Streetsblog Capitol Hill

State policies can help households save money by reducing oil dependence, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Photo: NRDC.org

When it comes to helping their residents get around without breaking the bank, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York are the top five states in the nation, while Nebraska, Alaska, Mississippi, Idaho, and North Dakota bring up the rear.

That’s according to a new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC ranked every state on their policies to reduce oil dependence, as well as their actual performance, based on per-capita spending on gasoline as a percentage of income.

Among the measures that NRDC rewarded for giving residents more freedom from fuel price volatility: 13 states are actively promoting smart growth policies, and five states have set targets to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT). NRDC also gave credit to states that had developed fuel efficiency standards or were taking action to encourage the use of alternative fuels.

The four top-ranked states have all set targets to reduce VMT or petroleum consumption, and three of the top five states are also among the top five in transit investment.

The lowest-ranking states, meanwhile, were all without any substantive policies to reduce fuel consumption or promote travel options besides driving. NRDC found a substantial overlap among states that had the worst fuel policies and the states where residents end up taking the biggest hits at the pump. Residents of Mississippi, West Virginia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Oklahoma spend the highest percentage of their income on gas.

The point of the report, said NRDC Executive Director Peter Lenher, is not to shame the most oil-dependent states, but to provide inspiration and examples from the places that are leading the way toward a more resilient future.

“What’s really important here: we really can do something about how much people pay for their transportation,” said Lenher. “This should be viewed as a very hopeful study to show that policies make a difference in the lives of people.”

You check out all the rankings in the full NRDC report.

Rob Perks is the transportation advocacy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

As someone who commutes to work on the Metro, I’m a big fan of public transportation. Earlier this week, as I was persusing the sports section of the Washington Post, I read a great story about a super fan. His name is Joel Reyerson, and for over 30 years this government mail clerk has been the most ardent supporter of the University of Maryland’s athletics program. He’s no well-heeled booster, just a regular guy who loves Terrapins sports teams so much that he makes it to not just every home football game but to every single practice.

It’s a feel-good story about a true Terps fanatic, but here’s the nugget that really stood out for me: Mr. Ryerson relies on public transportation to get to campus every day. As the Post reports:

He wakes up at 4:30 a.m. each weekday and catches a 5:45 a.m. bus to work. At 3:45 p.m., he gets off and takes two buses to College Park, which usually amounts to an hour-long commute. The busy afternoons encompass his two passions: the Terps and public transportation.

The article goes on to note how Joel spends his evening watching recorded county government meetings on television, so he can closely follow transit issues. In his spare time, he even attends public meetings and lobbies local lawmakers to advocate for transit. His passion for sports is noteworthy, but his dedication to better transportation is exceptional. We need more people like Joel Ryerson, especially our fellow transit riders, to make our voices heard on the need to invest in more and better alternatives to driving.

As NRDC’s recent nationwide public opinion poll found, three out of four Americans are frustrated with the lack of transportation options that forces them to drive more than they would prefer. According to the poll results, two out of three support government investment in to expand and improve public transportation and twice as many people favor new transit – buses, trains and light rail – rather than new highways as the best way to solve America’s traffic woes.

According to our poll, most Americans want more transportation options – and rank improved public transportation and better planning as some of the best ways to get them.

• 59 percent would like more transportation options so they have the freedom to travel other than by driving
• 63 percent (more than three in five Americans) would rather address traffic by improving public transportation (42 percent) or developing communities where people do not have to drive as much (21 percent) – as opposed to building new roads, an approach preferred by only one in five Americans (20 percent)
• 64 percent say their community would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system, such as rail and buses

In short: Americans hate traffic and love transit. This is true for a majority of people, whether or not they themselves regularly ride public transportation. Simply put, they understand that investing in public transportation eases congestion. But for too long most federal funding has limited people’s choices, leaving them sitting in traffic. While it may be true that many Americans are still in love with their cars, most are frustrated with the lack of options for adequate, reliable public transit service. Now is the time to invest in expanding and improving transit. After all, combined bus and rail ridership in the U.S. is on the rise, surpassing levels not seen since the 1950s.

Read more…

The overwhelming sentiment that greeted our story on the gas consumption maps the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club put out last week went something like this: These are almost useful. Just about everyone agreed that looking at total fuel consumption per county wasn’t very informative without weighing that number against population.

There were problems with doing per-capita fuel comparisons, but after hearing from several sources (including Streetsblog) that it was needed, NRDC’s Deron Lovaas has put out a follow-up post with new maps and charts that have, in my opinion, much more useful information.

First, the map of per-capita fuel consumption:

This per-capita map of gas consumption provides more nuance than the previous map, giving totals per country, but it still doesn't answer all the questions. Graphic: NRDC.

As Lovaas mentioned last week, there are problems with this map too. Some of these places are so rural and lightly populated that massive per-capita fuel consumption just isn’t a big enough problem to worry about, since there are few capitas there. Plus, there’s the problem of through-traffic — in many rural states, most traffic neither originates nor ends up there. So, since NRDC and the Sierra Club designed these maps, in part, to help them strategize where to focus their efforts, this per-capita map is of limited value.

This chart is where it starts getting good. It shows the counties with the highest total gasoline usage and ranks them by per-capita gas usage, showing where there are a whole lot of people using a whole lot of gas:

Read more…

Gasoline consumption by county. Graphic: NRDC

Have you ever thought to yourself, “What I really need is a map showing what U.S. counties use the most gasoline, so that I can target my sustainability efforts there?” Funny, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club were thinking the same thing. What they came up with gets us partway there.

“We were curious about which geographic areas were most oil dependent, and thus, driving the country’s oil addiction the most,” said Deron Lovaas of NRDC in his blog post. So they made this map of 2010 oil consumption by county.

It has the potential to be a useful tool, especially for groups like these that might be trying to figure out where to concentrate their field organizing efforts. But the map doesn’t tell us quite enough to be useful. This chart they made of the top ten gasoline consuming counties is a little more revealing:

Read more…

Source: NRDC

When asked what would solve traffic problems in their community, 42 percent of Americans say more transit. Only 20 percent say more roads. And 21 percent would like to see communities developed that don’t require so much driving. Two-thirds support local planning that guides new development into existing cities and near public transportation.

That’s the result of a new poll released this morning by the Natural Resources Defense Council [PDF]. The national phone survey of 800 Americans was supplemented by smaller surveys to gauge attitudes in the Cleveland region, Philadelphia’s northern suburbs, and Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. The poll follows similar surveys NRDC conducted in 2007 and 2009.

Of the national respondents, only about a third had taken transit or a bike any time in the last month, and only two-thirds had ever done so. But even they support local investment in transit by more than a two-to-one margin.

Read more…

Source: CBO

Would stricter fuel economy rules bankrupt transportation funding in America? The Congressional Budget Office seems to think so, but environmentalists are quick to say that the system was hurtling toward bankruptcy anyway.

Under a new rule proposed by the NHTSA and the EPA, CAFE standards are expected to raise the average fuel economy of the new-vehicle fleet from 34.1 miles per gallon — the average anticipated for 2016 and beyond under current standards — to 49.6 mpg. That’s fantastic news for the environment, but for those counting on gas consumption to pay for essential infrastructure, a recent CBO study suggests it would be a disaster.

Just how big a disaster is a matter of some dispute. The CBO says that between now and 2022, revenues — already insufficient to meet transportation needs, already causing endless gridlock in Congress — would shrink by $57 billion. By the time most cars on the road are in compliance with the new standards, about 2040, the CBO says that would mean a 21 percent drop in funds available for infrastructure spending.

Deron Lovaas of NRDC says the CBO is “sniffing fumes” with its analysis:

To set the record straight, the correct estimate is a loss of $2.5 billion over those 10 years—a reduction of just one percent of the current revenues. The CBO actually noted this themselves in small print in a footnote on page six of the report: “The new CAFE standards would not take effect until 2017, so they would reduce gasoline tax revenues between 2012 and 2022 by less than 1 percent, CBO estimates.”[1]

Read more…

As Deron Lovaas said this morning on NRDC’s Switchboard blog, “If recent events are any indicator, it might take Congress a while to agree on a policy that will put our underfunded, inefficient, oil-dependent transportation program on the right track.”

It's working in San Francisco. Now USDOT can help expand dynamic pricing to other cities around the country. Image: SFMTA.

Well now, that’s an understatement.

Between the uncertainty of the supercommittee and the bicameral bickering over the size and length of a bill, the only thing we can be sure of is that we’re heading toward yet another extension of SAFETEA-LU when it expires at the end of next month – if the two parties can agree to even that. Negotiations broke down over a whole lot less recently, when Congress let the FAA shut down over a measly couple million bucks.

But even if it’s a while before we see legislation passed that enacts new policies, there’s a lot the USDOT can do with existing authority to make smarter transportation investments that reduce congestion and carbon emissions. NRDC has documented them in a new report, “Federal Actions to Reduce Energy Use in Transportation” [PDF].

• Dynamic pricing. Fifteen states are participating in the DOTs Value Pilot Pricing Program, which allows states more flexibility in levying tolls and other pricing measures. San Francisco’s innovative new parking pricing system is a fruit of this program. Other variable pricing measures, like congestion pricing, could also help reduce fuel use and pollution, says Lovaas.
• Realism. USDOT should enforce the fiscal constraints of regional long-range transportation plans, being upfront about realistic costs. Lovaas says this will address a “pet peeve” of his and force states to reconsider “costly highway projects that have been on the books forever.”
• Transit benefits. Without further authority, USDOT could expand and promote the transit benefit program, which allows companies to give employees $240 per month in tax-free transit and vanpool benefits. Lovaas says the program is currently run by the IRS without any DOT involvement, and is vastly undersubscribed.

Read more…

Deron Lovaas is the federal transportation policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. This story is cross-posted on his blog.

As debt negotiations continue in Congress, President Obama appears to be sticking to his guns on repealing the enormous tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. The industry takes advantage of tax breaks dating back to the dawn of the oil age – the kind of fiscal encouragement intended to support nascent businesses, not consistently profitable ventures.

Getting rid of tax breaks for the multi-billion dollar oil industry is one of the few debt-reduction schemes that people can cheer about. Even George W. Bush suggested rolling back tax breaks for the oil industry in 2006. Why has Congress not managed to follow through on a popular idea that would create billions of dollars of yearly revenue for the government (and that could be sensibly plowed into the underfunded transportation program)? In part because of the efforts of The American Petroleum Institute (API), the powerful trade association that lobbies on behalf of the oil and natural gas industry.

API’s job, like that of any trade association, is to cater to the lowest common denominator – to protect lagging companies and maintain the status quo that will allow them to stay in business, no matter how outdated their business model is.

In this way, associations are even more deadly than individual companies. Under API President Jack Gerard’s leadership, for example, API no longer considers research into alternative energy a priority. The group is focused today on opening every inch of American soil and coastal waters to drilling, and ensuring that Big Oil hangs on to its precious subsidies.

API claims that losing the subsidies will put Americans’ retirement savings at risk, because many 401(k) plans hold stock in oil and gas companies. This argument is sheer nonsense.  Pension funds hold stock in many blue-chip companies. Is API suggesting, as Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense asked, that the government should make a practice of subsidizing profitable companies in order to bolster pension funds? If I may quote Joe Biden: C’mon man. Let’s get real.

API isn’t concerned about America’s future any more than they are concerned about the pension plans of those poor, hard-working teachers and police officers they mention in their ads. Their goal is to lock in immediate payoffs for their clients – oil and gas billionaires.

Retaining massive subsidies for a mature industry while slashing funding for programs that will define our future — education, health care and transportation – is a short-sighted way to govern. What does America gain by handing over billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil and gas industry? A continued, dangerous dependence on a commodity we cannot control.

The GOP transportation proposal is now online.

Here are some early reactions.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with jurisdiction over public transportation: “It used to be that Republicans understood that transportation investment was necessary to spur economic growth and create jobs. Now, I guess they think if we give the rich enough tax breaks they will get off the golf course, get in a bulldozer, and start building roads.”

Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), chair of the full Senate Banking Committee: “Transit systems are one of the most efficient and reliable forms of transportation… Proposals to cut public transportation funding, as contemplated in the House, won’t just make it harder for Americans to get to a job interview or the grocery store; cuts will also slow job growth at a time when we need it most. Construction workers, mechanics, employees of bus manufacturers and rail car suppliers, and many other hard-working Americans will lose their jobs if these cuts occur.”

Caron Whitaker, campaign director of America Bikes: “The Mica bill is short-sighted; it focuses on cuts rather than return on investment. The bicycling industry supports over a million jobs and brings in over $17 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. That’s a great return for the $700 million federal investment in biking and walking facilities.”

James Corless, director of Transportation for America: “Chairman Mica’s proposal to give states broader latitude needs strong provisions for accountability on national goals, such as economic prosperity, energy independence, equal access to opportunity and environmental stewardship. However, this emphasis on the state level cannot come at the expense of the places that are feeling the brunt of our inadequate investments to this point: local communities in both urban and rural locales. We are particularly concerned at the proposal to eliminate dedicated funding that helps provide more safe options for walking and biking. While Chairman Mica indicated an intent to preserve the historic share of 20 percent for transit, the overall effect is a devastating cut that leaves us well short of the amounted required to meet rising demand for transit service, especially in this time of severe fiscal constraints.”

Read more…

How big a bite gas prices take out of your wallet varies by state. Photo: Natural Resources Defense Council

It’s no secret that higher gas prices are hitting American pocketbooks hard. To a remarkable extent, however, exactly how much pain Americans are experiencing is a function of where they live.

A report released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council details how geography impacts our vulnerability to gas price fluctuation.

Fuel pump pressure is most pronounced in Mississippi, where in 2010 residents spent an average $2,225 fueling up, or more than 7 percent of their income. Meanwhile, Connecticut dwellers were far better situated. Residents of this tiny Northeast state spent less than 3 percent of their income fueling up last year, or about $1,586.

The analysis found that motorists in the American Southeast fared worst, overall. South Carolina, Kentucky and Georgia registered the second, third and fourth highest-paying positions, followed by rural Idaho. Study authors attributed this to a regional orientation toward sprawl and less fuel efficient vehicles, among other factors.

Meanwhile, consumers in the Northeast suffered the least as gas prices soared. New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island followed Connecticut as the lowest spending states, with bike-friendly Colorado occupying the fifth position.

And in the first months of 2011, regional disparities have gotten even worse, the report found. April gas prices alone meant that Mississippi residents were spending a whopping 11 percent of their income on gas.

Read more…