. riders took 10.3 billion trips on transit systems. That marked the highest level in 50 years -- since before the Eisenhower interstate system, since a time when streetcars rattled down the boulevards of many American cities. Usage this year is up 3.3 percent nationally over last year's highs. The largest gains have come, somewhat surprisingly, in predominantly automobile-oriented places like Denver, Dallas, and Charlotte, N.C.
Americans, it seems, are not constitutionally opposed to mass transit. An American public enthralled by automobiles has seen the enemy and begun to look for solutions -- to congestion and fuel prices, and to climate change. But those looking have discovered that a half-century of neglect has made travel by transit a challenge.
Seeking options, the nation has found them wanting. The ceaseless climb of oil prices, the growing financial toll of congestion, and the looming cataclysm of global climate change have not yet shaken the men and women entrusted with the care of our infrastructure to act -- or moved politicians, the press, and the public to demand action. Why can we not bring ourselves to speak of the need for better transit?
A Token of Our Affection
This failure to speak, to act, represents a huge missed opportunity. Overall, the transportation sector, including cars, is responsible for roughly a third of the nation's energy use and carbon emissions. Department of Energy statistics show that, per passenger-mile, rail transit is substantially greener and less energy-hungry than an automobile -- and as transit use increases, systems grow ever more efficient.
Provided that oil markets or government policies continue to pressure drivers, transit demand will grow, and transportation emissions will fall. It's happening already; the shift away from cars slashed emissions by 9 million metric tons in the first three months of 2008.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, American transit use reached its all-time high in 1946, when a population less than half the current size took over 23 billion trips. In the postwar years, riders abandoned transportation systems as government policies fueled suburban growth and a highway boom, and the country's public-transit network fell prey to neglect. The massive migration to sprawl drove ridership downward to a low in 1972 of just 6.5 billion trips.
Today, many commuters cannot easily avoid cranking up the car each morning. Because Americans rely heavily on their cars, reductions in driving have been modest compared to the increase in driving costs. Where transit, walking, or biking aren't options, families must move, change vehicles, or stay home to slow spending -- costly and unattractive options for most. Otherwise, higher gas expenditures mean less disposable income.
But energy experts say it's high time for that to change. "Clearly [federal and local governments will] have to make a large new investment in transit and rail," says Joseph Romm, senior fellow at American Progress, calling such investments "inevitable" in response to growing ridership.
Of course, it's important to be realistic: just under 5 percent of commuters took public transit to work in 2005, and the number likely remains modest despite recent gains. A more comprehensive transit network would be but one small part of a broader package of climate policies. Many transit vehicles continue to use petroleum, leading to a 44 percent increase in transit fuel costs from last year to this year. Electric vehicles are largely spared this pain, but are also only as clean as the fuels generating the power. To truly make transit work, new capacity should be coupled with a cleaner electrical grid.
It's a major undertaking, to be sure. Yet this shouldn't dim our enthusiasm for supporting new transit investments. Today's meager transit funding means that even small budgetary increases could deliver significant results. Annual federal spending on new transit projects is just $1.6 billion -- 4 percent of the nearly $37 billion allocated to highways.
America can expect to add 150 million people to its population over the next 50 years. This growth will place unprecedented pressure on a transportation network stressed to the breaking point. New high-capacity rail transit within and between cities is necessary to handle this pressure. The American Society of Civil Engineers, which regularly and harshly grades America's crumbling infrastructure, points out that railway investments can be made for "substantially less than the cost of adding equivalent highway capacity," moving more people faster over less mileage. It makes little sense to waste money on low-capacity highways that cater to dirty vehicles in a world where gasoline prices are making driving less attractive by the day.
And in a nation where $78 billion is lost annually to wasted time and fuel as drivers sit on congested roadways, transit offers help. A plug-in automobile in traffic isn't polluting like its internal-combustion neighbors, but it's also not helping its owner get to work faster. Transit can.
In fact, it's striking how many solutions public transit promises. Construction of transit in growing cities like D.C., Denver, and Dallas has facilitated shifts in land-use patterns and increased density. The Brookings Institution's Chris Leinberger argues that rent and home price data suggest substantial interest in walkable urban neighborhoods near transit -- places more amenable to reduced driving and energy efficiency than low-density housing. Leinberger estimates that such areas could attract some 30 percent of all new housing demand, slowing exurban sprawl and the resulting "extreme" commutes.
And in a period of economic uncertainty, the idea of employing thousands of Americans to build and operate a new generation of transportation investments should be welcome. The Surface Transportation Policy Project estimates that investments in transit projects generate about 19 percent more jobs than equivalent investments in highway infrastructure. Transit-oriented development has also proved both green and lucrative for many cities: Metro in Washington, D.C., has helped to attract at least $15 billion in new development. Dallas's younger DART system has so far brought in more than $1 billion in private investments. Other cities have experienced similar successes.
So ... Why the Silence?
So why are greens and political leaders reluctant to embrace transit as an energy and climate fix? Perception may be a problem. Transit systems are widely seen as dirty, slow, unreliable, and inconvenient relative to automobiles. Romm suggested to me that transit is seen as "not sexy." When folks imagine a greener future, visions of electric cars and solar panels abound. No one thinks of a humble subway car rumbling through dark, century-old tracks beneath Manhattan.
Transit is also widely, and correctly, regarded as disproportionately benefiting the residents of large urban areas and lower income households, and political mathematics are seldom friendly to proposals seen as "urban." Highway money is welcomed anywhere, but transit is considered a highly localized solution. Within metropolitan areas, transit funding often remains controversial, as exurban and highway-dependent jurisdictions feud with leaders from denser areas over the viability of new transit investments.
These conflicts often discourage potential transit champions. As Matthew Yglesias, associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly and a frequent commenter on transit and politics, told me in an email, "The biggest obstacle, probably, is that a lot of politicians who should be on the right side of this aren't." He cites Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who "ought to be leading the charge in the Senate, but instead he's big on opportunistic attacks on the Bush administration for gasoline being too expensive," and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who "represents Chicago but doesn't show much leadership on this." As Yglesias puts it, "A lot of politicians from smaller cities or suburbs must be looking at guys like that and saying, 'If they don't want to take this on, then I'd really better stay away.'"
And as part of the broader political conversation, transit lingers in relative obscurity. My informal polling of several environmental journalists in Washington suggested that discomfort with available information on transit and emissions reduced their willingness to write on the subject. As such, transit struggles to join the political conversation -- and since it's not part of the conversation, writers have little incentive to learn about it. On the cycle goes.
Fortunately, this is changing as interest in climate change grows. New efforts to measure metropolitan carbon footprints illustrate the value of transit as a green technology. A report [PDF] from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, published in March by economists Ed Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, notes that even where transit use is highest, "emissions from public transport are a small fraction of per household emissions from private driving. For example, in Chicago and Washington, per household emissions from private cars are more than 10 times the emissions from public transport."
And a new study from the Brookings Institution argues that, "Federal transportation decisions have historically limited the viability of transit and transit-oriented development, which represents an important tool for shrinking carbon footprints by reducing vehicle travel and associated fuel use."
But for all those seeking change, the biggest obstacle to better transit policy has been economic. America enthusiastically built roads and sprawling suburbs for half a century, and for most of that period, gasoline prices dutifully played along. As recently as 1998, as the United States prepared to embark upon a substantial acceleration in its exurban land rush, The Economist famously speculated that oil prices might fall from $10 to $2. There was every reason to believe that a life built around driving might be economically sustainable for the foreseeable future.
But of course, the global economy did not cooperate. Exurban sprawl in America led to steady increases in driving and fuel consumption. More important, large nations around the world grew rapidly out of poverty. As their citizens rose from penury, their energy demand increased, placing pressure on an oil supply neglected during the era of cheap oil. The combination of growing demand and stagnating supply did its work. The price of gas is now approaching $4 per gallon nationally, and the economics have changed. It's time for our national conversation to change along with it.
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Stockton Williams on urban retrofits, Obama, and the sexiness of caulking guns
Comments
View as Flat
jonny2 Posted 6:08 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:01 pm
07 Jun 2008
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 1:29 am
09 Jun 2008
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:51 am
09 Jun 2008
Good grief, people here will believe anything.
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 5:39 am
09 Jun 2008
.
The influence of the carbon and auto industries in government is well documented and, frankly, plain obvious. Remember the Chrysler bail-out? Remember the oil-depletion allowance? Remember the war in IRAQ...?
.
The auto and sprawl are heavily subsidized and now we can add to that subsidy the trillions needed to address global warming.
.
We have listed some of the carbon-auto subsidies (externalities) at:
http://freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Externalities
.
Permalink
geoark Posted 6:12 am
12 Jun 2008
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) will meet this need at a much lower cost than traditional rail. Read all about it at: http://www.acprt.org/
And while you are at it learn about the Green Tax Shift (http://www.green-shift.org) that would remove taxes off work and production and, instead, charge user fees on carbon pollution, fossil fuel extraction, etc. It would also rebate the user fee back to individual citizens via Social Security, health care, and energy transition accounts.
With the Green Tax Shift we would see the rapid development of resource conserving technologies such as the PRT.
Permalink
marigoldmind Posted 12:56 am
23 Jun 2008
I moved to DC partly so that I could get rid of my car and get around via public transportation. The DC system (trains and buses) could of course be improved, but I love not having a car. I hope to never again live in a place where a car is absolutely necessary. Right now, that is only possible in a very few number of American cities.
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 10:38 pm
28 Jun 2008
.
The DC system is excellent by U.S. standards. You might be interested to read the speeches against building the DC Metro. It was going to be a "socialist boondoggle" -- the end of free enterprise. The carbon-auto puppets in congress fought it tooth and nail.
.
http://freepublictransit.org
.
Permalink
tlr Posted 6:58 am
09 Jul 2008
Plan B 3.0 Book Byte
For Immediate Release
July 9, 2008
REDESIGNING URBAN TRANSPORT
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch10_ss3.htm
Lester R. Brown
The worldâ€TMs cities are facing unprecedented problems. In Mexico City, Tehran, Kolkata, Bangkok, Shanghai, and hundreds of other cities, the air is no longer safe to breathe. Respiratory illnesses are rampant. In the United States, the number of hours commuters spend sitting frustrated in traffic-congested streets and highways climbs higher each year. In response, forward-thinking city planners are seeking ways to redesign cities for people not cars. They have begun to realize that urban transport systems based on a combination of rail lines, bus lines, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian walkways offer the best of all possible worlds in providing mobility, low-cost transportation, and a healthy urban environment.
A rail system can provide the foundation for a cityâ€TMs transportation system. Rails, either underground or on the surface, are geographically fixed, providing a permanent means of transportation that people can count on. Once in place, the nodes on such a system become the obvious places to concentrate office buildings, high-rise apartment buildings, and shops.
Some of the most innovative public transportation systems, those that shift huge numbers of people from cars into buses, have been developed in Curitiba and Bogotá. The success of Bogotáâ€TMs bus rapid transit (BRT) system, TransMilenio, which uses special express lanes to move people quickly through the city, is being replicated not only in six other Colombian cities but elsewhere too: Mexico City, São Paulo, Hanoi, Seoul, Taipei, Quito, and several cities in Africa. In China, Beijing is one of 20 cities developing BRT systems. Even industrial-country cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and--much to everyoneâ€TMs delight--Los Angeles have launched or are now considering BRT systems.
Some cities are reducing traffic congestion and air pollution by charging cars to enter the city, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, and Milan. In 2003, London adopted a £5 ($10) charge on all motorists driving into the center city between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., immediately reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Within a year, bus ridership increased by 38 percent and delays dropped by 30 percent. In July 2005, the fee was raised to £8 ($16). Overall, since the congestion charge was adopted, car and minicab traffic into the central city has dropped 36 percent, while bicycle traffic has increased by 50 percent.
Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, who was elected in 2001, faced some of Europeâ€TMs worst traffic congestion and air pollution. He decided traffic would have to be cut 40 percent by 2020. The first step was to invest in better transit in outlying regions to ensure that everyone in the greater Paris area had access to high-quality public transit. The next step was to create express lanes on main thoroughfares for buses and bicycles, thus reducing the number of lanes for cars. The third step was to establish a city bicycle rental program that by the end of 2007 had 20,600 bikes available at 1,450 docking stations throughout Paris. Accessed by credit card at inexpensive daily, monthly, or annual rates, the bicycles are proving to be immensely popular. At this point Mayor Delanoë is well along on his goal of cutting car traffic by 40 percent.
The United States, which has lagged far behind Europe in developing diversified urban transport systems, is being swept by a â€oecomplete streets†movement, an effort to ensure that streets are friendly to pedestrians and bicycles as well as to cars. Many American communities lack sidewalks and bike lanes, making it difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to get around safely, particularly where streets are heavily traveled. This cars-only model is being challenged by the National Complete Streets Coalition, a powerful assemblage of citizen groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, AARP (an organization of 38 million older Americans), and local and national cycling organizations. This coalition has aggressively lobbied for â€oecomplete streets†policies, which are now in place in 14 states and 40 metropolitan areas, cities, and counties. In early 2008, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Representative Doris Matsui of California each introduced national â€oecomplete streets†legislation in the U.S. Congress.
Countries that have well-developed urban transit systems and a mature bicycle infrastructure are much better positioned to withstand the stresses of a downturn in world oil production than are countries whose only transport option is the car. With a full array of walking and biking options, the number of trips by car can easily be cut by 10â€"20 percent.
The bicycle has many attractions. It alleviates congestion, lowers air pollution, reduces obesity, does not emit climate-disrupting carbon dioxide, reduces the area of pavement needed, and has a price within reach for the billions of people who cannot afford an automobile.
Few methods of reducing carbon emissions are as effective as substituting a bicycle for a car on short trips. A bicycle is a marvel of engineering efficiency, one where an investment in 22 pounds of metal and rubber boosts the efficiency of individual mobility by a factor of three. On my bike I estimate that I get easily 7 miles per potato. An automobile, which requires at least a ton of material to transport one person, is extraordinarily inefficient by comparison.
The capacity of the bicycle to provide mobility for low-income populations was dramatically demonstrated in China. After the reforms in 1978 that led to an open market economy and rapidly rising incomes, bicycle production and ownership started climbing. The surge to 500 million bicycle owners in China since 1978 provided the greatest increase in human mobility in history.
Many cities are turning to bicycles for various uses. In the United States, nearly 75 percent of police departments serving populations of 50,000 or more now have routine patrols by bicycle. Bicycle messenger services are common in the worldâ€TMs larger cities simply because they deliver small parcels more quickly than cars can and at a lower cost.
The key to realizing the potential of the bicycle is to create a bicycle-friendly transport system. This means providing both bicycle trails and designated street lanes for bicycles. Among the industrial-country leaders doing so are the Dutch, the Danes, and the Germans. The Netherlands has incorporated a vision of the role of bicycles into a Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to creating bike lanes and trails in all its cities, the system also often gives cyclists the advantage over motorists in right-of-way and at traffic lights. Roughly 30 percent of all urban trips in the Netherlands are on bicycle, compared with 1 percent in the United States.
Both the Netherlands and Japan have made a concerted effort to integrate bicycles and rail commuter services by providing bicycle parking at rail stations, making it easier for cyclists to commute by train. In Japan, the use of bicycles for commuting to rail transportation has reached the point where some stations have invested in vertical, multi-level parking garages for bicycles, much as is often done for automobiles.
The combination of rail and bicycle, and particularly their integration into a single, overall transport system, makes a city eminently more livable than one that relies almost exclusively on private automobiles. Noise, pollution, congestion, and frustration are all lessened. We and the earth are both healthier.
# # #
Adapted from Chapter 10, â€oeDesigning Cities for People,†in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), available for free downloading and purchase at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm.
For information contact:
Media Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12
E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org
Research Contact:
Janet Larsen
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14
E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org
Earth Policy Institute
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20036
Web: http://www.earthpolicy.org
Permalink