[Senate Hearing 111-275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-275
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: A CORE
CLIMATE SOLUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE IMPACT OF CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND
INCENTIVIZING SENSIBLE LAND USE POLICIES AROUND THOSE PROJECTS TO
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
__________
JULY 7, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-638 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Edward Silverman, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director and Counsel
Mitch Warren, Senior Policy Advisor
Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Devin Hartley, Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor
______
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking Member
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JACK REED, Rhode Island KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
Hal Connolly, Professional Staff Member
Michael Passante, Professional Staff Member
Amit Bose, Legislative Assistant
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009
Page
Opening statement of Senator Menendez............................ 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Merkley.............................................. 2
Senator Dodd................................................. 3
Senator Johnson.............................................. 29
Senator Crapo................................................ 29
WITNESSES
Michael A. Replogle, Global Policy Director, Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy, and Policy and Strategy
Consultant, Environmental Defense Fund......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Response to written questions of:
Senator Menendez......................................... 51
Clinton J. Andrews, Professor, Urban Planning and Policy
Development, Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Program, Rutgers University.................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Response to written questions of:
Senator Menendez......................................... 51
Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor, City of West Sacramento, California,
and Transportation Vice Chair, Sacramento Area Council of
Governments.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Response to written questions of:
Senator Menendez......................................... 53
Randal O'Toole, Senior Fellow, The Cato Institute................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Response to written questions of:
Senator Vitter........................................... 54
Ernest Tollerson, Director, Policy and Media Relations, New York
State Metropolitan Transportation Authority.................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Response to written questions of:
Senator Menendez......................................... 56
(iii)
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: A CORE
CLIMATE SOLUTION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
Development,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee convened at 9:37 a.m., in room SD-538,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert Menendez,
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ
Senator Menendez. This hearing will now be in order. Let me
thank you all for joining us today.
Let me start by congratulating the House of Representatives
on passing a cap and trade bill last month. It is quite an
accomplishment, something I hope that we can repeat here in the
Senate. But one thing that troubled me about the bill, however,
was that it fails to chart a course toward lowering emissions
in the transportation sector. It has the right targets, but we
need the right transportation policies to get there.
The Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a
hearing this morning about that Waxman-Markey bill and I think
the witness list is telling. They have a witness from the EPA,
the Department of Energy, the USDA, the Department of the
Interior, but there is no witness for the Department of
Transportation. Transportation accounts for nearly one-third of
our emissions and yet it does not appear to be on Congress's
radar screen as one-third of the solution.
My message in calling this hearing should be crystal clear.
If we do not provide substantial resources in the Senate's
comprehensive climate bill to fund clean transportation
infrastructure projects and incentivize sensible land use
policies around those projects, then we will fail to adequately
address emissions reduction in the transportation sector.
There is a perception swirling around Washington that we
have already done what we can on transportation. After all,
Congress and President Obama are raising fuel efficiency
standards and we are providing important funding and incentives
for plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles, and advanced biofuels,
so doesn't that solve the problem. The answer, to put it
bluntly, in my view, is no. Pursuing strategies to increase
fuel efficiency and cleaning our fuel mix alone will result in
failure. We will fail to achieve energy security in the next 50
years and we will fail to lower carbon emissions in the
transportation sector.
Now, why? Well, because the carbon and petroleum savings
from these strategies are projected to be completely wiped out
by increases in vehicle miles traveled. A recent study projects
that even with improvements in fuel efficiency and low-carbon
fuels, increased driving will lead to a 34 percent increase in
transportation carbon emissions in 2030 from the 1990 levels.
This begs the question: How do we get people out of their
cars, or at least give them shorter trips to make in their
cars? And the answer is transit coupled with sensible transit-
oriented development policies.
I know firsthand from New Jersey's experience with the
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Project and its Transit Villages
Program that if you build the right transit project in the
right place and couple it with the right incentives, you can
completely change development patterns and in turn create more
livable communities. But this will not magically happen on its
own. We need to finally provide the Federal Transit
Administration with the resources it needs to meet local
demand.
Right now, there are over $400 billion worth of transit
projects on the drawing board just waiting for funding. We are
only allowing the FTA to spend roughly $1.5 billion per year.
We need to make sure this climate bill provides resources so we
can truly give people alternatives to hopping in their cars.
We also need to provide resources to local and regional
planners so that they can incentivize more compact development
around transit hubs. This creates more sustainable communities
where people can walk to the store or take a short trip to the
movies.
Together, this substantial investment in transit coupled
with transit-oriented development will lower vehicle miles
traveled and give us the ability to truly succeed in lowering
emissions in the transportation sector.
Let me recognize other colleagues before we start to the
witnesses, if they wish to do so. Senator Merkley?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for
convening the hearing, and thank you to our witnesses. This is
a very important hearing and it couldn't be more timely.
Unfortunately, I will be running to Environment and Public
Works in a few minutes and I apologize to all of you that we
are double- and triple-booked during this busy time.
I think that it is so important to be diving into this
issue. The title of the hearing is correct. Public transit is a
core climate solution, but it is also a core energy solution.
Two-thirds of our oil is consumed in transportation. We can't
address our dependence on foreign oil without reducing oil
consumption in the transportation sector. And it is an
important solution for our economy. Public transportation
creates 19 percent more jobs per dollar invested than road
projects do.
In Oregon, we have learned by experience that giving
Americans better transportation options and planning
communities that make it easier to use public transportation
can play a big role in reducing oil dependence and global
warming pollution. I think Portland is sometimes looked at as a
model, and by critics sometimes a favorite city to attack, but
as we review the statistics, we can't help but keep coming back
to the fact that the 1970s plan that would have put highways
all over the Portland metro area, yet people would just be
sitting on those highways today if we had not built the transit
system. In fact, more people go to the downtown now by transit
than go by car.
We have had a 44 percent increase since 1998 in transit
ridership and we start to see significant savings, $1.5 billion
annually on fuel, an enormous factor in an economy the size of
Portland, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita,
while the same figure has been growing substantially
nationally.
The Texas Transportation Institute estimates Portland has
20 percent less congestion than it would otherwise. Total
carbon emissions in Portland are below the 1990 levels. And so
on and so forth.
So I look forward to reports on the hearing and working
with the Chair and others to maximize the role public transit
can play in addressing our energy and climate challenges. My
home State is now producing the first streetcars that have been
built in America in more than a generation and we are excited
that many cities are in talks about the possibility of
expanding streetcars as an important part of the urban
landscape that will improve both the shape of the city, the
quality of the inner core, but also allow us to shift to
electricity and then generate that electricity from renewable
resources. It could have a huge impact on carbon dioxide
production and the ability of people to get in a timely manner
to and from work and around the city for other activities.
Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
We recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full
Committee, Senator Dodd.
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very, very much, and let me thank
all of our witnesses this morning for being here and those in
the audience who follow these issues as carefully as you do.
Let me particularly thank Senator Menendez for holding this
hearing and chairing the hearing this morning.
I am going to be leaving briefly. We are still in the mark-
up of the health care proposal. We are not quite done with that
yet, and with Senator Kennedy's absence, I have been asked to
fill in for him in that role. We have had 9 days of mark-ups
and we are back at it again this week, so I apologize for not
being able to stay as long as I would like, but you are in good
hands with Bob Menendez, who knows an awful lot about this
issue and cares deeply about it. I was impressed with Senator
Merkley's comments, as well, about his State and what they are
doing in Oregon, as well.
Just to share a few thoughts with you, the choices we make
when it comes to transportation have an enormous impact on our
economy, our communities, and our planet, as is obvious to more
and more people. Currently, the transportation sector is
responsible for nearly a third of all carbon emissions,
something I know that our witnesses here will talk about this
morning, and is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas
emissions. Automobile transportation alone accounts for nearly
half of the typical two-car family's carbon footprint, by far
the largest source of household emissions.
Public transportation, in addition to creating economic
opportunity, reducing congestion, and bringing our communities
closer together, is incredibly effective in reducing carbon
emissions. Already, public transit and the land use it makes
possible combine to save more than four billion gallons of
gasoline each year, reducing our greenhouse gas output by 37
million metric tons.
Americans understand the dangers of climate change and many
families have taken steps to reduce their own carbon footprint.
When it comes to transportation, too often, the choices we make
are directed by choices that we have, and for far too many
families, including in my home State of Connecticut and across
the country, public transportation isn't an option as of yet.
Later this month, the Environment and Public Works
Committee will take up legislation that seeks to address the
climate crisis. We have heard that debate already. It has been
ongoing in the other body, the House of Representatives.
Already, we have begun to make progress by requiring vehicles
to become more fuel efficient and encouraging the development
of cleaner energy sources. But the Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator, Lisa Jackson, told this Committee only a
few weeks ago, and I quote her, she said:
More efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels simply will not be
enough to meet our greenhouse gas reduction and energy
independence goals. Reducing the number of miles we drive must
be a part of the solution.
End of quote.
I happen to believe she is right. In a typical household,
one driver switching to public transportation, we are told,
could reduce the family's annual carbon footprint by 8 percent.
And as Administrator Jackson added, there is no need to wait
for technological breakthroughs in this area to reduce the
amount of driving we do. Technology to help people drive less
exists today. It is called smart growth.
Investing in public transportation as part of a focus on
sustainable development isn't just part of the solution to the
climate crisis. It cuts down on traffic congestion, and being
from a small State like Connecticut with a lot of congestion, I
know a little bit about traffic congestion, as does my
colleague from New Jersey. We hear about it and have heard
about it for years.
Public transportation saves families money and time, as
well. When we combine it with smart land use policy, we can
better protect our farmlands and green spaces, and when we
combine it with a commitment to build more housing near job
centers, we can better connect people with good jobs and
economic stability.
For instance, in my State, Connecticut is in serious need
of more and better transit options. I have long been an
advocate of the so-called Tri-City Corridor between New Haven
and Springfield, Massachusetts, that will create new transit
villages, get people off our roads, and revitalize our regional
economy. We will accomplish this by initiating new commuter
rail service and 110-mile-per-hour intercity train service
between New Haven and Springfield, with direct connections to
New York City and eventually Boston. This project is one of my
to priorities and I am going to work with leaders in the State
as well as Secretary LaHood to try and get this done.
But we need to do more than simply fund public
transportation. We need to rethink the way we approach it as a
matter of Federal policy. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter
to President Obama urging him to establish better coordination
between Federal authorities responsible for transportation,
housing, energy, and environmental policy. I was very excited
to hear when the President last month--Administrator Jackson
was joined by Secretaries LaHood and Donovan to discuss the
administration's commitment, not just to sustainable
development, but to a more holistic approach as these agencies
work together to help our communities grow in a sustainable way
in the 21st century.
I think that kind of coordination which is now going on at
the White House will help us really develop these kind of
sustainable development ideas in a holistic fashion that will
bring these respective agencies together in a way that will
allow us to address these matters in a far more comprehensive
way than the sort of stovepiping that we have done in the past,
where agencies and their agendas go off without a lot of
thought given to the others and how they all interconnect in a
very constructive and positive way to achieve these common and
multiple goals that we have, but are unattainable if left
simply on their own to try to achieve. They really do depend on
each other if you are going to bring them together in a
comprehensive, thoughtful manner.
With that, let me thank Bob Menendez again for doing this,
and my apologies to the witnesses. I am deeply sorry to all of
you, I am not going to be here to listen to your comments and
thoughts this morning, but I am very grateful to all of you for
your willingness to step up and deal with this.
I have expressed my concerns about this announcement about
an 18-month delay I know we are talking about in dealing with
these issues. I had hoped that would not be the case, candidly,
but there is a lot on the agenda, obviously, to deal with. But
this is a critical issue and my hope is that we can move some
of these ideas along without necessarily having to wait. This
Committee doesn't have to wait for 18 months. We can begin to
do an awful lot here in this Committee to highlight the
interest and the concerns about these matters and be prepared
to take advantage of the moment when it arrives to move forward
with a more thoughtful, comprehensive, and progressive and 21st
century ideas for transit.
I thank all of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your leadership in this regard. I have been in those
meetings with you and you have made some forceful arguments for
a longer-term extension, a full 6-year extension--renewal, I
should say, reauthorization--as well as your advocacy on
transit has been fantastic, so thank you very much.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thanks for joining us.
So now we would like to hear from our witnesses. Let me
introduce you all first, and then we will start your testimony.
Michael Replogle is the Global Policy Director at the
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, a New
York-based nonprofit group he founded in 1985. As the leading
global expert on transportation and the environment, he is a
resource and has frequently testified before Congress and State
legislatures on transportation policy, finance, pricing, and
planning. Both the ITDP and the Environmental Defense Fund have
been active in seeking practical solutions to environmental
challenges, and we welcome you.
Clinton Andrews is a Professor of Urban Planning and Policy
Development at the Rutgers University, Edward J. Bloustein
School of Planning and Public Policy in New Brunswick, New
Jersey. His research seeks to improve both the process and the
substance of environmental decisionmaking. Much of his recent
work addresses the link challenges of global warming, energy
sector reform, and improving the built environment, spanning
transportation, settlement patterns, and buildings. Rutgers has
launched initiatives in transportation, energy, and green
policy, so thank you for joining us.
Mayor Christopher Cabaldon is serving his fifth term as
Mayor, first elected to the West Sacramento City Council in
1996. Being mayor is a labor of love, Mayor, because I did that
for 6 years, and I always respect those who have decided to
become the mayor, the first line of governmental
responsibility. Everybody knows how to get hold of the mayor.
During his tenure as Chair of the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the
six-county Sacramento region, he led the region's historic
blueprint project charting land use strategies and smart growth
for future generations. Mayor Cabaldon is a board member and
Chair of the Yolo County Transportation District and Capital
Corridor Rail Service Board, where he has advocated for
expanded transit service, so we welcome you.
Randal O'Toole is a Cato Institute Senior Fellow working on
urban growth, public land and transportation issues. In
addition to pursuing research on Federal, State, and local
planning laws and land use, he is also an expert on forestry
practices and he has authored numerous articles and books, and
we welcome you.
And Mr. Ernest Tollerson is Director of Policy and Media
Relations for the New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. He joined the Authority as the MTA's Director of
Policy and Media Relations in January of 2007. The MTA is the
country's largest transit agency. It has put together the Blue
Ribbon Commission on Sustainability,\1\ staffed by Mr.
Tollerson, and the Commission completed a report on
sustainability which the MTA is now implementing, and we thank
you for joining us, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on
Sustainability and the MTA is available for viewing in Committe files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, we will hear from all of you. I ask you to keep
your testimony to around 5 minutes. Your full written testimony
as you presented to the Committee will be entered into the
record.
With that, Mr. Replogle, let us start with you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. REPLOGLE, GLOBAL POLICY DIRECTOR AND
FOUNDER, INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY,
AND POLICY AND STRATEGY CONSULTANT, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Replogle. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the chance
to testify on behalf of ITDP and Environmental Defense Fund,
representing 700,000 members.
We urge you to boost funding and planning requirements for
public transportation and other greenhouse gas-reducing
transportation initiatives as part of the climate bill that the
Senate is considering. The Clean-T bill proposal, S. 575, would
appropriately set aside 10 percent of greenhouse gas auction
revenues for this purpose, providing a valuable framework to
help ensure progress in planning and implementing transit as a
core climate solution.
Curbing U.S. transportation emissions is vital to effective
climate policy. Transportation accounts for 28 percent of U.S.
greenhouse emissions and accounts for 47 percent of the net
increase in greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2003. The
contribution to global warming of the U.S. transportation
sector is larger than any nation's entire economy, with the
exception of China. To avert the worst impacts of global
warming, we must substantially cut America's transportation
greenhouse gases.
We strongly support a national cap on greenhouse gases as a
cost-effective framework for climate action. But in
transportation, complementary policies are needed to boost
vehicle efficiency, reduce carbon fuel intensity, improve
system operations, and damp the growth of vehicle miles
traveled.
While Congress and the administration have recently taken
action to require more fuel-efficient vehicles and encourage
lower-carbon fuel, this leaves unaddressed key opportunities
for highly cost-effective reductions in transportation
greenhouse gases through smart transportation investment and
system management.
Transportation greenhouse gas growth stems mainly from
increased vehicle use, which will again double by 2030, barring
changes in policy. This threatens to counter the greenhouse gas
benefits of new CAFE standards and fuel requirements. Effective
climate protection requires Federal action to expand efficient
transportation options with requirements that transportation
plans and programs achieve climate protection goals, with
funding tied to performance.
Personal vehicle travel is among the least efficient of
passenger modes and makes up 62 percent of transportation
greenhouse gases. Policies to expand and improve transit, rail,
walking, biking, and ride sharing are crucial to achieving
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. If U.S.
transit use tripled by 2020, annual transportation greenhouse
gas emissions would fall by 142 million metric tons, an 8-
percent drop.
The potential for transit to cut greenhouse gases can be
multiplied four times or more when integrated with the
effective development patterns of livable communities, which
expand travel options and allow families to live closer to
their daily needs. This cuts emissions by shortening or
eliminating motor vehicle trips.
The 2008 Growing Cooler study found that best practice
transportation and livable community policies together can
reduce transportation greenhouse gases up to 38 percent. Such
investments also create more middle-class jobs per dollar of
spending than expanding roads and cut consumer transportation,
health costs, and infrastructure costs.
A new report by the Center for Clean Air Policy showed how
investing in greenhouse gas reductions through transportation
and livable communities strategies can reduce the cost of
meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals, yielding net negative
costs per ton. But in order to value these, we need to
recognize the co-benefits that transportation investments
produce in reducing health costs, reducing vehicle operating
costs, and the like.
A recent EDF report shows how urban, suburban, exurban, and
rural communities are investing in innovative cost-effective
transit to boost mobility and cut emissions using streetcars,
vanpools, and bus rapid transit. A recent study done by ITDP
and EDF together for Mexico City showed how a bus rapid transit
system there that is being developed as we speak will cut
greenhouse gases by six million metric tons by 2012. Similar
opportunities exist throughout the Americas, in Asia, and
Africa.
To conclude, if we are to ensure transit and transportation
policies contribute their full potential to cost-effective,
timely greenhouse gas reduction, Congress should restructure
transportation funding programs into performance-driven system
preservation and competitive capacity expansion programs, as
recently recommended by the bipartisan Transportation
Commission and Transportation For America.
Two, Congress should lower regulatory and procedural
barriers to expansion and improvement of transit systems,
speeding the process of delivering and financing well-designed
transit projects while encouraging innovation in transit system
design and operations planning, such as bus rapid transit and
paratransit.
Three, Congress should ensure that transportation plans and
programs contribute proportionally with other sectors to meet
greenhouse gas goals by tying funding to performance, ensuring
modal and operational alternatives that advance timely
achievement of national goals are considered in the planning
process, and allocating a portion of climate revenues to plan
and implement greenhouse gas-reducing transportation plans.
Four, Congress should support initiatives for livable
communities, such as the partnership being formed by the Obama
administration, as well as forthcoming legislation on this
being promoted in this Committee.
And finally, Congress should ensure U.S. foreign assistance
and trade promotion programs, carbon finance incentives, and
climate negotiation policies give attention to boosting
greenhouse gas efficient transportation and urban development.
Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Professor Andrews?
STATEMENT OF CLINTON J. ANDREWS, PROFESSOR, URBAN PLANNING AND
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, BLOUSTEIN SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND
PUBLIC POLICY, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Andrews. Good morning, Chairman Menendez and Senator
Warner and other interested parties here. Thanks for inviting
me to testify today.
What I want to do is make three points in the next few
minutes. The first is that the problem of global warming is
large enough that it requires sustained efforts on multiple
fronts and transit is definitely one of those fronts.
The second point I want to make is that to be cost
effective, transit projects should be tailored to local
conditions, settlement patterns, and unmet demands.
And the final point that I want to make is that there are
many additional reasons to enhance the viability of the transit
option in the nation's transportation system beyond its
greenhouse gas reduction benefits.
I want to elaborate on the first two of those points a
little bit. First, there are really three main types of
greenhouse gas emission reduction options. The first is using
energy much more efficiently or more frugally. The second is
switching to low-carbon and no-carbon energy sources. And the
third is sequestering carbon in natural sinks, such as trees
and soil, or by means of geoengineering techniques.
In transportation, we can achieve energy efficiency by
increasing miles per gallon, of course, or by reducing vehicle
miles traveled by changing settlement patterns, altering the
structure of travel demand, such as with telecommuting, or
shifting to other modes, including transit and biking and
walking. None of these options can do the whole job, and hence
there is a need for a multi-pronged approach to the problem.
The appropriate analogy, I think, is to a portfolio of
investments in which the Nation balances risks and returns
overall by choosing a diverse mix of solutions with
complementary strengths and weaknesses. For the transportation
sector, this boils down to pursuing higher miles per gallon and
lower carbon emissions per gallon, biofuels and electric
vehicles, private vehicles and public transit, smarter long-
distance networks and more walkable neighborhoods.
While it is tempting to demand a marginal analysis that
asks what single choice is most cost effective, there really is
no universal answer to that question that applies nationwide
and for all time. So it is appropriate to delegate some--not
all, but some of these decisions to the States and the MPOs and
to the marketplace.
States and MPOs in particular can play key roles in
decarbonizing the U.S. transportation sector by developing
locally appropriate portfolios of solutions. It is only in the
context of specific timeframes, settlement patterns,
transportation networks, and natural resource endowments that
one can identify which solutions are the most cost effective.
In the short run, local and regional transportation
planners must work with the settlement patterns they have.
Empty buses and trains are not greenhouse gas efficient or cost
effective. In the longer run, the problems of low ridership
often disappear and transit investments can actually catalyze
growth based on the experience to date with transit-oriented
development, such as we have seen along the Hudson-Bergen Light
Rail Line that the Senator mentioned.
A hard-nosed policy, however, would more often build
transit in response to demand rather than ahead of it. This
suggests that the marginal transit dollar should be aimed at
existing and obvious capacity constraints, such as the needed
additional rail tunnel under the Hudson River connecting New
Jersey and New York.
In sum, transit serves as a core climate change solution.
However, the specific type of transit and appropriate level of
investment varies by locality, implying that more
decisionmaking authority over the allocation of funds among
modes should devolve to the regional planning agencies. Each
such agency should be expected to create and follow a
greenhouse gas action plan that guides investment priorities in
a way that reflects national greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets, regional network needs, local land use patterns, and
adaptation requirements, because we are already experiencing
the impacts of climate change on our networks.
So to conclude, as the Senate prepares to address the
problem of global warming and as it considers how to finance
the nation's future transportation infrastructure needs, I urge
you to keep transit in mind. Transit brings multiple benefits
and deserves greater support than it currently receives.
Transit can cost effectively help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, provided the projects are tailored to local
conditions and land uses. The Federal Government should direct
regional transportation planning agencies to do greenhouse gas
action planning for transportation, and within that transit
that pursues both mitigation and adaptation objectives. And
finally, I believe that the funding should follow the planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mayor?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CABALDON, MAYOR, CITY OF WEST
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, AND TRANSPORTATION VICE CHAIR,
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Cabaldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Menendez. Do you want to turn your microphone on?
Mr. Cabaldon. The ``talk'' button? We don't have ``talk''
buttons in California, but thank you. Thanks for the
opportunity to be here and for your leadership on this issue.
The Sacramento region is a region of about 2.3 million
people, and although we are way out in California, we look a
lot like America in terms of our urban, suburban, exurban, and
rural distribution. Most of our region is rural and our Board
of Directors for the region is split exactly evenly among the
two political parties plus five people who will not tell us
what their partisan affiliation is.
In 2002, we adopted a regional transportation plan for the
next 20 years' worth of investments, and as a former mayor and
as a former Governor, you know the kinds of demands that we
faced. Business interests wanted to put all of our money into
roads and bridges. Environmental groups said, put it all into
transit, 100 percent of your money. Neighborhood groups said,
put it all into sidewalks and bike lanes.
We decided to call their bluff and model those ideas in the
extreme and said, what would our region look like if we put 100
percent of the next $30 billion in our region into just
transit, or into just roads, or into just bike lanes and
sidewalks, and we suspected that we would get wildly different
performance outcomes on air quality and congestion and all the
other things that matter for quality of life.
But here is the big lesson, number one, that we learned.
Those extreme investment strategies produced exactly the same
outcomes. The differences on air pollution and on congestion
were in the second to third decimal point between those
different strategies. And it was a big eye opener, and we
thought, why is that? How could that be? How could you have
such radically different investment strategies and not produce
significantly different outcomes? The answer is that
transportation investments have to be tightly coupled with
other policies, and in particular, policies related to land
use, which we had not done.
So we adopted that plan 7 years ago and we said, we will do
the best we can. We will put a lot more money into transit,
into bike lanes, but we need to do something about land use.
And so we spent the next several years adopting and preparing
what is called in our region the Blueprint,\2\ which is a
regional land use plan that enacts exactly the sorts of
strategies that have been described here so far, and we adopted
it and converted it into a transportation plan in 2008 based on
that epiphany. It was a groundbreaking 50-year growth strategy
for the whole region that incorporated a regional land use plan
in addition to a regional transportation strategy that invested
in exactly that land use distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Blueprint Transportation Land Use Study Special Report is
available for viewing in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the political differences in the region and all
those various interests, it was adopted unanimously and was
universally acclaimed by business and the environmentalists,
the social justice advocates, the newspapers, everyone else. It
was a big deal and fundamentally transformed the way that the
State of California is addressing its own approach to
greenhouse gas emissions by looking at land use and at transit.
So in doing that, we learned big lesson number two, which
was that the four key policy outcomes that we were interested
in--greenhouse gas reductions, urban revitalization, preserving
farmland by reducing the demand for exurban sprawl, and
transportation mobility--could only be achieved at the regional
scale together. We couldn't tackle them as one-off strategies,
one at a time. And public transit is the key linchpin for all
of those to work together.
So we adopted a new land use and transportation strategy,
as I said, in 2008 that focuses a lot more growth into transit
corridors, through transit-oriented development, but widespread
changes in the way that we zone and do our general plans
locally, and substantially increased our local investments and
regional investments in transit, and that produces big changes
in outcomes. Transit trips grow in our plan at more than twice
the growth in population, and the growth rate for commute
transit trips is about four times the population growth. That
may not seem like very much, because transit trips account for
a small amount, but even a 1-percent increase in transit trips
produces a 10-percent reduction in congestion and significant
improvements in both air pollution and in greenhouse gas
emissions.
So we are projecting and experiencing overall improvements
in transit ridership, but also in transit productivity as we
make use of the existing system that is already there in
addition to adding additional ones.
So what we are achieving here is an absolute decline in
greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled per capita.
That is an outcome, a performance outcome that very few regions
in the Nation have been able to achieve, but it is based on the
tight marriage between land use and transportation and breaking
the chains that have constrained us everywhere else.
It also provides a big benefit for auto drivers. This is
not just about providing additional services for bus riders.
This reduces congestion and it makes it possible for the auto
riders to make more efficient use of the system that exists as
it is.
This year, we have ramped it up even further based on our
State's commitment to much more severe greenhouse gas targets,
and so we have achieved even greater reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions and in transit ridership and in urban
revitalization and reducing the pressure on farmland growth.
That has also led us to big lesson number 3, which is that
transit investments have to happen early. They have to precede
growth and development for them to work, that businesses and
residents develop non-transit-based patterns even if you
develop land use plans that are oriented toward transit.
If you don't have the transit, people get used to cars.
They demand at City Council meetings that you start building
more parking lots. The changes that you want to achieve cannot
be done by building the transit afterwards if you want the land
use and sustainability outcomes to work. And we think citizens
support that.
Last November, as it was clear that we were in the depths
of a major economic crisis, voters in my own city adopted a new
sales tax just for a new streetcar system, and we have done
that in places throughout California. And we are experiencing
substantial increases in transit ridership throughout the
State.
So it is important that the Federal Government provide not
just financial support, but also the policy context that allows
us to move forward at the local and regional scales to achieve
this. The House bill, as you mentioned, starts to address this.
There is a good start in Section 222 of the House bill in
looking at issues around land use and transit, but it is only a
start and we would encourage you to move even further in
aligning infrastructure and transportation planning and
investments with greenhouse gas reduction goals and dealing
with the substantial bureaucratic and red tape issues that have
to do with constraining us in our ability to deliver the
transit projects, as Michael mentioned at the beginning,
because it is not just about adding more buses. Transit is not
a one-size-fits-all, everybody get on the bus kind of solution.
It is about rail and streetcars and neighborhood shuttles and
vans. It is a wide range of solutions for a wide range of the
market.
Now, this is not about the government and the region saying
to our residents that we want you to change your behavior, that
we are going to, as planners, decide for the region what
everyone is going to do, how they are going to live, work, and
get around. What we have discovered in the development of this
blueprint through both polling, focus groups, lots and lots and
lots and lots of regional workshops, and looking at market
data, is what we are doing is allowing the market to express
what is already there in terms of demand, that home buyers and
businesses want exactly this pattern of development that can
only be achieved by transit, but our existing investment
strategy essentially precludes it because we don't allow
ourselves and we don't rebuild the infrastructure for that
market demand to be realized.
And so it is our job at the local, regional, and Federal
level to change our policies and investment strategies to allow
the choices that individuals and folks in the market want to
make to be realized.
So we very much appreciate the Committee's interest in
these issues. We are firmly committed to doing our part at the
regional scale and look forward to working with you to assure
that the climate bill and the transportation reauthorization
help us to achieve that. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. O'Toole?
STATEMENT OF RANDAL O'TOOLE, SENIOR FELLOW,
THE CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I work for
the Cato Institute, which is here in Washington, D.C., I
actually live in Central Oregon. I grew up in Portland. I am a
native Oregonian. I love trains. I bicycle thousands of miles a
year. I have never commuted to work by car.
And yet when I look at the question of transit and climate
change, I have serious questions about whether transit can play
a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for two
reasons. We have 40 years of experience of trying to get people
out of their cars by spending more money on transit. Since
1970, this country has spent more than three-quarters of a
trillion dollars subsidizing transit. Those subsidies have
massively increased over that time.
The operating subsidies have increased by more than 1,200
percent in that time in real dollars, adjusted for inflation,
and yet transit ridership has grown by only 45 percent. That
has not even kept up with the population growth of our urban
areas. Per capita, urban transit ridership has significantly
declined in the last 40 years. Driving has significantly
increased on a per capita basis. And so 40 years ago, 4 percent
of all urban travel was by transit. Today, it is 1.6 percent.
That decline is in spite or, or maybe because of, the huge
government investments we have spent on transit.
In my own home town of Portland, Oregon--my former home
town of Portland, Oregon--transit and smart growth have proven
to be a failure when you sit down and look at the actual
numbers. Between 2000 and 2007, the Portland urban area gained
more than 70,000 new jobs. Virtually every single one of those
new commuters drives to work, and transit actually lost
commuters. Fewer people take transit to work today than took
transit to work in 2000.
That is true in downtown Portland, as well. A 100 percent
survey of downtown employers has found that the number of
people commuting to downtown Portland has actually declined
since 2001. And since two out of three transit commuters in
Portland are downtown Portland commuters, that is one of the
main reasons why transit is failing in Portland. So everything
you hear about transit in Portland, you have to look at the
actual numbers to find out whether it is actually true.
Now, the second reason why I am suspicious about whether
transit is a core climate solution is because transit itself
consumes massive amounts of energy and emits enormous amounts
of greenhouse gases. With all due respect to the honorable
Mayor here, transit in Sacramento produces, on average, as much
greenhouse gas emissions as the average SUV and consumes far
more energy than the average SUV, and that is true in almost
every city, every urban area in the country.
Moreover, data show, which you can see in Figure 3 on page
48 of my testimony, data show that energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions of automobiles has been actually
declining, whereas the energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions per passenger mile for transit have been increasing.
These trends are likely to continue if the Obama--if the auto
manufacturers are able to meet Obama's fuel economy targets and
then fail to increase energy efficiencies any further after
2016, by 2025, the average car on the road today will be
consuming less energy and emitting less greenhouse gases than
any transit system in America. So unless transit finds a way to
make itself far more energy efficient and far more greenhouse
gas friendly, transit is going to be the culprit, not the
savior, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The trends are that transit is getting worse, and transit
is very slow to change. If you build a rail line, you are stuck
with that technology for at least three to four decades before
you can make any changes, whereas the automobile fleet turns
over about every 18 years, so it can rapidly change.
Now, it is interesting to compare public transit with
private buses. Today, public buses are among the worst
offenders in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions on
a per passenger mile basis. They do far worse in energy
consumption and are about equal to SUVs on greenhouse gas
emissions. However, private buses, including private intercity
buses, are among the most energy efficient and most greenhouse
gas friendly modes of transportation around.
Today, at least 14 different bus companies together carry
more passengers and more passenger miles between Boston and
Washington than Amtrak does and does so at less than half the
energy consumption and less than half the greenhouse gas
emissions than Amtrak uses in the Boston-to-Washington
corridor. Those private companies have an incentive to fill the
seats. Public transit agencies that get three-fourths of their
money out of tax dollars and only one-fourth from fares have
incentives to build urban monuments, not to fill the seats.
And so we see our public transit systems running, on
average, one-sixth full. Five out of six seats or standing room
on transit buses or transit vehicles are empty, on average,
over the course of any day, any weekday of the year. So we need
to radically revise transit if transit is to become more energy
efficient, if transit is to meet its own greenhouse gas
targets, and I don't think even with such radical revisions are
we going to significantly impact the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions coming from automobiles because we are not going to
be able to significantly get people out of their cars.
Instead, what we need to do is what we did with toxic air
pollution. We need to make cars more energy efficient. We need
to make cars more climate friendly. There are many ways that we
can do this, very low-cost techniques such as traffic signal
coordination that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
cars, and there are techniques on the horizon for significantly
reducing congestion at a very low cost using our existing
infrastructure. And I think those are the things we need to
look at, not trying to change people's behavior in ways that
they don't want to change.
Thank you very much.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. Tollerson?
STATEMENT OF ERNEST TOLLERSON, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND MEDIA
RELATIONS, NEW YORK STATE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Mr. Tollerson. Good morning, Chairman Menendez. Thank you
very much, and Senator Warner. Thanks again for the opportunity
to testify today on the major role transit networks in
metropolitan areas throughout the United States can play in
reducing carbon dioxide emissions and shrinking the carbon
footprint of our cities and metropolitan regions, as you all
know, home to 65 percent of Americans and the source of 75
percent of the nation's GDP.
First, just a brief word about the MTA. The MTA network is
one of the world's largest. We provide 8.5 million subway, bus,
and commuter rail rides daily, or 2.7 billion rides each year,
accounting for nearly one-third of all transit riders in the
nation. The MTA also operates seven bridges and two tunnels
that carry nearly 300 million vehicles a year.
Now, we all know that there is no silver bullet that will
enable the Nation to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050.
We need an integrated strategy and set of tools, including
renewable sources of energy, the right breakthroughs in battery
technology, and a smart grid. Transit ought to be a major part
of a comprehensive strategy.
The climate legislation the Senate is drafting offers an
opportunity to fund transit networks in a way that will unlock
our carbon cutting potential. Unlocking it will yield more
transit, greener transit, and most important of all, greener
communities, places where the amount of carbon it takes to
live, work, and enjoy life is dramatically lower than it is
today.
As a sector, we are reaching the point where we can
accurately score the climate-stabilization benefits of transit
through mode shift, getting people from cars onto transit,
transit's role in minimizing congestion, and then the most
powerful source of carbon reduction, the integration of transit
and green density, both residential and commercial, around
transit stations, which as we know reduces trip length and
frequency while encouraging walking and biking.
The MTA's carbon footprint totaled 2.7 million metric tons
of greenhouse gas emissions in 2008. However, the greenhouse
gas emissions the MTA generates are offset many times over by
the carbon emissions the MTA helps avoid by getting people out
of cars and, again, onto subways, buses, commuter rail, bus
rapid transit. For every metric ton of carbon an MTA service
emits, the MTA helps avoid more than 8.24 metric tons of
greenhouse gases, which is a weighted average for the MTA's
5,000-square-mile region. Put another way, the MTA's 2008
carbon footprint resulted in a net reduction of nearly 20
million metric tons. That is the equivalent of the carbon
stored annually by a healthy forest of 7.7 million acres.
Now, transit's full climate stabilization benefits will
only be unlocked if the new investment in upgrading transit
infrastructure and expanding transit networks also encourages
the clustering of green commercial and residential development
around transit. Transit-oriented development offers much more
than new housing and lifestyle choices. TOD makes it easy to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas produced by the way you
life, shop, and you pursue leisure activities.
Throughout the United States, upgrading transit and
expanding transit is already creating green density in places
many of you represent. It is visible in thousands of housing
units developed around the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line in New
Jersey, in your neck of the woods, Mr. Chairman, the explosion
in residential development around the Metro North Station in
Yonkers in the MTA's region, and in places like the Euclid
Avenue Corridor project in Cleveland, where a $168 million
public investment attracted billions in private investment.
The revised Waxman-Markey bill allocates 1 percent of the
value of allowances to transit networks. In light of the
carbon-cutting potential of U.S. transit agencies, especially
transit's potential to give people the option of living in
communities with fewer cars per household and lower auto usage,
the MTA and other transit agencies believe that allocating a
larger share of allowances to transit would enable the Nation
to accelerate its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
Within the MTA, we suggest that Congress invest 7.5 percent
of allowances in transit, with 5 percent to increase access and
expand transit networks, including the following services: New
lines, line extensions, feeder and distributor services, all of
which foster transit-oriented development; signal upgrades that
boost the frequency of service; new green fleets; LEED
standards for stations, bus depots, and rail yards.
We also suggest that you allocate 2.5 percent to green and
improve the carbon efficiency of existing transit
infrastructure. That involves smart fleet projects,
lightweighting rolling stock, regenerative braking, onboard
power, wayside power, and again, green station renovation.
This call for allocating 7.5 percent of allowances to
transit is consistent with the American Public Transportation
Association's call for a minimum of 10 percent of allowances
for transit and other strategies to reduce VMT.
Every day, America's transit networks bring about major
greenhouse gas reductions the old-fashioned way, through mode
shift and reducing congestion. With the appropriate provisions
in your climate bill, you can advance the nation's greenhouse
gas reduction goals by, first, again, expanding transit's
capacity to get people out of cars and onto transit, and
upgrading existing transit lines and expanding transit networks
so that transit can transform our cities and metro regions into
communities with low-carbon lifestyles and low-carbon places to
work.
This solution set can be deployed now, not in 5 years or in
10 years. In short, your bill can unlock transit's potential to
green the way we live, work, and enjoy life and communities
throughout the nation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
Senator Menendez. Thank you all very much for your
testimony.
We will start a round of questions, and since there are
only two of us, at least at this point, we will be a little
flexible in that process. If more join, then we will go back to
regular order.
Let me say that I would be remiss if I ignored Mr.
O'Toole's views that, in fact, we are wasting our money in
transit, at least certainly as we have it devised now. I don't
say that I join that view, I hear it. What would the rest of
the panel say? Is there a divergence here? I don't want it to
just be silent at the end of the day. Yes?
Mr. Replogle. With all due respect to Mr. O'Toole, I think
the analysis that he brings comes out of a sort of very narrow
perspective on statistical division of one set of numbers by
another set of numbers, looking quite narrowly at taking
vehicle miles of travel by different vehicles and dividing by
energy use to calculate the impact on greenhouse emissions
when, in fact, the proper way to evaluate the question of the
impacts of transit on greenhouse gas is to look at its impact
on how the system operates.
If we think only of what happens when transit goes on
strike in a major city like New York or Chicago and disappears
for the day, we witness how traffic congestion gets much worse,
the economy shrinks, a host of other problems occur. And if
that were to persist in the long run, in fact, we would not be
able to sustain our metropolitan economies as we do. Transit is
indeed the foundation that underpins our ability to organize
cities efficiently so that people can live and work and play in
close proximity to each other without having to be dependent on
a car for every trip, and it enables the clustering of those
trips in ways that don't force us to provide a parking space
for every trip end so that we can have the kinds of places that
we enjoy most as human beings, where the things that draw us to
cities aren't parking lots but, in fact, the intense array of
activities that enable us to be close to each other in
community and in economic relationships. That is what is
supported by transit.
Transit also enables us to have a lot more shared walls
between buildings so that we see typically 30 or 40 percent
higher overall building energy efficiency and 30 or 40 percent
lower utility costs for dense mixed-use activity centers
compared to auto-dependent sprawl neighborhoods. We have seen
the market for car-dependent sprawl collapse in the wake of our
current credit crunch and economic downturn. The places where
real estate value is holding up are the places that people can
get to with less dependence on cars because those are the
places that have the best chance to be economically competitive
in the future, a future in which we are likely to face higher
energy costs and a world in which carbon matters.
Senator Menendez. Anyone else? Professor Andrews?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I think I actually agree with Mr.
O'Toole on the importance of filling transit seats. Empty buses
are a disaster. Empty trains are even more of a disaster. I
think we disagree----
Senator Menendez. How about cars that only have one out of
five seats----
Mr. Andrews. Another disaster, I agree. I think I disagree
with him on the characterization of the technologies, though.
There is a dynamic of technological improvement for cars,
absolutely, but it also applies to transit, and there is no
reason not to expect both to be improving over time.
Also, we have demonstrated by creating the highway system
how it is possible to change settlement patterns and transit
becomes the key tool in the long run for trying to change them
again, I think.
And then finally, something we haven't really talked about
much is how important transit is to those who don't have cars
or who are not old enough to have a driver's license or are too
old to have a driver's license. I am always impressed when I go
to places that have good transit with how much happier the kids
are because they can have a little bit of independence to do
things.
Senator Menendez. Mayor?
Mr. Cabaldon. Mr. Chairman, if I might, just Mr. O'Toole's
analysis is not totally inconsistent with what I said at the
beginning with regard to how we did our own regional planning.
We said, what if we did put all of our money into transit? But
what it ignores is that we have been in the last generation
spending more and more money on transit, trying to keep up with
a land use pattern that does not support it, and so each--at
the increment, at the margin, it costs a lot more to have the
bus stop at every little cul-de-sac to get around. So the
relative productivity of that transit dollar has been declining
as a result of not mirroring it with land use.
That is not unique to transit. It is also true with the
road systems that we are building. And so if we were to do the
same analysis, we would find the same performance metrics for
roads, that the relative amount of money that we have been
spending on them has also been declining in its performance and
we are not achieving our goals with respect to mobility or
congestion there, as well.
So it is--I think the lesson isn't that transit doesn't
work, it is that transit in a vacuum without paying attention
to the places that it is intended to serve is not effective
because it does result in either empty buses or super-long
transit trips that make it impossible to achieve both the
greenhouse gas benefits but also the community building
benefits.
Mr. Tollerson. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to Mr. O'Toole's
analysis, I just sort of quickly envisioned New York kind of
grinding to a halt. The economy of the city and the economy of
the region is really based on being able to attract people and
their brainpower and their talent in the private sector and
higher education. Frankly, our buses are full. I would rather
have more full hybrid electric buses on the streets of New York
than everyone sort of think they could buy a Prius and move
around the city, move around a region. It just won't work.
So again, if you are concerned about the economic output of
these sort of major metropolitan areas over the decades ahead
and continue to have cities like New York and Chicago to be
powerhouses for this nation, you are going to have to have a
balanced solution. You are going to have to have a lot of rapid
transit. You just simply can't say everyone can have a Prius or
a plug-in car. Regions will just come to a halt.
Senator Menendez. Mr. O'Toole?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, there has been a lot of talk about land
use patterns. I like to say there are two kinds of cities in
America. There is New York, then there is everywhere else. New
York is one situation where transit does seem to be vital,
although it is not financially sustainable. It requires heavy
subsidies from motorists and it is in a perpetual state of
financial crisis. It does seem to need transit to maintain that
high-density core area.
Other cities are different. Transit is not vital to those
cities. Transit is important to people who don't have access to
the automobile, and I don't have any objections to transit.
What I object to is pouring huge amounts of money into transit
with the thought that we are going to significantly reduce auto
driving.
I don't think changing land use patterns is going to work.
It hasn't worked in my home State of Oregon, where we have been
attempting to change land use patterns for several decades. It
hasn't worked in getting people out of their cars. What it has
done is it has gotten people out of the Portland area. We have
made housing unaffordable in Portland, and so families with
children have moved to Vancouver, Washington. They have moved
to Salem, Oregon. And now they are commuting 50 miles a day
each way instead of five miles a day because that is the only
way they can work in Portland, is to live far outside of
Portland. That is one of the reasons why we end up seeing fewer
people commuting to work by transit and more people commuting
to work by car.
So changing land use patterns, trying to give people
incentives to live in high-density developments is not working
in Portland and I don't think it is going to work anywhere
else.
Right now, 1.6 percent of urban travel is by transit. It is
much higher in New York, but just about everywhere else, it is
lower. That means more than 95 percent is by automobile. If we
want to significantly reduce energy consumption, if we want to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is better to
work on the things that people use the most. It is better to
work on the automobiles and make them more energy efficient and
make them more greenhouse friendly than it would be to try to
get people out of their cars, an effort that we have been
trying to do for the last 40 years and an effort that has
failed.
Senator Menendez. I thank you all for your answers and I
want to turn it over to Senator Warner. Before I do, I just
want to make some observations for the record.
We have spent in the last transportation bill $200 billion
on highways. Now, that is a subsidy. That is a subsidy, but we
don't seem to think of it in that respect.
I look at some of the things that--not the New Yorks, but
the St. Louis Metro Link Light Rail System did a survey. They
found nearly 60 percent of their 14 million riders would be on
the road in their cars if trains weren't running. I look at the
fact that that same survey found that among bus riders, 70
percent said they did not drive or had no car available while
just 17 percent of train riders similarly had no means to
drive.
And on average, most of the seats, if we look at a car, I
hear about transit systems not having every seat filled, but
cars have slightly more than one out of five seats filled
during rush hour. About 21 percent of seats in cars are filled,
according to the Federal Transit Administration, versus more
than 40 percent of seats during transit rides.
So I think we have to have the totality of the picture here
to understand what we are talking about.
With that, Senator Warner?
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. It is a very interesting panel.
I have got a couple of questions. One, I was very
interested in the difference between Professor Andrews and
Mayor Cabaldon on the way you approach the notion of transit.
Professor Andrews is saying sometimes it is better to think
about putting in a system after you have already identified the
choke points, Mayor Cabaldon's point being let us do it more on
the front end in terms of the planning. I would love to hear an
exchange between the two of you on that subject.
And then Mr. Cabaldon, as somebody who was not perhaps as
successful as you with transportation referendums--I still bear
the scars from my effort as Governor back in 2002--I am
interested in your Blueprint plan, and I am a big believer that
you have got to have metrics, and I am just curious whether, as
you kind of laid out your plan, you have got a measurement
based upon job creation or density around transit locations.
Again, I hear Mr. O'Toole's comments. I can cite one other
example that may not be New York, but in Northern Virginia,
because there was a community, not mine, but an adjacent
community. Arlington County planned its development around
transit stops on our Metro and it is, I think, viewed as one of
the more successful examples of high increased density around
transit stops. It sure as heck has not alleviated our traffic
congestion. We still have that and big challenges throughout
Northern Virginia. But it seems to be a case where transit and
planning has worked in terms of job creation. I would be
curious to see, Mr. Cabaldon, whether you have gotten any
questions that way.
But first of all, perhaps the Mayor and Professor Andrews
can go back and forth in terms of your approach on where you
site.
Mr. Andrews. I will give the Mayor the last word. I
basically said there are very good reasons if you don't have
much money to invest in transit that clearly has immediate use,
and that was the analogy to--giving the example of the tunnel
under the Hudson, where we desperately need that capacity. That
won't waste any public dollars or private dollars in the short
run. It will be immediately used to capacity.
But if we are trying to also be thinking about the long
run, and I was using the portfolio analogy before, saying we
need to balance our risks and rewards, then building transit
ahead of demand can help with that slow, decades-, really
generations-long process of changing land use patterns.
The Hudson-Bergen example is somewhere in the middle, where
we very quickly changed settlement patterns in response to the
commitment of having that light rail system. We knew where to
invest, and so we did it quickly. It was a good market. Other
places, it may take longer, so then it becomes a question of
how patient is our capital.
Mr. Cabaldon. If I might comment on that----
Senator Warner. I apologize about mispronouncing your name
earlier, but Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Cabaldon. Thank you. Yes, I don't think there is a
disagreement on this issue. I wish my community had more
transit choke points. We just don't because of the--I am in a
fast-growing region that suburbanized heavily in the 1970s and
1980s and we don't have a lot of the things like the tunnel,
where you look and you say this is obviously a place where you
have a lot of unmet demand and the service is already being
provided.
But we are trying to shape development into the future, and
I think the Portland streetcar example is actually a good
example of this in that--in terms of its ability to shape
development and migration patterns and trip-taking patterns as
people are moving in and in ways that putting a sign up that
says, 20 years from now, a bus system will be here or a light
rail system doesn't do.
And you have to get around when you first move in. And so
it is essential that those choices get adopted immediately. If
you just adopt a general plan that is heavy on density but you
don't provide any means for people to get around, they will
find ways to move and it will often involve an automobile and
the quality of life will deteriorate. So it is just a question
of, as new places are being created, making those investments
early.
Now, we don't just throw transit services up everywhere. I
mean, it has to be part of a very strategic investment strategy
of other resources to make sure that development is actually
going to happen and that people are actually going to be there,
because we don't have a lot of transit dollars to be spending
running empty buses or streetcars or light rail systems. So it
is not as though we just throw it up willy nilly, hoping that
some rider will show up, but as part of a more fully developed,
funded development project, it is really critical that that
development, that the transit system be there at the outset.
Otherwise, other habits get developed.
Senator Warner. Talk to me about how you then weigh in the
job creation component around transit and what kind of metrics
you use to measure that.
Mr. Cabaldon. We have been principally interested, because
we have been such a fast-growth region, we haven't been focused
as much on job creation because we have been very jobs-rich.
Now, that is changing somewhat as it is elsewhere, but it
hasn't been one of the formal metrics. The actual development
of business in the region has been, though, regions around the
transit stops.
And so we are very attentive at the regional and the local
scale to what is actually occurring around these stations,
around the bus stops and other transit facilities, and we don't
provide funding for them unless we know that there is going to
be--you know, there is a development plan that aligns with that
and that there are actual investors ready to make that work.
In addition to money for transit, we also provide money at
the regional scale for housing and other things that all gets
wrapped in this together. So we know that if you are asking to
open up a new light rail station that there is also going to be
money to help support the housing. You also have already signed
up developers. You already have the businesses that are going
to locate nearby before we start deploying the scarce dollars
that are there.
And we are seeing that. I mean, in terms of our--the change
in demand in just the 4 years since we adopted the land use
plan, kind of the Blueprint-oriented housing project, small lot
housing, attached housing with shared walls and what have you
has gone from 20 percent of the market share to 70 percent of
the market share. That is not because planners announced that
we have decided that every member of the public will suddenly
now be forced to buy these products. There was a huge pent-up
demand for exactly this kind of development pattern, and the
employers have followed suit.
For us, attracting the kind of employment that depends--the
creative industries and other things that depend on a more
diverse urban environment than we have had in the Sacramento
region, transit has been a key part of that economic
development strategy in terms of attracting new jobs.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, could I ask another question?
Let me take a different tack than Mr. O'Toole. I would be
anxious to hear your comments on this, as well.
I am intrigued with some of your comments about the growth
of the private company bus competition in the Boston-to-
Washington corridor. Another area that I have had some interest
in for some time as Governor, and we have kind of an
interesting phenomena here, again, in the greater Washington
area, is the use of vanpools, ride shares, and we have a
phenomena that I don't think is completely unique to greater
Washington, but pretty famous, where we have kind of a self-
formed market of what is called ``slug riders'' who form at
park-and-rides and there is kind of an informal system that has
been created where people can come up the 95 corridor kind of
sharing rides together.
We had a hard, hard time, though, really expanding those
ride-share opportunities, or really expanding van markets. And
I have seen--and there is a question--there have been a couple
of companies that are out there that work with private
companies to try to create that, but we have never been able to
seem to get the incentives right. And I would love to hear from
the whole panel, beyond just the idea of a formal State or
metropolitan-driven transit system, this whole concept and kind
of an interim between a formal public system and perhaps Mr.
O'Toole's total free market approach here.
But what are the barriers, or are there some other best
practices that we ought to be thinking about in terms of ride
sharing, vanpooling, and other kinds of in between options,
particularly when you have got not straight single corridors
that so many growing communities don't have. Anybody on the
panel? Please.
Mr. Replogle. Sir, well, I think there are a lot of
opportunities to fill empty seats in both private cars, in
paratransit vehicles, and in buses and trains that we haven't
exploited that we could exploit through principally providing
better information and communication support for the
marketplace. And that information needs to come in two forms.
One is sort of the classic form of simply giving people a more
visible marketplace where they can go and find people to fill
empty seats if they have them to offer, or to find empty seats
if they want to ride. But two, the form of information that
comes in the form of pricing--pricing parking, pricing car
insurance, pricing transit, pricing road access at times of
peak demand.
We are making progress on all of those things. There are
new companies, like NewRide.com, which has been operating in
Northern Virginia in the Washington region, and some other
markets which are helping employers and ordinary travelers find
those empty seats on a dynamic real-time ride-matching basis,
and those can make a difference, but they are competing in a
marketplace in which 90 percent of employers in the suburbs are
offering free parking at the workplace that is often worth $2
or $3 or $4 a day as a subsidy for driving. It is actually
worth more than if your employer paid for your gasoline to go
to work.
And that comes also in a marketplace in which our car
insurance payments are distorted by fixed-price insurance
pricing, where you buy a policy for a 6-month period that
doesn't really matter much if you drive 3,000 miles or 30,000
miles in that 6-month or year period. You are going to pay
about the same for your car insurance.
Now, there are some companies coming into the market like
Progressive----
Senator Warner. I am familiar with that company.
Mr. Replogle.----like MileMeter in Texas. Progressive is
now in eight or nine States, GMAC insurance in about 19 States,
offering mileage-based car insurance, where you pay by the
mile. And that actually translates into an opportunity for
consumers to put money back in their wallet if they drive fewer
miles, if they chain their trips together, if they share a ride
or take the bus to go to work rather than drive. They get to
save on their car insurance, and that savings on car insurance
is worth like eight cents a mile. It is about the equivalent in
terms of affecting behavior that you get from a $1-a-gallon
increase in the price of gasoline.
And yet it comes in a way that this pay-as-you-drive
insurance--Brookings did a study last summer showing that two-
thirds of households would save money under a pay-as-you-drive
insurance system, with the average of those households saving
about $270 per vehicle per year, and disproportionate savings
going to low- and moderate-income people who tend to drive less
than the higher-income people.
So we need to get a number of these pieces of information
right and we need to also be looking for new opportunities. I
think Randal O'Toole is right in saying that there are some
real opportunities in the market that public-subsidized transit
often displaces and bars from happening, and we need to be
looking at ways of reallocating street space for things like
bus rapid transit, so we don't have to spend as much money by
building a subway but instead can manage that transit service
with a subway-like quality of service, with bus lanes, with
stations, but at a tenth the cost of building a new underground
rail line. So there are a lot of ways we can do this.
Mr. O'Toole. Can I respond to this question?
Senator Warner. Please.
Mr. O'Toole. There are at least three transit systems in
this country that are entirely private and entirely
unsubsidized. One is the New York Waterway System, Arthur
Imperatore's system between New Jersey and Manhattan. One is
the Atlantic City jitney system. And one is the Publico System
in Puerto Rico. These systems are owned by their operators, in
the case of Atlantic City and Puerto Rico. The buses are
generally standardized. They follow fixed or variable routes
and they charge a fare and the fares cover all of the costs. It
is sort of like a shared taxi system, especially in San Juan.
And there is no reason why we can't have those kinds of
systems in other cities except, first of all, it is illegal. If
I were to try to start a jitney or a shared taxi system in most
cities in America, I would not be allowed to do so because the
taxi industry and the transit industry have successfully passed
laws preventing any competition. Even if it was legal, I would
be competing against a heavily funded, heavily subsidized
transit system which would make it very hard for me to compete.
I know somebody tried to start a jitney system in Denver,
Colorado. They were allowed to operate on one route only. They
said if they were allowed to expand onto more routes, that they
would be able to become profitable and they were not allowed to
expand onto other routes and so eventually they went out of
business.
So I think there are opportunities. We need to start
thinking about private transit because private transit has an
incentive to be efficient. We need to take away the barriers
that prevent private transit. And if we are going to subsidize
people because we think transit is good, instead of subsidizing
transit agencies that tend to build urban monuments, maybe we
should give those subsidies to the transit users and let them
decide are they going to use their transit vouchers on a taxi,
are they going to use it on a public transit system, on a
private transit system, on Greyhound, on Amtrak, or on United
Airlines? That kind of a system, I think, will be far superior
to a system where we are spending huge amounts of money and not
getting much in return.
Senator Warner. Others, please?
Mr. Andrews. Two comments. I think there is a clear role
for private operators and an expanded role. It does spring up
naturally in our cities. If I think of Paterson, New Jersey, in
my home State, the immigrant population has created jitney
services on their own and it works great except that there are
safety dangers. And so with the private enterprise comes the
need to regulate for health and safety, and that is something
that has not been consistently done, in my opinion.
The second thing I wanted to raise, and really the
intercity private bus services illustrate this, is that we are
living in a new era where we can get transit and travel
information easily on the cell phone and that is how you find
out where to get the bus and when it is leaving, and that is
something that should be much more prevalent, public and
private. This is a way to make the system smarter and get the
riders to the system.
Senator Warner. Please, Mr. Tollerson?
Mr. Tollerson. First, I would first want to echo what
Michael Replogle was saying. Essentially, in our region, what
people don't have is the information that says, out of 5 days
in going to work, these 3 days I could take some form of rapid
transit. There might be 2 days where you need to drive. But
what they don't have is sort of the all-in costs of those
options in a real-time way and it is something that we are
looking at and trying to provide people. But mainly, it is
people don't think about the all-in cost of insurance,
maintenance costs, and actually where they are going and
whether it makes sense if you are sitting in an office or you
are sort of visiting various sites.
Senator Warner. My last point, and again, thank you for
giving me this time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am very
interested in these ride-sharing approaches. But being
familiar, for example, with New Ride, which we have supported
in Virginia, it is--and there are lots of other competitors
with them--it is tough to find, though, an economically viable
methodology for the company to sustain itself. They have
actually found that in Houston, they have had the best luck
because there is a community down there that supports with, in
effect, incentives to folks to share those rides together.
And again, I share the Chairman's view that we are talking
about massive subsidies when we talk about the cost of building
additional highway capacity, which is extraordinarily
expensive, and so how, whether it is through transit or through
sharing rides we can increase the capacity, increase the
utilization and the capacity we have got, and it seems to me
that ride sharing, vanpooling, and these other options ought to
be a bigger part of the mix. But thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the
line of questioning. There are a lot of interesting things that
came up. One or two observations, one question, and then we
will close the hearing and move on.
You know, on van sharing and ride sharing, I think it is
one of the important things we need to look at. I know that in
New Jersey, Professor Andrews mentioned Paterson, but I can
tell you all along the Hudson River waterfront, even though
there is a light rail system, even though there is trans-Hudson
crossing to the Lincoln and Holland Tunnel and the George
Washington Bridge, that there is a whole universe of vans that
are operating against New Jersey Transit, against New York
Waterway--which, by the way, Mr. O'Toole, is subsidized to a
significant degree. The ferry terminals that were created, I
happened to be the Congressman at the time, and $10 million of
Federal money went to create the ferry terminal. After
September 11, they were subsidized by the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey to have crossings going on in light of the
PATH tunnel being closed to the World Trade Center. So it is a
good system. It is another means of transportation, which is
important, but it is not without subsidy.
And these vans, they basically get an interstate charter
and they get a license and then they are allowed to have all
types of routes. The difficulty is, of course, the safety and
insurance issues. A lot of them go largely unregulated and so
when we have an accident, it is sometimes deadly, and that is
the one thing. But it is another system that is actually
working and largely by blue collar and immigrant communities
that are doing it.
Getting it right is important, but the possibility of
existing alongside transit, taxi, subway, ferries, all exist.
So the competition is there, and yet it flourishes, so it is
possible.
The one thing I would ask is that, or make the observation,
while ride sharing and vanpool options are important as part of
this transportation mix, one of the challenges, however, is
that what it doesn't do, it doesn't change land use patterns in
the way that a transit hub can. And clearly, in that context,
when you join the development issues that the Mayor has talked
about and some of you, as well, what developers are looking at
is is there a fixed point in which there will be an opportunity
for the community that I help develop here have access to a
transit line that will get me to work, pleasure, hospital,
whatever, and I think that that is one of the fundamental
differences.
And Mayor, I would jus like to ask you, it seems to me that
what you have done there in the Sacramento region is not just
an emissions reduction strategy, but it is also a growth
strategy, a smart growth strategy that can also create billions
of dollars in investment. Have you all through the Commission
looked at what are the economic benefits? Senator Warner asked
particularly about jobs, but have you looked at what the
economic benefits have derived from virtue of your planning?
Mr. Cabaldon. We have. I did not bring that with me, but we
have, because it wasn't--you know, we began this process before
the national policy interest in climate change. We didn't start
this because of the greenhouse gases. We started it because we
saw a growth pattern that was not economically or
environmentally sustainable just on its own terms. And so it is
about for us directing growth and economic activity toward
urban revitalization and protecting the rural heritage of the
place. And so we did model all of that.
And when we invited citizens to come in and work on exactly
these issues, they sat down with development and finance tools
to figure out, OK, you want a light rail line to go to your
cul-de-sac. Here is the economics. Here is what would have to
be built around it. And citizens became very, very aware and
engaged about the tight relationship between their
environmental and transportation policies, but also the
economy, and that became critical to building this broad
universal consensus toward it----
Senator Menendez. Is it fair to say--and while you can't
quantify it for me right now, we would love to have that for
the record subsequently--is it fair to say that that type of
policy created very significant investments, drove investments
at the end of the day?
Mr. Cabaldon. Yes.
Senator Menendez. Listening to what you are describing,
clearly, you had to have private capital come in to go ahead
and build around those regions that you created opportunities
for only if that investment is going to exist.
Mr. Cabaldon. Right. That is absolutely correct, and in
large part because there really was a demand in the market by
employers, builders, home buyers, everyone else, that we just
were not acknowledging. We were doing this--we were just
repeating our old plans over and over and over again, not
acknowledging that there were a lot of changes in the economy
that we were not exploiting.
Senator Menendez. My own experiences along the Hudson River
waterfront, what was abandoned railroad yards, toxic and lying
fallow not only because they were toxic, but also their ratable
basis had gone, is that the creation of a light rail system
connecting all of the communities along that to trans-Hudson
crossings created a new generation of rebirth of businesses, of
jobs, of ratable bases, all in a very sustained area for which
a light rail system runs to a trans-Hudson crossing to a ferry
or through PATH into the city of New York and has clearly
reduced the incredible amount of traffic that would have
existed if the development had just been without such a system.
As a matter of fact, probably we would have had to have
significant acquisitions of land in order to provide for the
car services that would have been necessary but for a transit
line.
So I think those are examples of the type of smart growth
that we are talking about, the type of transit-related
opportunities around development, joined with development that
at the end of the day makes it for high ridership, makes it for
less cars, less emissions, more ratables, greater economic
opportunity, and employment. I mean, I think that is the
Committee's vision of how we would like to structure the policy
and the incentives to move in the right direction.
With that, I appreciate your testimony. Seeing no other
members before the Committee to ask any questions, we will
conclude our hearing on Public Transportation and Climate. I
want to thank all of you for participating and helping the
Committee prepare for the upcoming debate.
This record is going to remain open for 1 week to allow
Senators who may have had other obligations the chance to ask
follow-up questions in writing. We ask that if you actually get
any questions submitted to you, and I know that I have several
that I didn't want to belabor the hearing with that I am going
to be sending you, we would love to have your response
promptly.
With that, the hearing is now closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
It is no exaggeration to say that our economy is currently
experiencing extraordinary stress and volatility. As Congress and the
Administration look at corrective policy changes, I am pleased to hold
this hearing today to take a closer look at the role smaller financial
institutions, specifically community banks and credit unions, play in
our economy, especially in many rural communities. Throughout our
nation's economic crisis there has often been too little distinction
made between troubled banks and the many banks that have been
responsible lenders.
There are many community banks and credit unions that did not
contribute to the current crisis--many rural housing markets that
didn't experience the boom that other parts of the country did, and
community lending institutions didn't sell as many exotic loan products
as other lenders sold. Nonetheless, small lending institutions in rural
communities and their customers are feeling the effects of the subprime
mortgage crisis and the subsequent crisis in credit markets. Jobs are
disappearing, ag loans are being called, small businesses can't get the
lines of credit they need to continue operation, and homeowners are
struggling to refinance.
Smaller banks play a crucial role in our economy and in communities
throughout our nation; we need to be mindful that some institutions are
now paying the price for the risky strategies employed by some larger
financial institutions.
In coming weeks, the Banking Committee will continue its review of
the current structure of our financial system and develop legislation
to create the kind of transparency, accountability, and consumer
protection that is now lacking. As this process moves forward, it will
be important to consider the unique needs of smaller financial
institutions and to preserve their viability as we come up with good,
effective regulations that balance consumer protection and allow for
sustainable economic growth.
I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses, and thank them for
their time and for their thoughtful testimony on how small lending
institutions in rural communities have been affected by our troubled
economy. I would also like to thank Senator Kohl for his interest in
today's hearing topic. I will now turn to Senator Crapo, the
Subcommittee's ranking member, for his opening statement.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
Many community banks and credit unions have tried to fill the
lending gap in rural communities caused by the credit crisis. Even with
these efforts, it is apparent that many consumers and businesses are
not receiving the lending they need to refinance their home loan,
extend their business line of credit, or receive capital for new
business opportunities. Today's hearing will assist us in identifying
these obstacles.
As we began to explore options to modernize our financial
regulatory structure, we need to make sure our new structure allows
financial institutions to play an essential role in the U.S. economy by
providing a means for consumers and businesses to save for the future,
to protect and hedge against risk, and promote lending opportunities.
These institutions and the markets in which they act support economic
activity through the intermediation of funds between providers and
users of capital.
One of the more difficult challenges will be to find the right
balance between protecting consumers from abusive products and
practices while promoting responsible lending to spur economic growth
and help get our economy moving again. Although it is clear that more
must be done to protect consumers, it is not clear that bifurcating
consumer protection from the safety and soundness oversight is the best
option. If that is not the best option, what is and why? It is my
intention to explore this topic in more detail with our witnesses.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look forward
to working with him on these and other issues.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. REPLOGLE
Global Policy Director and Founder, Institute for Transportation
and Development Policy, and Policy and Strategy Consultant,
Environmental Defense Fund
July 7, 2009
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important, issues of
transportation and climate change, and the opportunities we have to
reduce greenhouse gasses while enhancing mobility. This Subcommittee
can play a key role in promoting policies to accomplish these shared
goals, while also creating jobs, enhancing housing affordability, and
reducing transportation costs for consumers and governments.
I am presenting testimony today on behalf of the Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF). ITDP is a non-profit group with its headquarters in New
York City that since 1985 has promoted environmentally sustainable and
socially equitable transportation worldwide, working with city
governments and local advocacy groups to implement projects that reduce
poverty, pollution, and oil dependence. EDF is an environmental
organization with over 700,000 members that integrates law, science,
and economics to find practical solutions to environmental problems.
Transportation and Climate Change: A Critical Connection
Reducing emissions in the U.S. transportation sector is integral to
effective climate and energy policy. Currently, 28 percent of total
U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions originate from the transportation
sector, making it the nation's second largest source (Figure 1).\1\
When electricity use is distributed across sectors, transportation
becomes our nation's largest end-use source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2006.
The contribution to global warming of the U.S. transportation
sector is larger than any nation's entire economy, with the exception
of China.\2\ In order to meet and preferably exceed the targets that
scientists are calling for to avoid the worst impacts of global
warming, it is necessary to achieve significant GHG reductions in the
U.S. transportation sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Greene, David L. and Schafer, Andreas. Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From U.S. Transportation. 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has recently taken several important steps to begin
reducing transportation-related GHG. The 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act (H.R. 6) mandated new vehicle efficiency standards of 35
miles per gallon, to be achieved by 2020, and required a 10 percent
reduction in the carbon content of vehicle fuels. In May, President
Obama announced an even more aggressive national vehicle efficiency
standard that will increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States
beginning in 2012. By 2016, U.S. new passenger vehicle efficiency must
average 35.5 mpg (39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks and
SUVs).
Unfortunately, these critical policy tools will not fully address
transportation-related GHG. Out current policy framework guiding the
development of surface transportation infrastructure in the U.S. is not
designed to take into account GHG emissions. Over the past several
decades, while our cars have become more efficient and our fuels have
become cleaner,\3\ transportation-related GHG emissions have continued
to grow.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Transportation Energy Data Book 2008. Table 11.10: Average
Annual Carbon Footprint by Vehicle Classification, 1975 and 2008.
\4\ U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration. Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in recent years
has mostly been the result of increased electric power generation and
transportation fuel use. Other major sectoral emissions sources (i.e.,
direct residential, commercial, and industrial fuel use) have shown
stable or reduced emissions.\5\ Statistics show that this has primarily
been a result of increased use of increased personal vehicle use and
freight trucking activity. Between 1977 and 2001, the U.S. population
increased by 30 percent; driving rates, measured in vehicle-miles
traveled (VMT), grew by 151 percent.\6\ In this same time period,
average trip lengths, trips per capita, and the proportion of drivers
traveling alone all increased to varying degrees.\7\ Freight trucking
has seen a similar increase, with truck ton-miles growing by 56 percent
between1993 and 2002.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
\6\ Polzin, Steven E., Ph.D. The Case for Moderate Growth in
Vehicle Miles of Travel. 2006.
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics: ``Freight Shipments in
America,'' Table 2--Modal Change in Shipment Value, Tonnage, and Ton-
Miles: 1993 and 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driven by these trends, the growth of national VMT is projected to
continue increasing into the foreseeable future, doubling nationwide by
2030, barring changes in policy.\9\ This is due in large part to
limited options for transportation, inefficient land use and
development patterns, and inadequate traffic and road management.\10\
As a result, despite progress on vehicle efficiency, transportation has
for many years been the nation's fastest growing source of U.S. GHG
emissions, accounting for 47 percent of the net increase in total U.S.
emissions between 1990 and 2003.\11\ Though recent economic and
demographic impacts have begun to moderate this growth trend,
transportation remains our second fastest growing source of GHG
emissions.\12\ Growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions has
resulted largely from increases associated with electric power
generation and transportation fuel use. All other energy-related carbon
dioxide emissions (from direct fuel use in the residential, commercial,
and industrial sectors) have been either flat or declining in recent
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Agency (USDOE/
EIA): Annual Energy Outlook, 2007.
\10\ Ewing, Reid, Pendall, Rolf, and Chen, Don. Measuring Sprawl
and It's Impact. 2002.
\11\ U.S. EPA, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/omswww/climate/
index.htm on 6/30/09.
\12\ U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration. Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses of emissions trends in the transportation sector show that
additional GHG emissions from the projected growth in driving will
overwhelm the GHG emissions reductions expected to occur as a result
these policies (Figure 2), unless there are changes in policy. This
will leave overall transportation-sector GHG emissions to 26 percent
greater than 1990 levels in 2030.\13\ Transportation-related emissions
need to be at least 30 percent below 1990 levels to be on a
commensurate path toward the reduction targets necessary to avert the
worst global warming impacts. Congress must enact policies that
moderate the growth of VMT and improve efficient transportation system
management or the transportation-related GHG emissions from increased
CAFE standards and low carbon fuel requirements will be effectively
undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Winkelman, Steve. Center for Clean Air Policy.
In addition to policies such as vehicle efficiency and low-carbon
fuel standards, Congress has spent much time debating the
implementation a cap-and-trade system for reducing GHG across the U.S.
economy. Environmental Defense Fund and ITDP both strongly support
efforts to cap carbon emissions at the Federal level as a necessary
framework for slowing climate change. While a market-based system for
reducing GHG emissions can be a powerful tool for cost-effectively
reducing overall emissions, analysis of travel behavior and price
sensitivity has led many transportation and climate policy experts to
conclude that we should not expect a cap-and-trade policy to bring
about an efficient reduction in transportation-related GHG
emissions.\14\ Complementary transportation policies that make the
operation of existing transportation system more efficient and that
provide Americans with more efficient transportation options are both
needed to accomplish this goal, especially in the long run.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Greene, David L. Ph.D. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, June
2008.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Transit and Climate Change: A Key (and Missing) Solution
Travel by personal vehicle, which makes up the majority of U.S.
travel, is among the least efficient passenger travel modes. As a
result, 62 percent of transportation-related GHG emissions are due to
gasoline consumption in personal vehicles (an additional 19 percent
come from freight trucks).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Transit is a Clean Transportation Solution
Public transportation, on the other hand, is one of our most
efficient modes of passenger travel (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Existing public transportation in the United States is already
making significant contributions toward GHG emissions reduction. In
2005, public transportation reduced CO2 (the main GHG)
emissions by 6.9 million metric tons.\17\ This includes both emissions
reductions from reduced VMT, as well as emissions reductions resulting
from reduced traffic congestion. On average, transit reduces nationwide
CO2 emissions by 37 million metric tons each year. This is
equivalent to the combined household electricity use of New York City,
Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Denver, and Los Angeles.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Davis, Todd and Monica Hale. ``Public Transportation's
Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction.'' SAIC. September 2007.
\18\ The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy
Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reductions, ICF International. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding and improving public transportation options is an
important strategy to build on these achievements and continue reducing
transportation-related GHG. At the local level, this means developing
transit systems such as bus rapid transit, rapid bus service, heavy
rail, light rail, commuter rail, van pools, and flexible paratransit
and bus services. For longer-distance intercity travel, especially for
trips between 50 and 500 miles, passenger rail, such as the service
provided by Amtrak and several State departments of transportation, and
intercity coach buses are energy-efficient options that can help reduce
the GHG emissions of long-distance travel. A key to achieving the
highest energy efficiency is effective utilization of capacity. Largely
empty vehicles are less efficient.
Policies to expand and improve public transportation and other
efficient transportation modes, such as passenger and freight rail, are
critical to reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. There is
great potential for further emission reductions; a single commuter can
reduce their CO2 emissions by on average 20 pounds per day,
or more than 4,800 pounds annually, by commuting on public
transportation instead of driving.\19\ If transit ridership in the U.S.
were to double by 2020, transportation-related GHG emissions would fall
by 83 million metric tons each year. Tripling ridership by 2020 would
cut annual GHG emissions 141.9 million metric tons per year by 2020,
representing an 8 percent reduction in transportation sector
emissions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ American Public Transportation Association calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand for this level of public transportation service is real and
growing. Between 1995 and 2008, growth of public transportation
ridership has grown significantly faster than both highway travel and
population.\21\ Public transportation has also seen significant
innovation and development in recent years, allowing a greater number
and variety of communities across America to offer efficient transit
service for residents. In a recent report titled Reinventing Transit:
American Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation
Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund highlights eleven case studies
that demonstrate this trend. In urban, suburban, exurban, and rural
communities, cutting edge transit technologies and operations have been
implemented cost effectively and quickly, enhancing mobility and
reducing harmful emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ American Public Transportation Association statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As local and State governments continue to innovate and seek to
expand transit service tailored to community needs, the Federal
Government should keep pace to support and encourage them. As Congress
works to reform our surface transportation policy, it should promote
greater transit equity. This means ensuring that State and local
officials can make transportation investments on a level playing field,
including parity in procedural requirements for obtaining Federal
grants as well as equal access to Federal matching funds. Today local
officials seeking to invest in a transit project typically must put up
one dollar of local match for every dollar of Federal funds, while
garnering four dollars of Federal funds for every dollar of local match
if they are seeking to invest in a new or wider road. Today major
transit capacity expansion projects face a much higher set of
regulatory hurdles to win Federal support while highway capacity
expansion projects face much lower regulatory hurdles. As a result,
Federal transportation policy implicitly favors expansion of roads over
expansion of transit, exacerbating GHG emissions growth, since in the
long run added road capacity induces more travel and GHG pollution,
while transit investment increases transportation system GHG
efficiency.
The Connection to Livable Communities
Public transportation is a more efficient mode of travel, but the
potential of public transportation to cut GHG emissions is much greater
than the mere difference in emissions between transit travel and
highway travel on passenger-mile basis. Public transportation
infrastructure also helps facilitate more GHG-efficient land use and
development patterns, which substantially increase the net reduction in
transportation-related GHG emissions over time.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy
Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reductions, ICF International. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to incorporating more transportation options, including
transit, such ``livable communities'' allow families to live closer to
their daily needs such as schools, jobs, shopping, recreation, health
care, and other services. This has a compounding effect on reducing GHG
emissions by reducing the overall amount that people must drive in four
key ways. In addition to allowing people to use efficient public
transportation for some of their travel needs, livable communities also
reduce the length of car trips that are taken, cut down on vehicle-
hours of travel due to less traffic congestion, and eliminate the need
for some motor vehicle trips altogether. For example, according to the
Center for Transit Oriented Development, of Americans who live near
public rail transit, 33 percent regularly use it, and 44 percent also
regularly travel by walking or cycling.
The impact on GHG emissions of transit service paired with the
efficient land use patterns of livable communities has been
conservatively estimated at three to four times the direct effect of
transit service.\23\ As Chairman Dodd and other members of the Banking
Committee have noted in recent hearings, strategies to increase transit
service and foster the growth of more livable communities can help to
reduce transportation-related GHG emissions while enhancing mobility,
affordability, and quality of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major study published in 2008 entitled Growing Cooler: The
Evidence on Urban Development & Climate Change, looked deeper into this
question. This landmark study surveyed decade's worth of data related
to travel behavior and development patterns, and found that
implementing the efficient development strategies that make up livable
communities in a portion of new growth could slow travel growth and
associated GHG emissions by 12-18 percent in metropolitan areas and 10-
14 percent nationally by 2050.\24\ The authors concluded that achieving
this level of reduction is achievable with changes in development
patterns alone, excluding complementary measures such as transportation
pricing or significant expansions of public transit service. In 2030,
such a scenario would yield GHG reductions of 80 million metric tons of
CO2, equal to half the cumulative savings of a 35 mile per
gallon fuel economy standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman, Walters, and Chen. Urban Land
Institute, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study also documents the demographic and market trends that
make this scenario a realistic goal in the next several decades.
Altogether, the results of the study showed that such a package of
complementary policies can have a significant impact on transportation-
related GHG emissions. Given convenient alternatives at reasonable
costs, Americans will take advantage of more efficient travel options
in their communities, choosing to drive less.\25\ Aggregated
nationwide, this could yield a profound reduction in transportation-
sector GHG, making it more likely that America meets economy-wide
reduction targets. The authors calculated a transportation-related GHG
emissions reduction potential of up to 38 percent with a comprehensive
set of transportation and development policies, including the promotion
of livable communities, transit expansion, and slower growth in highway
expansion and pricing measures, not accounting for recent fuel price
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ewing, Reid et al., Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit's Triple Bottom Line: Social and Economic Benefits Beyond
Climate Change
While investments to improve and expand pubic transportation can
yield significant benefits for our climate and environment, they also
produce other benefits to society that should not be ignored. Reducing
GHG emissions through investments in clean transportation and promotion
of livable communities helps create jobs, lower consumer transportation
costs, reduce overall municipal infrastructure costs, and provide local
tax revenue and economic benefits through real estate development.
Job Creation
A 2007 report from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst found
that investment of $1 billion in mass transit produces an average of
19,795 jobs, with an average annual compensation of $44,462.\26\ The
report also found that these jobs are mainly created in the
transportation, professional business and service, and manufacturing
sectors, with the majority providing compensation of between $32,000
and $64,000 annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Pollin and Garrett-Peltier, ``The U.S. Employment Effects of
Military and Domestic Spending Priorities.'' October 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Transportation Costs
Transportation costs are a large part of part of most household
budgets. However, transportation costs are lower for households in more
livable communities with greater access to a variety of transportation
option, including public transportation. Such households can spend less
than 10 percent of their income on transportation, while households in
areas without transportation options beyond auto travel can spend more
than 25 percent.\27\ Moreover, inefficient land use patterns and
development have been shown to increase the cost of housing by 8
percent, or $13,000 per dwelling unit.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Statistics from Housing & Transportation Affordability Index
and Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near
Transit.
\28\ Burchell, R. and S. Mukherji. ``Conventional Development
Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl.'' American Journal of
Public Health . 93 (2003): 1534-1540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Infrastructure Costs
Public infrastructure costs at both the regional and State level
have been found to be substantially lower in development that
demonstrates traits of livability. While spending on some
infrastructure categories may be higher, studies analyzed by the Center
for Clean Air Policy suggest a net overall savings.\29\ In particular,
auto-dependant and inefficient land use and development patterns can
increase water and sewer costs by 6.6 percent and increases local road
costs by 9.2 percent.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Winkelman, Bishins, and Kooshian. Cost-Effective GHG
Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices.
2009.
\30\ Burchell, R. and S. Mukherji. ``Conventional Development
Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl.'' American Journal of
Public Health. 93 (2003): 1534-1540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Economic Development
One estimate by the Center for Transit Oriented Development has
shown that $1 in public transit investment can leverage up to $31 in
private investment. The Center for Clean Air Policy has collected
several examples of local transit investments have borne this trend
out.\31\ For example, Little Rock, Arkansas invested $20 million of
public money to build a local streetcar. This investment leveraged $200
million in private investments. Likewise, the streetcar in Tampa,
Florida cost $60 million in public funds, but it leveraged $1 billion
in private investments. The nation's transit success story in Portland,
Oregon is even more compelling; the city has spent $73 million on
streetcar service, which helped attract $2.3 billion in private
investments within two blocks of the line, a more than 30-fold return
on investment. Further, the city's long-term commitment to transit has
led a local industrial fabricator to begin manufacturing streetcars in
2008. This represented the first domestically produced modern
streetcar; Portland's streetcars had previously been purchased from a
company in Eastern Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Winkelman, Bishins, and Kooshian. Cost-Effective GHG
Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices.
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring American Transportation and Environmental Leadership
During much of the 20th century, America's political and business
leadership ensured investment and steady innovation in the
transportation sector. America was viewed by many nations as a key
model for transportation development. But in recent years, America's
national vision for transportation lost clarity. U.S. leadership on
environmental issues also eroded.
Our nation requires leadership to articulate an inspiring new
vision and framework for transportation that will support climate,
health, safety, equity, mobility, and economic development goals, while
ensuring more accountable governance and system management. Without
that, public confidence to support the required higher levels of
transportation investment may be sorely lacking, holding America back
from again achieving global leadership in transportation development
and environmental protection.
In this moment, there is much for America to learn from
transportation best practices abroad, from Europe, Asia, and Latin
America. The United States has begun to manufacture modern streetcars
once produced in Eastern Europe; to adapt best practices in Bus Rapid
Transit from cities like Bogota and Curitiba; to create Bikestations at
transit centers as has been done for decades in Japan, Denmark, and
Germany; to explore ways to manage street space for high productivity
as in Singapore, London, and Stockholm; to encourage more transit
oriented development as in Germany, Canada, and England.
These examples provide many lessons about how transit can reduce
GHGs. A recent ITDP-EDF study for Mexico City, for example, documented
how a 10-corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system now being developed in
that city will cut GHGs by 6 million metric tons by 2012.\32\ Similar
opportunities exist worldwide in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere in the
Americas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Modelistica, Transportation Modeling for the Analysis of
Transportation Policies for the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City,
Environmental Defense Fund and Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy, New York, July 2008. Page 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in the interests of all Americans for other nations to pursue
these opportunities because transportation GHG emissions from
developing countries like China and India are growing at an especially
rapid pace. In 2006 transport accounted for 13 percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Between 1970 and 2006, global GHG
emissions from the transport sector increased by 130 percent.
Transport-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase a
further 57 percent worldwide in the period 2005-2030 and transport in
developing countries will contribute about 80 percent of this increase,
from both passenger and freight transport.
Congress should consider how it can foster better support for
transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The U.N. Global
Environmental Facility has helped aid the development of BRT in Jakarta
and Dar es Salaam. The U.S. Agency for International Development
formerly provided similar support to promote BRT in several developing
countries. United States foundations like Climate Works are financing
efforts to promote low carbon transportation in China, India, and the
Americas. New carbon finance mechanisms that will be developed to guide
international climate policy in future years could help advance sound
transit and livable community development across the world. But this
will happen only if more attention is paid to the key role
transportation plays in determining future global greenhouse gas
emissions and if the large co-benefits of transportation investments
that reduce GHGs are recognized in cost analysis.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Bellagio Declaration on Transportation and Climate Change, May
2009, http://www.sutp.org/bellagio-declaration/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion and Recommendations
Expanded and improved public transportation is a critical tool for
addressing climate change in the United States and around the world.
Combined with strategies to enhance the livability of our communities
and manage our existing transportation system, transit offers a
powerful tool for addressing one of the most significant domestic
sources of GHG emissions and could help address the growing global GHG
problem.
To ensure transit and transportation policies contribute to their
full potential to cost-effective, timely GHG reduction, Congress
should:
1) Restructure Federal transportation funding programs into
performance-driven formula-based system preservation and
competitive capacity expansion programs, as recommended by the
Bi-Partisan Transportation Commission \34\ and Transportation
for America;\35\
\34\ National Transportation Policy Project, Performance Driven: A
New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, BiPartisan Policy Center,
Washington, DC, June 2009.
\35\ Transportation for America, The Route to Reform: Blueprint for
a 21st Century Federal Transportation Policy, Washington, DC, May 2009.
http://t4america.org/blueprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Lower regulatory and procedural barriers to expansion and
improvement of transit systems, speeding the process of
delivering and financing well-designed transit projects while
encouraging innovation in transit system design and operations
planning, such as bus rapid transit and para-transit;
3) Ensure that transportation plans and programs contribute
proportionately with other sectors to meet GHG goals by tying
funding to performance and ensuring modal and operational
alternatives that advance timely achievement of national goals
are considered in the transportation planning process;
4) Support initiatives for livable communities such as the
livability partnership formed by the Obama administration, as
well as forthcoming livable communities legislation recently
mentioned by Senator Dodd;
5) Ensure U.S. foreign assistance and trade promotion programs,
carbon finance initiatives, and climate negotiation policies
give attention to strategies that boost GHG efficient
transportation and urban development and enhance the
institutional capacity of governments and the private sector to
work together to advance these strategies.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLINTON J. ANDREWS
Professor, Urban Planning and Policy Development Program,
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University
July 7, 2009
Good morning Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter and members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name
is Clinton Andrews and I am a professor at Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey. For the past 6 years, I have been privileged
to direct the University's urban planning program, which is part of the
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
My testimony discusses the role that transit can play in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change. I want to make
three points here, as follows:
The problem of global warming is large enough that it
requires sustained efforts on multiple fronts, and transit is
definitely one of those fronts.
To be cost-effective, transit projects should be tailored
to local conditions, settlement patterns, and unmet demands.
There are many additional reasons to enhance the viability
of the transit option in the nation's transportation system
beyond its greenhouse gas reduction benefits.
In what follows I elaborate upon each of these points.
Transit as part of a portfolio of global warming solutions
The U.S. economy produces 21 percent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions, with 28 percent of U.S. emissions due to the transportation
sector.\1\ We know with confidence that: (1) global warming is already
underway; (2) human activities are a key driver of this climate change;
(3) the effects of other air pollutants are actually masking the extent
of the global warming to date; (4) the trajectory of future greenhouse
gas emissions indicates that some fairly dire scenarios are plausible;
and (5) the impacts on human health, food and fiber production, coastal
areas, water availability, and ecosystem health will scale upwards with
the trajectory of emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
2008. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007. Report
DOE/EIA-0573(2007). Downloaded on July 3, 2009 from www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/1605/ggrpt.
\2\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. 2007. Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Downloaded July 3, 2009
from www.ipcc.ch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This scientific consensus has spurred policy action in many U.S.
States: to date 22 States have established greenhouse gas emissions
targets, 36 States have completed or are working on climate change
action plans, and 48 States have completed greenhouse gas
inventories.\3\ The Federal Government is also beginning to respond to
the problem of climate change by complementing its longstanding support
of research with specific, practical policies of the sort that passed
the House last month and are being discussed here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. State Action Maps.
Downloaded on July 3 from www.pewclimate.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three main types of greenhouse gas emission-reduction
options: using energy much more efficiently or more frugally, switching
to low-carbon and no-carbon energy sources, and sequestering carbon in
natural sinks such as trees and soil or by means of geo-engineering
techniques. In transportation, we can achieve energy efficiency by
increasing vehicular miles per gallon, or reducing vehicle miles
traveled by (1) changing settlement patterns, (2) altering the
structure of travel demand such as with telecommuting, or (3) shifting
to other modes including transit, walking, biking. None of these
options can do the whole job, and hence there is a need for a multi-
pronged approach to the problem.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. 2004. Stabilization wedges:
Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current
technologies. Science (13 August) 305 (5686): 968-972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States should be, and is, pursuing energy efficiency and
renewable energy and next-generation nuclear power and re-growing its
forests. The appropriate analogy is to a portfolio of investments, in
which the Nation balances risks and returns overall, by choosing a
diverse mix of solutions with complementary strengths and weaknesses.
For the transportation sector, this boils down to pursuing higher
miles per gallon and lower carbon emissions per gallon, biofuels and
electric vehicles, private vehicles and public transit, smarter long-
distance networks and more walkable neighborhoods. While it is tempting
to demand a marginal analysis that asks ``what single choice is most
cost-effective?,'' there is no universal answer to that question that
applies nationwide and for all time. So it is appropriate to delegate
some--but not all--of these decisions to the States and MPOs, and to
the marketplace.
There remains a clear role for the Federal Government to collect
data that measures the performance of the transportation sector, fund
research to expand our range of low-carbon mobility options,
aggressively drive vehicle fuel efficiency standards in the right
direction, continue to support State and local transportation
infrastructure investments on a matching basis, help coordinate and
fund interstate transportation initiatives, and encourage utilities and
private actors to establish the necessary infrastructures (such as the
smart grid) that are preconditions for fruitful competition among
gasoline, biofuels, electricity, and even hydrogen as alternative
transportation fuels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Clinton Andrews. 2006. Formulating and implementing public
policy for new energy carriers. Proceedings of the IEEE (October)
94(10): 1852-1863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roles for regional transportation planning agencies
States and MPOs can play key roles in decarbonizing the U.S.
transportation sector by developing locally appropriate portfolios of
solutions. It is only in the context of specific timeframes, settlement
patterns, transportation networks, and natural resource endowments that
one can identify which solutions are most cost-effective.
To illustrate the variation in baseline emissions, and therefore,
suitable solutions, I will share results of a study we recently
performed in New Jersey. Moving along a gradient from rural to urban,
we see decreasing per-capita transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions, with towns served by commuter rail systems having lower
emissions than towns having similar population densities but lacking
that option.\6\ Table 1 shows the numbers for a few illustrative towns.
Access to rail service coincides with a 10-15 percent reduction in per-
capita greenhouse gas emissions for a given settlement pattern, and a
change in settlement patterns from exurb to suburb to city ties to even
larger emissions reductions from the transportation sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Clinton Andrews. 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural
to urban gradient. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
(November) 51(6): 1-20.
Table 1: Illustrative GHG Emissions per Capita along the Rural-to-Urban Gradient (Source: Andrews 2008)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per-capita
transportation-
related greenhouse Population density Is there a railway station
New Jersey Municipality gas emissions (persons per square in town?
(metric tons CO2- mile)
equivalent per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exurb:
Woolwich................................ 3.74 145 No
Post-war suburb:
East Brunswick.......................... 3.21 2,130 No
Cherry Hill............................. 2.81 2,885 Yes
Inner-ring suburb:
Highland Park........................... 2.81 7,614 No
Montclair............................... 2.44 6,184 Yes
City:
Hoboken................................. 1.23 30,239 Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These cross-sectional results suggest correlation but do not
confirm causation, so they are by no means definitive. However, there
are many other studies with similar findings that allow us to be
confident that transit already plays a role in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a good survey of this literature see Reid Ewing, Keith
Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters, and Don Chen with Barbara
McCann and David Goldberg. 2008. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
See also Jared VandeWeghe and Christopher Kennedy. 2007. A spatial
analysis of residential greenhouse gas emissions in the Toronto Census
Metropolitan Area. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2): 133-144. Also
see Jonathan Norman, Heather MacLean and Christopher Kennedy. 2006.
Comparing high and low residential density: Life-cycle analysis of
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development (March) 132(1): 10-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the short run, local and regional transportation planners must
work with the settlement patterns they have. Empty buses and trains are
not greenhouse gas-efficient or cost-effective. Regional public policy
can help build demand in marginal locations by providing targeted
incentives such as transit passes for students, but there are limits.
The policy prescription for the area near exurban Woolwich is not
to build a light rail system because it lacks the population density to
make such a system viable. It can make more progress by getting kids to
bike to school, and getting adults to car-pool or commute by bus. The
policy prescription for the region near a post-war suburb like East
Brunswick would be similar, although it might also be able to support a
bus rapid transit system along its commercial strip. An inner-ring
suburb like Highland Park has the density to support a shuttle bus or
bus rapid transit stops linking to nearby train stations and employment
centers. A city like Hoboken can--and does--support rail transit. This
implies that MPOs and other regional planning organizations must engage
with the land-use planners and urban designers in selecting which
transportation--and which transit--investments are appropriate for each
context.
In the longer run, problems of low ridership often disappear and
transit investments can actually catalyze growth, based on the
experience to date with transit-oriented developments.\8\ However, a
hard-nosed public policy would more often build transit in response to
demand rather than ahead of it. This suggests that the marginal transit
investment dollar should target existing and obvious capacity
constraints such as the needed additional rail tunnel under the Hudson
River connecting New Jersey and New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Key references include: Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C.,
Goguts, N., Tsai, Y-H., Arrington, G. B., et al. 2004. Transit-oriented
development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and
prospects (TCRP Report No. 102). C. Gorewitz et al. 2006. Communicating
the benefits of TOD: The city of Evanston's transit-oriented
redevelopment and the Hudson Bergen light rail transit system.
Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/
Communicating_Benefits_TOD.pdf. Nelson-Nygard Associates. 2006. MTC's
Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy interim evaluation
(Report prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission).
Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/
smart_growth/tod/TOD_Policy_Evaluation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation of transit systems to climate change is another key
responsibility for regional transportation planning agencies. Much
transit infrastructure is vulnerable to sea level rise, coastal or
riverine flooding, and equipment failure due to high temperatures.
Existing facilities need hardening, and more precise elevation data are
needed to help plan new facilities.
In sum, transit serves as a core climate change solution. However,
the specific type of transit and appropriate level of investment varies
by locality, implying that more decisionmaking authority over the
allocation of funds among modes should devolve to the regional planning
agencies. Each such agency should be expected to create and follow a
greenhouse gas action plan that guides investment priorities in a way
that reflects national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets,
regional network needs, local land use patterns, and adaptation
requirements.
Other reasons to encourage transit
There are many other good reasons for encouraging transit. This is
well-trodden ground, so I will not be lengthy. Transit reduces road
congestion, delays, accidents, and pollution. Transit stabilizes and
increases property values. Transit provides mobility options for
children, the elderly, and others who cannot drive or afford a car.
Transit helps people live more actively, thereby reducing obesity and
related health problems.\9\ Transit offers scale economies that are
unavailable in other transportation modes. Transit improves energy
security because its rolling stock can be readily converted to non-
petroleum fuels. A recent, and very rigorous, economic analysis of the
net internal and external benefits of transit has concluded that
current subsidies to transit in U.S. cities are far below their optimal
levels.\10\ In other words, transit is under-supported in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Cross-national comparisons show a clear inverse relationship
between the prevalence of obesity and the percent of trips taken by
non-automobile modes (transit, walking and biking). See David Bassett,
Jr., John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, Dixie Thompson, and Scott Crouter.
2008. Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and
Australia. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 5, 795-814.
\10\ Ian Parry and Kenneth Small. 2009. Should urban transit
subsidies be reduced? American Economic Review 99(3): 700-724. They
find that the external benefits of transit are not internalized until
fares are set substantially below 50 percent of operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
As the Senate prepares to address the problem of global warming and
as it considers how to finance the nation's future transportation
infrastructure needs, I urge you to keep transit in mind. Transit
brings multiple benefits and deserves greater support than it currently
receives. Transit can cost-effectively help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, provided the projects are tailored to local conditions and
land uses. The Federal Government should direct regional transportation
planning agencies to do greenhouse gas action planning for
transportation--and within that, transit--that pursues both mitigation
and adaptation objectives. Finally, I believe the funding should follow
the planning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CABALDON
Mayor, City of West Sacramento, California , and Transportation Vice
Chair, Sacramento Area Council of Governments
July 7, 2009
Chairman Menendez and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how public
transportation can be a critical lever for significant progress toward
our nation's climate and energy objectives.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) represents 6
counties, 22 cities and a population of 2.3 million people in the
region surrounding California's Capitol. We are representative of the
economic, social, and industrial diversity of the nation, with a rural
agricultural sector worth nearly $2 billion annually.
In 2002, the SACOG Board of Directors adopted a Metropolitan
Transportation Plan 2025 (MTP). I chaired the broad-based stakeholder
roundtable which wrote that plan, and we faced the competing demands
you might expect. Business interests wanted us to put our money into
roads and bridges, neighborhood groups pushed instead for sidewalks and
bike lanes, and environmentalists and bus riders demanded that we go
all-in for public transit.
We decided to model their ideas in the extreme. What would our
region look like, and what would it live like, if we spent virtually
all of our money for two decades on just roads? What about just
transit? Or just sidewalks? I must tell you that we thought we were
creating straw men to help shoot down the partisans at the edges. An
all-roads scenarios might reduce congestion but blanket our air in
poison, while the other options should have slowed congestion to total
gridlock even if they improved air quality.
But here's Big Lesson #1: extreme investment strategies produced
the same outcomes. There was virtually no significant difference in
performance on congestion, travel time, vehicle miles traveled, or
emissions. Why? Because transportation investments must be tightly
coupled with changes in land-use in order to make any sort of
difference. But when the two are married, the impact is powerful.
We ramped up investment in transit and other alternative modes in
that 2002 transportation plan, but, more importantly, we learned that
Big Lesson #1 and immediately got to work on the next-generation plan
that would integrate the full range of policies AND investments
necessary to reduce both travel time and emissions. At the same time,
we wanted to arrest the ex-urban sprawl that was sapping vitality from
the cores of our cities and towns while consuming prime farmland at an
alarming rate.
In 2008 SACOG adopted an MTP 2035 that performed significantly
better than the prior plan on virtually every indicator, including
transit ridership, vehicle miles traveled, congestion, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions. Between those two plans, SACOG adopted a 50
year Blueprint growth strategy for the region that provided the needed
technical analysis capabilities, political support and smart growth
planning strategies to optimize system performance through integrated
land use, transportation and air quality planning. I chaired SACOG for
the Blueprint, and we achieved universal consensus on the boldest
regional transportation and land use plan in the nation. In doing so,
we learned Big Lesson #2: four key policy outcomes--greenhouse gas
reductions, urban revitalization, farmland preservation, and
transportation mobility-can be achieved only in concert with one
another. That's why the plan was heralded and embraced by business,
housing, transit, environmental, and social justice advocates, and won
awards from U.S. EPA and two California Governors. That's why it is now
the official model for the State of California and for regions of every
type and scale. And public transportation is the plan's critical
linchpin.
Through this process SACOG has learned a great deal about the very
close connections between increased transit ridership and: land use
patterns, air quality and overall transportation system performance.
The table below provides the short story of the improvements we will
realize by 2035 through the MTP we adopted in 2008 compared to the MTP
we adopted in 2002. The MTP we adopted in 2008 significantly increased
investments in transit and focuses much more growth into transit
corridors. As a result transit service hours and boardings will grow
dramatically. Transit trips grow at an average annual rate of 4
percent, more than double the population growth rate. The growth rate
for commute transit trips is even higher, nearly 8 percent.
Overall transit productivity (boardings/service hour) will increase
substantially. This will improve the fare-box recovery rate for transit
operators and widen the margin of fossil fuel energy savings realized
by transit versus automobile travel. The big win: Greenhouse gas
emissions and vehicle miles traveled per capita decline instead of
increase or stay constant, breaking a decades- long trend that regions
throughout the country have experienced. With the transportation sector
accounting for such a large share of greenhouse gas emissions, we
cannot avert catastrophic climate change without forcing an absolute
decline in vehicle miles traveled.
Increased transit ridership also provides major benefits to
automobile drivers. The amount of time people have spent sitting in
their cars in congested traffic has risen significantly over the past
several years. Our 2008 MTP essentially breaks that trend as well,
reducing the time people spend in congestion in 2035 from a 114 percent
increase to just a 16 percent increase. There are many reasons for
this, but targeted transit investments is one of the most important.
Our state-of-the-art modeling indicates that we realize approximately a
10 percent reduction in congestion for every 1 percent of total trips
that we are able to shift from cars to transit. This is because much of
the increase in transit ridership we are forecasting is for commute
trips, which are longer and occur during the peak, most congested,
hours. When your roadways are at capacity, shifting even relatively
small percentages of total trips out of cars and onto transit produces
large benefits to all users of the system. It also reduces greenhouse
gas emissions because stop and go, slow moving traffic creates more
greenhouse gas emissions than moderate speed smoothly flowing traffic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035 (2002 2035 (2008
Percent Change from 2005 in: MTP) MTP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Service Hours......................... +111% +28%
Transit Boardings............................. +98% +184%
Transit Productivity.......................... +6% +35%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Capita............... 0% - 8%
Weekday Vehicle Miles Traveled/Capita......... +1% - 6%
Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled/Capita....... +114% +16%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California we are in the midst of implementing the nation's most
comprehensive law linking regional transportation, land use, housing
and climate change planning. SB375 was sponsored by California Senate
Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg--Sacramento, and patterned after the SACOG
Blueprint. The bill was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger last fall.
The law is follow-up legislation to AB32, the California Global
Solution Act, which requires us to reduce total greenhouse emissions
levels by 2020 to 1990 levels. SB375 requires regional planning
agencies like SACOG to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2020
and 2035 that will be set by the California Air Resources Board. As
part of our preparations for meeting the provisions of SB375 SACOG has
prepared a TOD (transit oriented development) scenario for 2020 that
makes further improvements on both the smart growth land use pattern
and the transit investments compared to our adopted 2008 MTP.
Specifically, the scenario shifts an additional 15 percent of the
growth in our 2008 plan from ex-urban and rural areas into transit
corridors, and it expedites the construction of the 2035 transit system
to 2020.
The data in the table below clearly suggest that even greater
performance improvements are possible if land use patterns and funding
for transit improves. In the 2020 TOD Scenario greenhouse gas emissions
per capita decline more by 2020 than they do by 2035 in our current
MTP. That's Big Lesson #3: substantial, quantifiable reductions in per
capita greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved through a combination
of land use and investments in transit. Congested vehicle miles
traveled per capita is also better, only a 2 percent increase from
current conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 (2008 2020 (TOD
Percent Change from 2005 in: MTP) Scenario)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Service Hours................... +39% +184%
Transit Boardings....................... +64% +247%
Transit Productivity.................... +11% +38%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Capita......... - 4% - 9%
Weekday Vehicle Miles Traveled/Capita... - 2% - 6%
Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled/Capita. +21% +2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which brings me to Big Lesson #4: transit investments must occur
early if they are to effectively stimulate the shift in land use
patterns to build substantial amounts of transit oriented development
(higher density, mixed use, walkable development near high quality
transit service). Expecting developers to build these new products on
the expectation that sometime in the future the funds will be
forthcoming to put in the transit lines is not realistic. We have to
find a way to do both at the same time. The transit and land use have a
strong synergistic relationship that is lost if they are not done
together.
We don't think that building transit earlier rather than later is
an unreasonable expectation. There is abundant evidence that citizens
support this. Last fall, in the middle of the worst economy of our
generation, voters in diverse places like my city, West Sacramento, Los
Angeles, and Marin County approved substantial tax measures dedicated
exclusively to increased transit service. The large increases in
transit ridership and improved fare-box recovery rates that we have
experienced locally over the past year are national trends. A
combination of demographic, economic and social trends, along with
changes in our built environment, create a unique opportunity for
transit to finally be a center piece of not only our nation's
transportation strategy, but also our aspirational energy and climate
change strategy. We strongly encourage the Federal Government, through
the Energy and Climate Bill, as well as the Transportation
reauthorization and appropriations, to provide financial and policy
support for this.
The House bill on energy and climate change, H.R. 2454, is a good
start in this regard. Section 222 of that measure, championed by our
own region's Representative Doris Matsui, builds on these big lessons
from the pioneering work at the regional scale by SACOG and many of our
colleagues across the nation. It aligns infrastructure and
transportation planning with greenhouse gas reduction goals, and puts a
heavy emphasis on public transit. And it does so by giving the
frameworks--and some catalytic funding--to States, regions, and
communities to get the job done.
In addition to increasing the total amount of transit investment in
its 2008 MTP, SACOG also diversified the transit system. Transit is not
a one-size-fits-all investment. In order to serve rural communities, a
growing urban core, and older suburban areas alike, the Sacramento
region is planning for a wide spectrum of services that suit particular
needs. These include: light rail, to connect communities with high
population and employment densities; streetcars, to connect regional
job centers and also make it easy and simple to get around in
pedestrian-oriented urban and town centers; regional rail and express
buses, to accommodate long-distance commuters; dial-a-ride or
neighborhood shuttles, for rural and suburban communities; as well as
fixed-route service, bus rapid transit, paratransit, and subscription
buses. In my own community, for instance, we have doubled our bus
service and are now working to launch a streetcar system as part of our
greenhouse gas strategy, but Federal policies have not caught up, stuck
with a byzantine set of rules and regulations originally designed for
massive heavy rail projects. The population is diverse and the transit
system must recognize this.
The key elements of the land use pattern in our 2008 MTP include
major market shifts away from large-lot single family construction to
small-lot single family and attached products (rowhouses, townhomes,
apartments), increased amounts of growth through redevelopment and
infill opportunities, especially within walking distance of existing
and planned transit, and a new style of suburban growth that emphasizes
mixed use and walkable neighborhoods. A number of national studies
document that market demand is now high for urban and walkable suburban
neighborhoods. We certainly have witnessed this in our region, with
small-lot and attached housing products growing from 20 percent to 70
percent market share in just the first 4 years of implementing our
Blueprint plan. That's Big Lesson #5: citizens want to live, work,
shop, and play in the kinds of places that transit and smart land-use
planning can create. Expanding the choices available for consumers for
a wider range of housing types and transportation options will allow
them to live the lives they want and produce measurable and astounding
reductions in our carbon footprint. It is our job to change our
policies and investment priorities to make those choices possible, and
in doing so we also protect our rural future and help avert
catastrophic climate change.
The significant commitment our region has made to smarter growth
and smarter transportation investments has occurred because these
concepts have broad public and political support. People from across
the political spectrum see this type of future for our region as
important to both our economic and environmental health. This broad
political consensus did not happen by accident. For the better part of
the past decade SACOG has engaged in extensive, innovative citizen and
stakeholder outreach activities. We have conducted hundreds of
workshops with thousands of citizens, engaging them with interactive
computer technology and asking them to help make the decisions about
growth patterns and transportation investments. We discovered that
there is broad support for improving the range of housing choices,
expanding viable transportation choices, locating jobs and housing near
each other, and making maximum use of our existing developed areas
instead of focusing most of our growth on lands with high agricultural
and natural resource values that often are far away from employment and
services.
We very much appreciate the Committee's interest in these issues
and our story. I would be happy to answer any questions you have and to
provide any follow-up information that would be helpful to you.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDAL O'TOOLE
Senior Fellow, The Cato Institute
July 7, 2009
Urban transit is important for those who lack access to
automobiles. But the history of the last four decades shows that
transit cannot and will not play a significant role in saving energy or
preventing climate change.
Forty years ago, American cities were choked with air pollution, so
Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1970 and created the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the law. The EPA adopted two
strategies to reduce pollution. First, it required automakers to make
cars that polluted less. Second, it also encouraged cities to promote
transit and adopt other policies aimed at getting people to drive less.
Today, we know what worked and what did not. Automotive air
pollution has declined by at least two-thirds since 1970. This entire
decline was due to technological changes in automobiles. Far from
responding to transit investments by reducing driving and taking
transit more, Americans today drive far more than they did in 1970. As
the late University of California (Irvine) economist Charles Lave
demonstrated in the October, 1979 Atlantic Monthly, investing in
transit fails to save energy or reduce air pollution for two reasons:
First, spending more money on transit does not
significantly reduce driving.
Second, transit uses just about as much energy as cars, so
even if we could persuade people to take transit it would not
save energy (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/197910/197910).
Dr. Lave's arguments are as valid today as they were in 1979, and
as valid for greenhouse gas emissions as for energy and other
pollutants. The difference between 1979 and today is that today we have
much more evidence to back up Dr. Lave's points.
Transit Investments Do Not Significantly Increase Transit Ridership
Transit subsidies have historically had only a trivial effect on
ridership. Between 1987 and 2007, annual subsidies in real dollars grew
by 68 percent. Yet annual ridership grew by only 18 percent. While
capital subsidies are sketchy before 1987, operating subsidies
increased by 1240 percent since 1970. Yet ridership grew by only 45
percent.
More importantly, despite total real subsidies of well over three-
quarters of a trillion dollars since 1970, per-capita transit ridership
and passenger miles actually declined. Figure one shows that per-capita
transit travel declined more-or-less steadily from 1970 through 1995.
Although per-capita transit usage has grown a little since 1995, it
remains below 1988, and far below 1970, levels.
Moreover, as figure two shows, while per-capita transit travel was
declining, per-capita urban driving grew by 120 percent. Transit
carried more than 4 percent of urban travel in 1970; but it fell below
2 percent in 1990 and now stands at 1.6 percent.
My former hometown of Portland, Oregon has invested more than $2
billion in light rail and streetcars. Yet this has had almost no effect
on Portland travel habits. In 1980, before Portland built its first
light-rail line, the census found 9.8 percent of Portland urbanized
area commuters took transit to work. Today, Portland has four lightrail
routes and a streetcar line, yet the Census Bureau's American Community
Survey says only 6.5 percent of Portland commuters take transit to
work.
The number of Portland-area residents taking transit to work
actually declined between 2000 and 2007. These census numbers are
confirmed by a 100-percent census of downtown employers conducted by
the Portland Business Alliance in 2001 through 2007. More than two-
thirds of all Portland-area transit commuters work in downtown
Portland, but this census found that 7 percent fewer downtown workers
took transit to work in 2007 than in 2001.
Transit Is Not Significantly Cleaner than Driving
Even if more subsidies to transit could attract significant numbers
of people out of their cars, it would not save energy or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions because transit uses as much energy and
generates nearly as much greenhouse gas per passenger mile as urban
driving. As described in my Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 615
(http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-615.pdf), the following data are based
on the Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book, the
Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Data base, and the
Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics.
In 2006, the nation's transit systems used an average of 3,444 BTUs
and emitted 213 grams of CO2 per passenger mile. The average
passenger car used 3,445 BTUs--just 1 BTU more-and emitted 245 grams of
CO2 per passenger mile, just 15 percent more. While transit
appears slightly cleaner than autos, as shown in figure three, auto and
light truck energy efficiencies have rapidly improved, while transit
energy efficiencies have declined. Since CO2 emissions are
proportional to energy consumption, these trends hold for greenhouse
gas production as well.
We can expect these trends to continue. If auto manufacturers meet
the Obama administration's new fuel-economy standards for 2016--even if
they fail to improve energy efficiencies beyond that--by 2025 the
average car on the road will consume only 2,600 BTUs and emit only
about 186 grams of CO2 per passenger mile--considerably less
than most transit systems (figure four).
This rapid improvement is possible because America's auto fleet
almost completely turns over every 18 years. By comparison, cities that
invest in rail transit are stuck with the technology they choose for at
least 30 years. This means potential investments in transit must be
compared, not with today's cars, but with cars 15 to 20 years from now.
In much of the country, the fossil-fuel-burning plants used to
generate electricity for rail transit emit enormous amounts of
greenhouse gases. Washington's Metrorail system, for example, generates
more than 280 grams of CO2 per passenger mile--considerably
more than the average passenger car. Light-rail systems in Baltimore,
Cleveland, Denver, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh all emit more
greenhouse gases per passenger mile than the average SUV.
In places, such as the West Coast, that get much of their
electricity from renewable sources, it would be wiser and more cost-
effective to apply that electricity to plug-in hybrids or other
electric cars that can recharge their batteries at night when renewable
power plants generate surplus energy. As Professor Lave said, the ``law
of large proportions'' dictates that ``the biggest components matter
most.'' In other words, since more than 90 percent of urban travel is
by auto and only 1.6 percent is by transit, small improvements in autos
can be far more significant than large investments in transit.
Transit has several other disadvantages as a way of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. First, even where electric-powered rail
transit generates less greenhouse gases than cars or buses, the trains
are supported by feeder bus systems that emit lots of greenhouse gases.
While the trunk line buses that new rail transit lines replace
typically run fairly full, the feeder buses that support rail transit
run fairly empty because many rail riders drive to transit stations.
The result is that greenhouse gas emissions on many transit systems
increase after opening rail transit lines. After opening its first
light-rail line, CO2 emissions from St. Louis' transit
system climbed from 340 to 400 grams per passenger mile, while
Houston's grew from 218 to 263 grams per passenger mile.
Construction of rail transit also consumes huge amounts of energy
and releases enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. Portland planners
estimated that the energy cost of constructing one of the city's light-
rail lines would equal 170 years worth of energy savings.
Highway construction also generates greenhouse gases, but because
highways are much more heavily used than most rail transit lines, the
emissions per passenger mile are far lower. Contrary to claims that
rail transit can carry as many people as four or more freeway lanes,
the New York City subway is the only rail transit line in America that
carries more passenger miles per rail mile than one urban freeway lane
mile. Outside of New York, the average urban freeway lane mile carries
12 times as many passenger miles as the average commuter rail mile, 7.5
times as many as the average light-rail mile, and 2.4 times as many as
the average subway/elevated mile.
Further, as we tragically learned in the recent Washington
Metrorail crash, rail transit systems must be completely rebuilt or
rehabilitated every 30 years or so. The energy costs and greenhouse gas
emissions from such reconstruction must be taken into account when
considering rail transit. As a recent Federal Transit Administration
report calculated, rehabilitation of rail lines in the nation's seven
largest transit systems will cost at least $50 billion--money those
agencies don't have. This is just one more indication that rail transit
is not financially sustainable.
In the rare case where a transit investment really will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, the cost is exorbitantly high. McKinsey &
Company says the United States can cut its greenhouse emissions roughly
in half by 2030 by investing in technologies that cost no more than $50
per ton of CO2 equivalent. But transit investments, if they
reduce emissions at all, do so at costs of $5,000 per ton or more.
The American Transit Model Is Broken
Transit's poor performance is symptomatic of government-subsidized
transit systems. Transit agencies that typically get three-quarters of
their funds from taxpayers and only a quarter from transit users are
politically obligated to run transit throughout their taxing districts
no matter how few people want to use transit. The result is that the
average transit vehicle, whether bus, light rail, subway, or commuter-
rail car, runs an average of only one-sixth full.
Far from being short of funds, transit agencies have too much
money, which they spend in the wrong places. Instead of providing
economical transportation to users, they spend it on urban monuments
such as light-rail and streetcar lines whose transportation value is
negligibly different from buses. Agencies often go heavily into debt
building these lines and are also obligated to huge operations and
maintenance costs. Almost inevitably, they suffer budget crises that
force them to significantly curtail service.
On a passenger-mile basis, transit buses typically consume as much
energy and emit as much CO2 per passenger mile as SUVs. By
comparison, private bus companies have an incentive to fill as many
seats as possible, so they typically operate half to two-thirds full
and consume little more than 10 percent as much energy per passenger
mile as public transit buses. Between Boston and Washington, for
example, at least 14 bus companies carry more passengers each day than
Amtrak and do so using less than half as much energy and emitting about
half as much greenhouse gases.
To make transit more environmentally friendly, we need to
completely redesign our transit systems. This means either privatizing
transit systems or, at the least, operating them entirely out of user
fees rather than subsidies. If States feel the need to support people
who have no access to automobiles, they can give such people
transportation vouchers that they can use on any public conveyances.
Transport Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
At the same time, we can significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from automobiles without engaging in futile efforts to try to
get people to stop driving. The Texas Transportation Institute says
urban congestion wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year.
Simple, low-cost techniques to relieve this congestion can do far more
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than investing more in a failed
transit model.
One such technique is traffic signal coordination. A small
investment in signal coordination can do more to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions than billions invested in transit. For example, San Jose
recently coordinated signals at 223 intersections, which reduced
emissions by 4,200 tons per year at a cost of about $7 per ton. When
the savings to motorists are counted, the project actually saved $200
per ton of reduced emissions. Yet the Federal Highway Administration
estimates that three-quarters of the nation's traffic signals are
obsolete or have no coordination at all.
Congestion pricing on existing HOV lanes and all new urban highways
will also significantly reduce congestion. Looking to the future,
accelerated investments in vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-
infrastructure communications can greatly reduce congestion and
increase personal mobility while saving energy and greenhouse gas
emissions.
In short, instead of a futile effort to change American lifestyles,
we simply need to make the form of transportation used most by
Americans (as well as most Europeans and Japanese) even more efficient
than it is today.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNEST TOLLERSON
Director, Policy & Media Relations, New York State
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
July 7, 2009
Good Morning Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter and Members
of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the major role transit networks in metropolitan areas
throughout the United States can play in reducing carbon dioxide and
shrinking the carbon footprint of our cities and metropolitan regions,
home to 65 percent of Americans and the source of 75 percent of the
nation's GDP.
First, a brief word about the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. The MTA network is one of the world's largest. We provide
8.5 million subway, bus and commuter railroad rides daily--or 2.7
billion rides each year, accounting for nearly one-third of all transit
riders in the nation. The MTA also operates seven bridges and two
tunnels that carry nearly 300 million vehicles a year--the most heavily
used bridge and tunnel system in the nation.
We all know that there is no silver bullet that will enable this
nation to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. We need an
integrated set of strategies and tools, including renewable sources of
energy, the right breakthroughs in battery technology and a smart grid.
Transit ought to be a major part of the strategy. If new investments in
the transit sector are used to maximize transit's carbon-cutting
potential, the Nation can achieve its near- and long-term goals. The
climate legislation the Senate is drafting offers an opportunity to
fund transit networks in a way that will unlock our carbon-cutting
potential. Unlocking it will yield more transit, greener transit and,
most important of all, greener communities--places where the amount of
carbon it takes to live, work and enjoy life is dramatically lower than
it is today.
As a sector, we are reaching the point where we can accurately
score the climate-stabilization benefits of transit through: mode shift
(from cars to transit); transit's role in minimizing congestion; and,
the most powerful source of carbon-reduction, the integration of
transit and green density (residential and commercial) around transit
stations, which reduces trip length and frequency while encouraging
walking and biking.
The MTA's carbon footprint totaled 2.7 million metric tons of
greenhouse-gas emissions in 2008. However, the greenhouse-gas emissions
the MTA generates are offset many times over by the carbon-emissions
the MTA helps avoid by getting people out of cars and onto subways,
buses, bus rapid transit and commuter rail.
For every metric ton of carbon an MTA service emits, the MTA helps
avoid more than 8.24 metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is a
weighted average for the MTA's 5,000-square mile region. Put another
way, the MTA's 2008 carbon footprint of 2.7 million tons resulted in a
net reduction of nearly 20 million metric tons (19.8 million tons).
That's the equivalent of the carbon stored annually by a healthy forest
of 7.7 million acres.
Transit's full climate-stabilization benefits will only be unlocked
if the new investment in upgrading transit infrastructure and expanding
transit networks also encourages the clustering of green commercial and
residential development around transit. Transit-oriented development
offers much more than more new housing and lifestyle choices. TOD makes
it easy to dramatically reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the way
you live, shop, work and recreate. Throughout the US, upgrading transit
and expanding transit is already creating green density in places many
of you represent. It's visible in the thousands of housing units
developed around the Hudson Bergen Light Rail line in New Jersey, the
explosion of residential development around the MTA Metro-North rail
station in Yonkers and in the Euclid Avenue corridor project in
Cleveland, Ohio, a $168.4-million public investment that has attracted
billions in private investment.
The revised Waxman-Markey bill allocates 1 percent of the auction
of carbon permits to transit networks. In light of the carbon-cutting
potential of US transit agencies, especially transit's potential to
give people the option of living in communities with fewer cars per
household and lower auto use, the MTA and other transit agencies
believe that allocating a larger share of auction proceeds to transit
would enable the Nation to accelerate its efforts to reduce greenhouse
gases. We suggest that Congress invest 7.5 percent of auction permit
proceeds in transit, with 5 percent to increase access and expand
transit networks and services, including:
New lines, system extensions, bus rapid transit, light
rail, feeder and distributor services, all of which foster TOD,
Signal upgrades that boost the frequency of service an
hour,
New green fleets (buses and rail cars); and
LEED standards for stations, bus depots and rail yards.
We also suggest that you allocate 2.5 percent to green and improve
the carbon efficiency of existing transit infrastructure, including:
Smart Fleets projects (light-weighting rolling stock,
regenerative braking, on-board power, wayside power); and
Green station renovations.
Every day America's transit networks bring about major greenhouse-
gas reductions the old-fashioned way--through mode shift and reducing
congestion. With the appropriate provisions in your climate bill, you
can advance the nation's GHG-reduction goals:
Expand transit's capacity to get people out of cars and
onto transit, and
Upgrade existing transit lines and expand transit networks
so that transit can transform our cities and metro regions into
communities with low-carbon lifestyles and low-carbon places to
work. This solution set can be deployed now, not in five or 10
years.
In short, your bill can unlock transit's potential to green the
way we live, work and enjoy life in communities throughout the nation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM MICHAEL
A. REPLOGLE
Q.1. Your testimony reveals that we cannot reduce
transportation emissions through technology alone, but that we
need to provide transportation alternatives and also change
development patterns. Some are skeptical, however, that we can
truly change development patterns in time. Can we affect the
change we need between now and 2050?
A.1. Did not respond by publication deadline.
Q.2. Are there other indirect environmental benefits of
transit oriented development? In addition to providing
alternatives to driving is such development also inherently
more efficient because it is more compact? Has anyone measured
those benefits?
A.2. Did not respond by publication deadline.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM CLINTON
J. ANDREWS
Q.1. Professor Andrews, given your experience with statewide
greenhouse gas target plans and regional transportation
planning, what barriers are there to reducing transportation
emissions and what do you think the Federal Government can do
to help overcome those barriers?
A.1. Thank you for the opportunity to answer this follow-up
question. My answer first addresses barriers and then offers
suggestions for how the Federal Government could act to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Barriers
In my view, the key barriers to reducing transportation-
related emissions in the United States are our lack of a clear
national commitment to greenhouse gas reduction and the slow
pace of innovation in the relevant domestic industries.
These problems relate to one another and also tie in with
other challenges. Specifically, dominant firms in the
automobile, petroleum, road-building, and real estate
industries have great incentives and abilities to defend their
current practices and business models against change that
might--might--favor new entrants or inconvenience current
managers and workers. Public financing of transportation
infrastructure is one important policy arena where this defense
of the status quo occurs. Others include the regulatory and tax
policies governing these industries.
Many consumers, firms, and public officials are
unaccustomed to thinking about the long-term consequences of
current decisions, and they often and uncritically mix short-
and long-range solutions to problems. In this context of short-
termism, the marketplace often fails to support solutions that
may have a higher first cost but a lower life-cycle cost.
Arguments about the supposed lack of cost-effective
alternatives need reframing to emphasize a more appropriate
definition of longer-term cost-effectiveness.
In this growing, land-rich nation, standards of good land-
use and transportation planning are relatively immature, and
policy debates on these topics are relatively unsophisticated.
Settlement patterns have reflected the cheapness of our land
and we have only recently begun to recognize the adverse,
unintended consequences of creating automobile-dependent
landscapes. It is time to recognize that the nation's wide-open
spaces no longer define the lived experience of most Americans.
Most people instead live in metropolitan areas and experience
traffic congestion, air pollution, and unnecessarily expensive
transportation choices.
Recommended Federal Actions
To solve these problems, the Federal Government should
first make a clear national commitment to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Elements of this commitment eventually should
include laws that establish carbon accounts for tracking our
progress; regulations such as cap-and-trade that will limit
emissions, starting with point sources; a carbon tax to
encourage reduced emissions economy-wide; and a redirection of
infrastructure financing to acknowledge this new, national
objective.
The Federal Government also should provide funding directly
to Metropolitan Planning Organizations and their counterparts
instead of to the States. This will reduce the rural bias that
hinders rational, state-level transportation infrastructure
resource allocations. This will yield more resources for under-
funded, less carbon-intensive transit, walking and biking
infrastructures in most areas.
The Federal Government should promote life-cycle thinking
by mandating the use of life cycle cost analysis that assesses
the total cost of ownership for all federally funded projects.
This requirement will help tilt financial decisionmaking toward
a longer-term perspective that accounts for greenhouse gas
emissions policies and adaptation to climate change.
The Federal Government should reduce the reasons for
affected industries to defend the status quo. Make tax credits
for research and development, and for investment, more
permanent. Enact social policies that better protect workers
from the consequences of disruptive change, by making health
insurance and pensions transferable, and by providing personal
incentives for education and retraining.
The Federal Government should symmetrically reduce the
ability of beneficiaries of the status quo to defend their
privileged positions. Most important are good government
reforms that reduce the financial roles of lobbyists and
special interests in political decisionmaking and increase the
transparency of political and administrative decisions.
Finally, the Federal Government should undertake a
systematic initiative to improve the quality of the U.S. built
environment. Most important, there should be additional support
for evaluation research to assess the performance--and
unintended consequences of--major transportation projects, land
use regulations, urban designs, and buildings in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions and livability. There should also be a
focus on educating professional planners to a higher standard
by encouraging more widespread requirements for licensure of
planners; providing greater NSF/HUD/DHS fellowship support for
graduate students in planning, architecture, and civil
engineering; and more regularly requesting National Academy-
style advice and analysis from experts in the field. The
relevant expertise for addressing transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions should extend beyond the engineering-
oriented Transportation Research Board membership to include
experts in land-use planning and urban design.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM
CHRISTOPHER CALBALDON
Q.1. Mayor Cabaldon, the Sacramento Blueprint and SB 375
establish aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and energy consumption. How is it that your region
was able to transform the way it planned its transportation
future when so much of the country seems stuck in existing
patterns? What can we learn from your experience and apply
elsewhere?
A.1. There were two keys to our success. We used state-of-the-
art data and modeling tools to objectively analyze the impacts
and trade-offs of different futures for the region, and we had
a very aggressive, innovative citizen engagement process.
Our commitment to developing first-rate, unbiased
information created a great of credibility across the political
spectrum. Examples of what we did include:
--Housing market preference survey (co-funded and designed
by development and business interests) to identify current
preferences for higher density, mixed use, walkable
neighborhood projects.
--Long-range demographic forecast, in part so we could
estimate how current market preferences might change in the
future, especially with the fast growing aging population.
--Development of parcel specific region-wide Geographic
Information System (GIS) database, important for analyzing
technical impacts and political acceptability of land use
changes at the neighborhood level.
--Expansion of regional travel model so that it could
explicitly account for how changing land use patterns would
influence travel behavior and air emissions (most standard
models do a poor job of this because they are too coarse
grained).
--Development of a web-based version of the PLACE3S
software (PLanning for Community Environment, Energy and
Economic Sustainability) so that technically accurate modeling
for the entire region could be conducted fast enough to use
``live'' at small group tables of citizens in dozens of
interactive community workshops.
Our commitment to new methods of citizen engagement
involved thousands of citizens, many of whom were new faces to
on-going local land use politics and developed a high degree of
consensus on the final Blueprint plan across the region.
Examples of what we did include:
--Used a full partnership with Valley Vision, a civic non-
governmental organization, to recruit participation in dozens
of workshops.
--Specifically recruited people for the workshops to
represent a spectrum of citizens, housing advocates, business
and property interests, members of the development industry,
and affected public agencies.
--Assigned participants to ensure a wide diversity of
interests was present at each small group table.
--Supported effective small group decision-making with
trained facilitators and computer modeling at each table (using
PLACE3S software described above).
--Within the 22 cities and 6 counties who are members of
SACOG actively involved all key parties, including elected
officials, city managers/county executives, planning directors,
and planning commissioners.
--Conducted 1500 person regional conference to have
citizens identify their preferred regional future scenario.
--Conducted first-ever regional summit with all local
government elected officials to make final changes to the draft
preferred regional future scenario (the Blueprint).
--Had endorsement for the final scenario from broad range
of interests groups, including environmentalists, developers/
builders, chamber of commerce, architects and housing
advocates.
--Supported implementation of the Blueprint with grants,
development of additional graphic and technical tools, and
technical assistance to local governments and stakeholders.
Q.2. Mayor, the central point you repeat is the importance of
increasing transit ridership. Some still seem to think that it
is difficult to convince people to leave their car at home in
favor of transit. Has that been your experience in West
Sacramento?
A.2. Did not respond by publication deadline.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR VITTER FROM RANDAL
O'TOOLE
Q.1. Mr. O'Toole, can you think of a single public
transportation system that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions
over traditional automobiles?
A.1. No, public transit systems have not reduced greenhouse gas
emissions anywhere in the United States for two reasons. First,
despite tens of billions of dollars of annual subsidies to
public transit--more than the total subsidies to highways even
though highways carry close to 100 times as much travel as
transit--transit's share of urban travel is declining almost
everywhere in the country. While transit's share may have
increased in some areas in 2007 and 2008 due to high fuel
prices, the long-term trends are down and will no doubt remain
negative as people adapt to higher fuel prices by buying more
fuel-efficient cars.
Second, transit itself produces huge amounts of greenhouse
gas emissions. The average public transit bus produces far more
emissions, per passenger mile, than the average car. The
average rail transit line, such as the Washington MetroRail
system, produces as much or more emissions than the average car
if the electricity used to power the system is generated by
burning fossil fuels (as it is for Washington MetroRail). Even
where electric transit is powered by renewable energy sources,
rail transit is almost always supported by buses whose
emissions per passenger mile are high.
The average passenger automobile emits about 0.54 pounds of
CO2 per passenger mile, and this is expected to
decline to well under 0.4 pounds per passenger mile by 2025. As
shown on page 14 of my Cato report, ``Does Rail Transit Save
Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?'' the transit
systems in all but a handful of urban areas--New York, Atlanta,
San Francisco, Portland, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati--emit
more than 0.54 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile.
Transit systems in only three urban areas--New York, San
Francisco, and Portland--emit less than 0.4 pounds of
CO2 per passenger mile. Yet even in these urban
areas, we cannot say that transit has reduced greenhouse gas
emissions because transit's share of travel is declining in
each of them. In Portland, for example, the number of people
who take transit to work declined between 2000 and 2007, while
the number of people who drive to work increased by about
75,000.
While automobiles are getting more energy efficient,
transit has been getting less energy efficient. As we build
more rail lines into suburban areas that do not heavily use
transit, we can expect transit's energy efficiency to decline
even further, and that means that greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger will increase.
Q.2. Mr. O'Toole, what do you think of the premise that brings
us all here today--that if you build more public transit, we
will as a nation reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
A.2. The data show that building more public transit will not
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. First, construction itself
releases large volumes of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if
operating a new transit line could reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, it would take many decades of savings to make up for
the emissions released during construction.
Second, except in places such as the Pacific Coast States
where most electrical energy is generated from renewable
sources, operating those public transit lines does not
significantly save greenhouse gas emissions. If our goal is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building more transit lines is
exactly the opposite of what we want to do.
Even where most electrical energy comes from renewable
sources, it makes more sense to invest in electric or plug-in
hybrid cars, whose batteries can be recharged overnight when
electrical demand is low, than in electric transit that will
use power during the day when demand is high.
Instead of building expensive new transit lines, we need to
take a cue from the private bus industry. On a per-passenger-
mile basis, public transit buses are some of the worst
generators of greenhouse gases. But private buses are the
least, generating far less greenhouse gases per pound than
almost any transit line. The difference is that private bus
operators have an incentive to fill as many seats as possible,
while public transit agencies are politically driven to serve
every corner of their taxation districts even if few people in
many parts of those districts ride transit.
If we are serious about using transit to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, our best choice would be to privatize transit
systems and allow the operators to serve the routes that will
fill the most seats and do the most to minimize costs--both
financial and environmental--per passenger mile.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM ERNEST
TOLLERSON
Q.1. Mr. Tollerson, we've heard about how the marketplace
should dictate transit development. Did the MTA's Blue Ribbon
Panel have members from the private sector on it? Can we create
economic growth with such planning while still being
sustainable?
A.1. Yes, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the
MTA did have members of the private sector on it. The chair of
the Commission, Jonathan F. P. Rose, is the president of
Jonathan Rose Companies. The company is a real estate policy,
planning, development and investment firm with projects worth
$1.5 billion. The firm has been involved in developing
sustainable communities nationwide. The firm's mixed-use
development in Denver was awarded the Urban Land Institute's
Award for Excellence. Currently, Jonathan Rose Companies has
broken ground for the first-ever affordable and mixed-income
residential development designed to LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) Certification standards in East
Harlem.
The chair of the Commission's Facilities Working Group,
Robert Fox, is a founder and partner in the architectural firm
of Cook & Fox. Among the firm's marquee projects is the new
Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in Manhattan. This
skyscraper is considered one of the most efficient and
ecologically friendly buildings in the world. It's the only
skyscraper to achieve LEED platinum--the highest LEED rating.
The other private-sector members of the MTA commission
were: Anna-Marie Francello, the Executive Director of Regional
Travel and Ecology at the UBS Investment Bank; Susan Metzger,
the former owner of the multi-disciplinary environmental
sciences and engineering consulting firm of Lawler, Matusky &
Skelly Engineers, which was recently acquired by HDR, Inc. a
full-service economics, financial and engineering firm; and
Nancy Shevell, Vice President for Administration at New England
Motor Freight Inc. and Shevell Group of Companies. Both Susan
Metzger and Nancy Shevell are current members of the MTA Board
of Directors.
Q.2. Can we create economic growth with such planning while
still being sustainable?
A.2. Yes, economic growth and environmental sustainability are
mutually compatible objectives. The pursuit of environment
sustainability in the public transit sector will spur long-term
economic growth in the form of new jobs and growth in GDP. The
reverse is also true: economic growth in the form of green
transit jobs and increases in GDP related to green transit
policies will help metropolitan regions reduce their carbon
footprints and give metro regions a major tool for meeting any
interim and long-term greenhouse gas reductions goals that the
Congress and White House set. The strategies and policies
proposed by the MTA's Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustain ability
and the MTA promote environmental sustainability and project
the economic benefits of green transit operations and greening
transit capital programs.
The economic development benefits of green public transit
were so important to the commission that the commissioners
invited economist David Lewis to score and forecast the
economic benefits of pursuing a comprehensive sustainability
agenda at the MTA. David Lewis' section of the report, pages 8
and 9, briefly summarize Transit's Four Green Economic Impacts,
which are Avoiding Carbon Emissions, Managing Regional
Congestion, Optimizing Land Use and Generating Higher Values.
In particular, the fourth economic impact, Generating
Higher Values, describes the positive impact that public
transit has on the value of residential real estate. David
Lewis also forecast that the stimulatory effect of green
transit investments recommended by the commission would
generate a possible yield of 105,500 net new jobs a year,
employment income of $5.1 billion a year and regional economic
output of $17 billion a year between 2010 and 2019.
On pages 72 to 74 of the final report of the MTA
commission, David Lewis summarizes the methodology for
forecasting SROI, the Sustainable Return on Investment in a
section on public transit's triple bottom line (TBL). The use
of various SROI models is likely to grow as States, metro
areas, communities and the Federal Government seek to evaluate
and compare the likely impact of various green strategies.
In addition, recently published studies reveal that the
failure to achieve deep reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG)
will result in overall costs from climate change that will be
equal to the loss of between 5 percent to 20 percent of global
GDP. This provides a clear example of the deep connection
between environmental sustainability and economic viability.
The commission's recommendations recognize the role of transit
in promoting economic productivity and sustainability--and
reducing exposure to losses from effects of climate change that
cannot be reversed.
In short, expanding transit networks in the major
metropolitan regions of the United States, where 65 percent of
Americans live and where three-fourths of the nation's GDP is
generated, not only lowers carbon emissions, it demonstrably
raises property values. It not only reduces dependence on
fossil fuels but also allows for high-value businesses to
concentrate in metropolitan areas.
Obtaining these dual benefits of environmental
sustainability and economic growth requires the collaboration
among the three major sectors of U.S. society, the public
sector--including communities, counties, cities, States, public
benefit corporations like the MTA--the private sector and the
independent sector (including CBOs, CDCs, EDCs, NGO's,
foundations and other donors). These dual benefits,
environmental sustainability and economic growth, are not
likely to be achieved by a sole reliance on any one sector.
Recent developments in transit-oriented development (TOD)
in the MTA's 5,000-square-mile service territory make the need
for collaboration among sectors abundantly clear. The MTA has
been directly involved in planning such sustainable economic
growth. Metro-North Railroad, one of two MTA commuter rail
services in the region, worked with the city of Yonkers to
rehabilitate the Metro-North station and the environs around
the station. Metro-North's station improvements complemented
Yonkers' waterfront development projects and assisted in the
downtown revitalization efforts.
As part of the station renovation, Metro-North built a
corridor through the station's concourse, providing direct
access to the Hudson River waterfront for residents, visitors
and commuters. The new riverfront portal complemented the
city's new riverfront esplanade. This collaborative effort
attracted private developers to build a significant mixed-use
residential, commercial and retail development plus a
waterfront park at the station. This cluster of development
projects, in turn, generated greater ridership volume at the
Yonkers station.
This collaborative effort between the city of Yonkers,
Metro-North and a private developer resulted in:
Approximately 600 residential units;
28,000 sq. ft. of office space; and
17,000 sq. ft. of retail restaurant space.
Yonkers is also planning more private development near the
station.
The revitalization of Yonkers increased ridership on Metro-
North while decreasing automobile usage among the TOD
residents. This translated into the following:
40 percent increase in ridership at the Yonkers
Station; and
ess than 1 (0.89) car per household compared to
national average of 1.89.
There are other recent examples of private-public collaborative
efforts in creating TOD in the MTA service territory. In
Tarrytown, New York, a compact, mixed-use development was
recently opened near the Metro-North Tarrytown station. This
resulted in:
Approximately 240 residential units;
65,000 sq. ft. of commercial space;
15,000 sq. ft. of retail space.
Metro-North is a catalyst in a number of other TOD projects,
including the Be in Beacon project and the Happening in
Harrison project. The MTA's other commuter rail service, the
Long Island Rail Road, is working with the Town of Brookhaven
to develop a TOD zone around the LIRR's Ronkonkoma station.
Multiple studies have shown the environmental benefits of
TOD, in particular the reduction of vehicle-miles traveled. The
Urban Land Institute recently published a study, ``Growing
Cooler: The Evidence of Urban Development and Climate Change,''
which showed that mixed-use, compact development by transit
stops is a key contributor to combating GHG emissions. The
study warned that if sprawling development continues to fuel
driving, the projected 48 percent increase in VMT between 2005
and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains in vehicle fuel
efficiency and low-carbon fuels. Even if the most stringent
fuel-efficiency proposals are enacted, vehicle emissions would
be 34 percent above the 1990 levels in 2030. Depending on
several factors, from the mix of land uses to a pedestrian-
friendly design, TOD reduces driving from 20 percent to 40
percent and more in some instances. Residents living in compact
developments have the option of using public transit and are
not restricted to automobiles only. With a range of
transportation choices, these residents drive a third fewer
miles than those in automobile-dependent areas. The MTA
commission recognizes the need to develop and actively promote
a TOD program.
Evidence of the way in which environmental sustainability
and economic growth are intertwined is visible in the MTA's
involvement in clean, renewable energy. As the MTA pursues a
variety of strategies for lowering its carbon emissions and for
gaining access to renewable power, the MTA always looks for
opportunities to incubate and support renewable and cutting-
edge energy entrepreneurs, industries and suppliers.
Finally, the MTA is one of the New York City region's
largest consumers of electricity, primarily for traction power
for subways and commuter rail as well as a large consumer of
fuel for a fleet of more than 6,000 buses. MTA NYCT has played
an important role in the development of hybrid technology. In
1998, MTA NYCT partnered with Orion bus and BAE Systems on 10
diesel hybrid buses. After 6 years of in-service experience,
MTA NYCT ordered 125 production hybrids. The experience was
positive. In our hybrid fleet, we saw an average 30 percent
increase in fuel economy compared to the conventional diesel
buses those hybrids had replaced. We ordered 200 in 2004, 500
in 2006, and 850 in 2008. We now have these buses in all
boroughs with numerous duty cycles, and are monitoring the
component life cycle data to inform future purchase decisions.
The MTA has the largest diesel hybrid fleet in North America,
and the MTA's efforts to build that fleet have helped to drive
the market for diesel hybrid technology.
Q.3. The FTA has numerous programs under SAFETEA-LU. As we move
forward with reauthorization, which programs will we have to
strengthen so transit can be one of our tools to fight climate
change? Do those programs need more resources, policy changes
or both?
A.3. Both. Transit needs a combination of more resources and
policy changes in order to unlock its true carbon-cutting
potential. As the urgency for proven climate-change mitigation
strategies increases, transit is, and should be, viewed as a
major solution that can be deployed now on a national scale.
The MTA recommends the following:
Create a robust state-of-good repair (SOGR)
program. Target the rehabilitation and preservation of
existing infrastructure investments in areas where the
environmental and economic benefits are the greatest.
The value of maintaining existing transit assets, which
have too often been neglected, is critical to making
progress in the fight against climate change. The
foundations of our existing transit systems, which are
already providing key greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions
in major metropolitan areas, must be adequately funded
and maintained. The Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA) recent Rail Modernization Study estimated the
SOGR backlog at the nation's seven largest rail transit
agencies to be roughly $50 billion. Two points made
recently by the FTA administrator are worth keeping in
mind. First, deferred maintenance items, if deferred
long enough or left undetected, can become critical
safety risks. Second, the issues of the conditions of
our transit infrastructure and the safety of our
transit systems are inextricably linked.
Therefore, the Congress should establish a separate SOGR
investment fund with an expedited approval and award process.
It should be noted that transit investments in densely
developed areas with a high transit-mode share serve to
maintain existing densities and ensure riders do not switch to
relying on automobiles. SOGR investments also encourage more
public and private development, creating opportunities to
increase densities near quality public transit.
Encourage intermodal projects to make transit a
more viable option thereby reducing congestion and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Provide incentives for
the planning and development of regional transportation
services which connect multiple modes, jurisdictions
and systems. The provision of better linkages and more
seamless travel options encourages transit use and
reduces GHG emissions. The development of a single
regulatory process for FTA and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) to follow for multi-modal
projects will allow for faster implementation of
projects that provide connections between modes and
highway projects that include transit components.
Funding is also needed for improving access and
connections to transit, especially in areas with
existing low-density development. By improving feeder
systems (buses, shuttles, trolleys, ferries, vans,
etc.) to rail stations as well as distributor systems
from stations to employment centers, metropolitan
regions will be able to address the ``last mile''
problem. All aspects of improving transit connections
should be considered, including: types of vehicles;
scheduling; fares; the provision of real-time customer
information and way-finding signage; the condition and
quality of bus stops, shelters, and stations; and car-
sharing and carpooling systems. In addition, this
program should include local projects that improve
transit and station access through sidewalks, ``smart
streets,'' pedestrian ways, bike lanes and paths, bike
parking, park-and-ride lots, and roadway improvements.
Streamline the project approval process. In order
for communities to realize transit's climate-
stabilization benefits, projects must be approved and
completed more quickly. Procedural changes to the
project-development process would decrease approval-
related delays. That in turn will speed project
delivery and reduce costs. New programs and policies
that promote better coordination of transportation
decisions and investments with land use, housing,
energy and environment investments should be
implemented--and this new level of coordinated
decisionmaking and investments should be accompanied by
a streamlining of Federal processes.
Authorize additional resources for transit.
Fundamentally, there is a need for increased levels of
Federal investment in transit. Expanding transit
capacity and maintaining and upgrading existing transit
networks--including station-access improvements--is a
proven GHG reduction strategy. Additional resources and
the streamlining of Federal processes can quickly
advance implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and
Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines in many metropolitan
areas around the nation. Federal investment is critical
in and of itself, but increased Federal investment
guarantees also attract much needed State, local and
private sector investment in transit and Transit-
Oriented Developments (TODs). TODs have the power to
reduce GHG emissions by transforming the way in which
we live and work by reducing car trips, reducing
distances between activities and encouraging transit
use, biking and walking.
Encourage and broaden experimentation with pricing
programs and policies. Pricing strategies and parking
policies that increase the cost of single-occupancy-
vehicle (SOV) travel should be experimented with and
viewed as complimentary to transit. Persuading people
to switch from driving their cars to transit will in
all likelihood take price signals. Pricing programs
should also be considered additional revenue sources,
which can be used to finance higher levels of transit
investment. Congestion pricing and public
transportation generate mutual benefits--road pricing
yields benefits for transit by improving public
transportation speeds and the reliability of public
transportation service, increasing public
transportation ridership, lowering costs for public
transportation providers, and expanding the source of
revenue that may be used for public transportation.
Public transportation benefits road pricing by absorbing
commuters who shift their travel from automobile to bus or
rail, according to a FHWA primer, entitled Transit and
Congestion Pricing. This primer succinctly lays out the way in
which road pricing and transit work well together.
Provide funding for implementation of new green
technologies and adherence to green standards embraced
by the transit sector in the United States. Transit
agencies should be encouraged to invest in
sustainability improvements that will make their
operations more energy efficient. Greening transit
operations will require the deployment of new
technologies, including: regenerative braking, aluminum
third rail, subway car light-weighting, battery
technologies, clean fuels and the transformation of
transit support facilities (bus depots, train yards and
stations) into high-performance, lower-carbon
facilities; using LEED or LEED-like standards for new
construction and major renovation of facilities can
accelerate the greening power and greening potential of
transit. The American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) and its members have had discussions about
drafting green transit standards for transit agencies;
those standards would cover many areas, including
facility design and vehicle types.
Transforming existing transit infrastructure into
lower-carbon transit services. In older metropolitan
areas there is an opportunity to create lower-carbon
transit services based on adaptive re-use of existing
transit infrastructure. The Long Island Rail Road's
East End Shuttle service is a case in point. It ran
shorter shuttle trains more frequently between Speonk
and Montauk during construction work on a county road
in 2007 and 2008. This so-called scoot service provided
an improved suburb-to-suburb transit option. In light
of the scoot service's success, there are probably many
opportunities to provide similar transit services on
underutilized rail right of ways in other parts of the
MTA region and in many metropolitan regions around the
nation.