AASHTO has noted that “global climate change has become a political, environmental, and economic fact of life” and has proposed a goal of reducing the rate of growth in VMT to approximately the rate of population growth—about 1 percent per year to deal with that problem through mode shifting, in addition to promoting lower carbon vehicles and fuels http://www.transportation.org/news/121.aspx.

Only the most extreme voices still argue that improvements in vehicle technology and fuels and network operating efficiency alone will provide sufficient climate-protective reductions in greenhouse gas pollution from transportation. Recent demographic and economic changes have held per capita VMT close to flat over the past decade, after many decades of growth at over 1% per year. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tomer_puentes/vehicle_miles_traveled_report.pdf

It is clear from many studies cited below in this blog and international comparative studies that successful economies can grow with widely varying rates of motor vehicle dependence and use. The amount of traffic in a region is significantly shaped by the collective choices made over time in how street space is allocated and priced, how various transportation modes are subsidized, encouraged, or suppressed, and how real estate land markets are managed. http://www.vtpi.org/johnston.pdf

AASHTO recently proposed a doubling of the Interstate Highway System, which would spur a lot more driving on Interstate highways and VMT per capita, especially if road expansion is paid for by gas taxes rather than by tolling an ever larger share of highways. But if more investment is put into developing bus rapid transit and pedestrian/bicycle networks, a national system of road user charging, VMT per capita will decrease. With business-as-usual car insurance pricing, a majority of drivers subsidize the minority of high mileage drivers. With mileage-based insurance, two-thirds of households save money on their insurance, with the average household saving $270 per vehicle per year, while VMT drops 8% http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/07_payd_bordoffnoel.aspx

Don’t taxpayers deserve to have government officials consider these options before spending ever more precious public resources on long-term infrastructure that will shape the level of VMT growth for decades to come? Building new roads or new transit systems is like laying out the DNA for cities. A new single Interstate highway can produce a huge chance in the long-term greenhouse gas emissions for a metropolitan area when compared to transit-oriented development and road pricing alternatives, just as new coal fired power plant does vs. demand-side management electricity sector options. http://www.edf.org/documents/4339_ICC_oilGlobalWarming.pdf

Thus this debate really turns on a series of questions: Should transportation infrastructure providers and operators be held accountable for contributing to any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or should they be allowed to undermine the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of lower carbon vehicles and fuels? Before the federal government delivers billions of dollars to state and local government for locally-determined transportation plans and programs, should alternative transportation sector investments and operating strategies, including transportation pricing, be examined to determine if they might better achieve society’s mobility and economic development goals while reducing or minimizing greenhouse gases and other adverse impacts on health, safety, and the environment? Should the federal government consider the national interest in aligning transportation, housing, economic development, environmental, fiscal, and tax policies to minimize greenhouse gas pollution while supporting other goals, thereby achieving more cost-effective governance and administration that maximized public welfare?

A poll released on August 28, 2009 by the Washington Post showed that Americans support proposed changes to US energy policy being developed by Congress and the Obama administration by a 57% to 29% margin; only 5% of those polled believe global warming isn’t an issue. Against that backdrop, state DOTs and other transportation interests seeking public support for a sharp increase in transportation funding might be well served talking about how such investment might be used to help simultaneously improve mobility, health, safety, and economic development while minimizing greenhouse gas pollution and dependence on foreign oil. Transportation agencies have a better chance to win a hike in road user charges and borrowing authority if they agree to deliver transportation plans and programs that reduce traffic growth and related greenhouse gas pollution. Smart road user charges could cut greenhouse gases and VMT while helping deliver vastly better travel options and transportation system performance.

It is disappointing that AASHTO has put much recent effort into trying to delay and then discredit the Moving Cooler study, a serious collaborative effort that commissioned an independent examination of how a wide array of transportation investment and management options might help cut greenhouse gas pollution. I was a member of that study’s Steering Committee, along with representatives from Shell Oil, the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, EPA, the Intelligent Transportation Association of America, the Urban Land Institute, and NRDC. After considerably shaping the study, AASHTO withdrew weeks from the end.

Moving Cooler has been praised by top US DOT officials and Congressional leaders and readers deserve to make up their own minds by reading it, rather than relying on the numerous distortions that have been circulated about its findings and assumptions. The study is not a set of recommendations; it is an appraisal of the impacts of potential alternatives that merit deeper consideration.

Colin puts it well, as does Steve Van Beek.

I'm just posting one last response, given that I was called out by name by my colleague Ken Orksi. I'm not questioning anyone's motives. I have just been really unimpressed by misleading and cursory -- including the vague and oddly anonymous ones you quote -- critiques of a robust, substantial analysis that deserves more thoughtful treatment.

I urge readers to judge for themselves by downloading the book at the Moving Cooler web site.

I think that Steve van Beek's suggestions could bring some much-needed perspective to this debate. NRDC believes that oil savings and GHG reduction are critical goals for the transportation sector--but one of many that transportation infrastructure decisions must support. With that in mind, I agree with his proposal for integrating GHG emission reductions into the transportation planning and project selection processes as a meaningful goal. I'd add that, as with all such program objectives, we must also include provisions to accurately monitor progress toward these goals and support those regions and states that are innovating and achieving the most.

To my colleague Ken Orski, whose NewsBriefs I always enjoy, I question why he considers it "spin" to urge readers to look at Moving Cooler for themselves, rather than taking criticisms from a few at face value. To be sure, there have also been a number of highly respected transportation and air quality professionals and officials who have praised the report, including the Deputy Secretary of US DOT and the Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As with anything in this town, there are a range of opinions on the Moving Cooler strategies, but it is our hope that readers draw their own conclusions. Quite the opposite of spin.

In an article yesterday, John Horsley was quoted as saying, "AASHTO concluded that virtually all of the strategies in the 'Moving Cooler' report have merit in some form". Horsley went on to say, "many of them have been formulated beyond what we believe can be reasonably achieved." This position is a long way from critics who would toss the analysis entirely. It seems to support Steve van Beek's plea for those who support transportation GHG reduction, albeit in differing ways, to debate the policies and their level of implementation on the merits. But let's not throw out the entire body of work in Moving Cooler, just because the report's most aggressive scenarios are challenging to the status quo.

Create Platforms for Innovation

One more point I forgot to make. These times need rapid innovation, and we typically think of the transportation sector as being unable to move quickly because there is so much of it that is embedded in the built infrastructure and existing rolling stock (such a great image for vehicles of all kinds).

But there is a recipe for experimentation, iteration, and ultimately successful innovation.

1. Loosen regulatory requirements for small scale experiments. Just as we do not require food carts to have unisex bathrooms and washing facilities for employees, we need to enable exceptions for the small scale interventions that individually will impact only small numbers of people who understand the risks.
2. Have government provide some baseline capped insurance coverage, that these small scale innovators can buy into that provides them some coverage.
3. Create some open platforms for experimentation:

• In vehicles, an aftermarket device that brings car data to the internet, onto which vehicle owners can download applications created by entrepreneurs (much like smart phones and apps). This will enable innovation on how vehicles are owned, driven, and connect with the world at large. See this article I wrote this article that touches on this topic.

• In road infrastructure, a new classification of low speed (<30mph) and low-vehicle-weight roads on which lighter vehicles that don’t have to pass arduous and expensive safety crash tests or require special licensing to drive can safely experiment.

A growing economy that is creating jobs and generating prosperity requires the movement of freight. Therefore, legislative and regulatory approaches to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector should distinguish between automobiles and commercial trucks. Instead of limiting commercial vehicle miles, the U.S. must become more efficient and utilize technologies that burn less fuel and as a result reduce GHG emissions.

ATA implemented a sustainability initiative that would reduce fuel consumption by 86 billion gallons over ten years and reduce the carbon footprint of all vehicles by nearly a billion tons over the next decade. Components of the initiative include a national transportation policy that improves access and expands highway capacity around our nation’s worst traffic bottlenecks, policies that reduce speed on our highways to 65 mph, technologies to reduce discretionary idling, policies that promote more productive trucks, the expansion of programs such as EPA SmartwaySM and further improvements to diesel engine efficiency.

ATA estimates that governing trucks at 65 mph would save the industry 2.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel in a decade and reduce CO2 emissions by 31.5 million tons. A truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27 percent more fuel than one traveling at 65 mph. Also, setting the national speed limit at 65 mph would reduce automobiles’ consumption of gasoline by 8.7 billion gallons, with an accompanying drop in CO2 emissions of 84.7 million tons.

In addition, ATA recommends that shippers and carriers join the U.S. EPA SmartWaySM Transport Partnership Program in order to achieve greater national gains in fuel efficiency and carbon reduction. Its goal is to look beyond the fuel economy of individual vehicles and use new management techniques and technologies to increase the amount of cargo moved per gallon of fuel for the whole fleet. SmartWaySM partners are estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 119 million tons over the next nine years.

These types of policies are realistic ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without impeding the freedom of movement essential to the U.S. economy.

In the spirit of the climate debate, let's "chill."

Rather than making two more laps around the Moving Cooler track, why don't we discuss and debate the policies contained in the report? Knowing many of those involved with the report, I accept it as an honest attempt to test the potential of a diverse set of strategies. The fact that some are politically unrealistic does not necessarily mean that they should not be explored. If some have misinterpreted the metholodology or some were inexact about how they communicated the report's findings, well, it wouldn't be the first time that has happened inside the Beltway.

More serious to me is that the transportation and environmental representatives (with a couple of exceptions) are talking at each other rather than with each other (perhaps we are being overly influenced by the tone of the health care debate). The transportation community should stipulate that any transportation program must include reduction of greenhouse gases as a goal. President Obama's FY 2010 goal and/or the goal of H.R. 2454 are likely to be close to the levels to be negotiated in Copenhagen so we have a reasonable baseline to begin assessing the viability of alternative policies.

At the same time, the environmental community should accept that reduction of greenhouse gases isn't the only goal for a transportation program and, in fact, reducing that goal for projects to the exclusion of others is not only politically unrealistic and bad policy, but could have unintended consequences that hurt the climate cause.

The point is that we should improve the transportation planning process to do real alternative analyses that weigh the diverse set of transportation goals, including those related to climate. We should then do our best to align our funding allocations with that kind of planning. Such a political architecture would be a notable improvement over existing national policy and it should be something that both communities could support.

I would suggest to my colleague Deron Lovaas that there is no need to impugn the motives of those with whom he disagrees and those who report the views contrary to his own. The fact remains that a number of respected transportation professionals with whom we have spoken honestly believe that the "Moving Cooler" study was "deceptive, "misleading," "unrealistic" and "deeply flawed." (their words not mine). In reporting these views we tried to strike a balance by giving Lance Neumann, president of Cambridge Systematics, an opportunity to answer his critics and by publishing a commentary by James Corless, Director of the Transportation for America campaign defending his "Route to Reform" report ("The Moving Cooler Debte Continues, NewsBrief, August 21). Nevertheless, the "Moving Cooler" report will remain controversial and discredited in the eyes of many professionals no matter what kind of a spin is given to it.

Again, I urge readers to review Moving Cooler for themselves. I noticed that someone posted a link here to a brief diatribe by Wendell Cox, which relies heavily on two other equally superficial pieces. This small echo chamber may make for loud noise, but is of limited use for informed policy-making.

The leader of the team of analysts was quoted in another online publication today, and her sum-up shows how the histrionics are unwarranted:

• [Joanne] Potter said Cambridge's goal was simple: to determine how much emissions-reducing potential each strategy held. The report sought to find out, "If we did this much on this strategy, what would we get out of it?" she said. "We went from very modest to very aggressive; the findings can be used by a pretty broad range of groups."

The study has enough depth and breadth that it can be mined for useful analysis and information by many in the transportation industry interested in reducing emissions. It should also spur more analysis, complementing studies of potential in vehicle technology and scaleable alternative transportation energy sources.

Climate change , according to most of the world's scientists, including those in the NAS conclude that climate change is real, an imminent threat to the planet, and that it can be slowed or reversed by actions of the world community.I'm still amazed at the number of learned individuals who remain unconvinced. Greenhouse gases could wreak havoc with our climate, health, food supply and could result in low lying lands being inundated. The cost of this scenario could be so huge that even costly solutions make economic sense. Technology, in the form of new energy sopurces and ways of propelling vehicles offer the most promise in the field of transportation. Land use and travel behavior changes will for the most part fail and yield nominal results unless of course fuel costs increase dramatically as with a hefty VMT or fuels tax increase.

This article by Wendell Cox is an excellent summary of concerns expressed by many in the transportation community with the "Moving Cooler" report .

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00984-taking-fun-out-fighting-global-warming

As usual, lots of excellent advice before me. In particular, Todd Littman, Jon Marz, and Steve Winkelman make some excellent points with well-researched responses (as does the Moving Cooler report).

New ideas: We need to focus on two fundamental goals of the upcoming Transportation ReAuthorization bill.

1. We need to meet the needs of the climate.
2. We need to meet the needs of the people.

1. The climate. Steve Winkelman suggests that for each and every project -- and I would add policy and financing mechanism -- “we must Ask the Climate Question as to whether those investments will increase or decrease GHG emissions.” Indeed.

Mainstream climate scientists believe we need to reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 40% over 1990 levels by 2020 in order to avert catastrophic effects of climate change and bring the parts per million down to levels that promote life. The current climate bill suggests a 2020 goal of 17% over 2005 levels. That is a big gap. Our climate goals --needs really -- will not be met by fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative fuels alone.

While supply-side and technology-enabled solutions are politically preferred, they won’t meet the near-term time requirements (sorry much cited McKenzie report). Nor will building more transit or more walkable communities. In fact, there is no physical (think atoms) solution that can meet our immediate near term needs. To be clear, we can and must invest in these longer-term solutions as well, but not in the absence of immediate and near-term CO2 reductions.

Sadly, and with effort, we must resort to demand-side solutions as well. The only way we can get CO2 emissions down as significantly as is required by 2020, is to change behavior. It is my experience that pricing (in particular the inclusion of externalities) rapidly – overnight -- changes behavior (eg. congestion pricing, carsharing, true-cost parking).

As we determine how to finance the transportation bill, and which particular projects to pay for, we must Ask the Climate Question and give preference to solutions that reduce GHG emissions with the most speed and at the lowest cost. From a New Yorker cartoon: Around the board table “If we are going to prioritize, we need priorities.”

2. The People There is some disagreement about whether “the people” are happy with their car dependent status quo. Solving for fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars could – if we had the luxury of 25 years for fleet turnover to solve the problem, which we don’t – address both climate needs and the needs of people who are happy being car-dependent. But if we Ask the Demographic Question, I think we will find that our future selves aren’t going to be satisfied with a car-centric transportation option.

As I pointed out above, the infrastructure-building (and many policies) that come out of the new bill will shape the world of 5,10, 15, 20 years hence, and become the infrastructure base for the next 50 years. With this in mind, we must accept the reality that our population will be older, more urban, and living in a world of increased costs of car ownership and operation (rising fossil fuel costs, carbon taxes, appropriate infrastructure financing costs, congestion pricing, increased parking rates). Our future selves will not thank us for continuing to maintain and extend car dependency.

Again, projects and policies must Ask the Demographic Question, what kind of transportation will the people-who-be-living-when-the-project-is-completed want? Demand analysis must do better and more realistic scenario planning.

Another topic for another time -- our climate and people goals, within the transportation bill would do well to be much better integrated and coordinated with efforts in housing, health, regional planning, etc.

More details on our future demographics can be found in my blog posting here: http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2009/01/where-do-cars-belong-in-21st-america.html

And on the urgency of climate action timeframe, here: http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2007/11/infrastructure-changes-are-important.html

Jeff Breneman, executive director for the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars and contributor to National Journal's Energy & Environment Expert Blog, offers the following response to our question this week:

Indeed a smart and holistic approach to traffic and land use management is critical to reducing emissions from the transportation sector. As these strategies are considered and eventually implemented, in the short term we must appreciate Americans’ historical love for hitting the open road and find ways to leverage technology that will significantly reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions.

A close look reveals a host of technologies that are already available to make driving a cleaner option. One that’s available right now is clean diesel technology. Today’s advanced diesel engines are ultra clean, meeting the nation’s toughest air quality standards. Advanced clean diesel-powered vehicles average 30 percent better fuel economy and 20 percent lower CO2 emissions than traditional gasoline engines, which benefit both consumers and the environment. All of these benefits come without sacrificing the power Americans need or want in their vehicles. Advanced diesel technology provides an average of 50 percent more power (torque) than a traditional gasoline engine. And along with these long term fuel-efficiency and CO2 advantages, consumers can receive federal fuel efficient vehicle tax credits when they purchase a new advanced diesel vehicle and enjoy higher resale values.

Advanced clean diesel does not require massive and expensive changes to America’s transportation infrastructure as nearly half of the filling stations around the country provide diesel fuel. Additionally, the rational deployment of quality bio/renewable diesel will help us reduce our petroleum use even further. So as we continue to look for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as bring more fuel efficient vehicles to market, it’s important for Congress and the Obama Administration to support technology-neutral policies that reward the desired outcomes (petroleum and CO2 reductions) instead of picking specific technologies. We need a portfolio of advanced technologies to meet these outcomes. No specific vehicle technology will meet all of America’s driving needs. Advanced diesel can help us achieve these important national goals TODAY.

There is no doubt that one of the principal strategies for reducing transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions should be to invest in alternative methods of powering light-duty vehicles. Given that they constitute 60% of total transportation emissions, no comprehensive strategy can be successful without a fleet-wide (or close to it) conversion by 2050. Although they constitute lesser shares of the overall problem, the same is true of the maritime and the aviation sectors as ships and aircraft are still reliant on fossil-fuels (it is especially true for the international bunkered emissions handled by IMO and ICAO). There does appear to be a consensus in the transportation, energy, and environmental communities to fund the research and development necessary and provide incentives for users and providers to convert.

It is the set of other measures that appear to provoke the greatest debate (and sometimes name-calling among policy advocates). Lisa notes that environmental advocates say that “we need to reduce the number of vehicle-miles that people drive by expanding public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle networks and by adopting land use policies that reduce the need for vehicle travel and reduce the length of vehicle trips.”

Undoubtedly in many parts our nation these strategies could be effective in achieving emission reductions and would be supported by a broad array of transportation advocates (something that a few of my fellow bloggers from the environmental community appear not to understand). We should not accept on faith, however, that they are the best strategies even in congested metropolitan areas. Conclusions should be based on analysis.

An analytical framework, rather than a “faith-based” strategy, would reform our transportation policy and funding systems to (1) adopt rigorous planning strategies that analyze all alternatives against the array of transportation goals, (2) provide flexibility for communities, MPOs, states and mega-regions to adopt the best strategies in a mode-neutral fashion, (3) pursue revenue and user fee strategies that internalize the external costs that transportation users impose, and (4) fund transportation infrastructure improvements that promise to deliver the greatest benefits.

Unfortunately, in its totality H.R. 2454 does not effectively address transportation’s share of emissions so it is no surprise that the EIA analysis shows only marginal progress by 2030 (it should be noted that the analysis does not score possible emission reductions that may occur due to a shift to alternative fueled vehicles). This is a reminder that just as we should not stove-pipe transportation decisions we should not continue to think of transportation and climate as separate policy domains. Perhaps we can make some improvements in integrating the policies in the U.S. Senate.

Over the last several years it has been heartening to see the leadership of transportation organizations such as APTA and AASHTO on environmental issues, including the climate. The good news is that I believe that many of the four strategies I enumerated above are supported by a majority of transportation advocates and would be effective in meeting transportation goals, including the protection of air and water quality, species and habitat protection, and reductions in emissions contributing to global warming. Hopefully our environmental friends will support them as well and they can serve as a common agenda for climate and transportation legislation.

It’s certainly exciting to see transportation become a hot topic in the climate change debate. As a large and growing portion of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it’s critical for us to find workable transportation solutions that enhance mobility, save consumers money, and reduce GHG emissions.

That’s why it's been so exciting to watch over the last few years as Congress and the Obama administration have taken some long-overdue steps to dramatically increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards. This will save millions of barrels of oil, substantially reduce GHG emissions, and save consumers billions at the pump while we’re at it.

Despite this, looking at the current energy and climate debate, it’s hard to conclude that our transportation system is being called upon to provide substantial emissions reductions to meet critical climate protection targets. U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) modeling of the House-passed energy and climate bill projects that the transportation sector will reduce GHG emissions by less than 3 percent below baseline levels by 2030. Compare this to the 35 to 40 percent emission reductions that are expected in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, and the 55 percent reduction in the electric sector. In fact, under the EIA model, transportation will be our largest source of GHG emissions in 2030.

Don’t get me wrong—ACES is a landmark bill that deserves to be passed and signed into law. And without action on vehicle efficiency by Congress and President Obama, projected transportation emissions would have been much higher in EIA’s model. On the other hand, despite this progress, more needs to be done to address our transportation emissions.

NRDC has enthusiastically endorsed and doggedly pursued the goal of pushing the envelope on more efficient vehicles and lower-carbon fuels. However, the reams of analysis exploring the emissions reduction potential of these technologies also make clear that, while they can achieve a lot, we cannot expect to deal with transportation emissions relying on these strategies alone.

Unfortunately, a similarly comprehensive scientific analysis of the emissions reductions we can reasonably expect from other strategies was missing from the literature on transportation and climate. That’s why NRDC, along with transportation industry groups, federal agencies, and private industry, commissioned widely-respected transportation system consultants Cambridge Systematics, Inc. to fill in the missing pieces. After a year of effort, Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions was released in July to help fill this knowledge gap.

The report left no stone unturned, examining 49 strategies for reducing GHG emissions through travel efficiency and transportation system management. Everything from highway bottleneck relief, congestion management, and intelligent transportation systems to public transportation, smart growth, and road-use pricing was evaluated. It looked at these strategies alone, as well as in “bundles” to explore synergistic effects. Modeling was done across a wide range of geographic areas, and at a variety of implementation levels.

The findings of the report are quite encouraging: travel efficiency and system managements policies such as those being debated for the upcoming surface transportation bill can make a substantial contribution to GHG reductions. These strategies bring with them significant oil savings and, in most cases, cost savings for transportation consumers. Of course, impacts vary by which strategies are implemented and at what level of deployment. And more research remains to be done to dive deeper into the findings, especially at the regional and local level. But the overall scope of the findings is nothing but encouraging from both a climate policy and a transportation policy perspective.

It’s clear that we have big challenges in both transportation and climate policy. So you’d think that the transportation industry would jump at the chance to implement strategies that would cut GHG emissions, reduce our oil consumption, and save consumers money.

However, just the opposite has occurred. Rather than discuss how the findings should and shouldn’t affect policy, many have sought to discredit the entire body of work. Similar to what we’ve seen during the broader climate debate, an attempt to fill a legitimate gap in the literature on transportation and climate change has been unfortunately and unnecessarily politicized by those who apparently consider the findings inconvenient. More conveniently, they conclude we should focus on transportation policies such as zero-emission vehicles and no-carbon fuels – activities that are the responsibility of other industries, and over which they have no control – rather than examine the full potential of what the transportation industry can itself accomplish.

I hate to say it, but this seems to support the idea that the transportation industry in America is overly invested in the status quo. Research such as the 2007 book All Roads Lead to Congress offers a snapshot of how U.S. transportation policy has become a highly competitive and politically charged multi-billion dollar industry. Maybe it shouldn't surprise us when the “mainstream” transportation community reacts so aggressively to analysis that challenges some long-held perspectives on transportation policy.

What is truly unfortunate is that these industry opinions are not reflective of either public opinion or market reality. In market research and polls from a diversity of sources including the real-estate industry, leading national think tanks, and non-profit organizations, both homebuyers and transportation consumers have expressed support for more walkable, livable communities where they can take fewer and shorter car trip and have more transportation options.

Meanwhile, the market itself backs this data; real estate prices show that today’s consumers are willing to pay a premium for this. For example, a recent report by economist Joseph Cortright for the organization CEOs for Cities found that, controlling for proximity to city center, housing size, and income level, houses in such walkable, livable communities commanded a price premium of $700 to $3000. The results suggested that houses nearby to transit commanded the high end of observed premiums.

This market preference for better-planned communities with more transportation options carries hard economic benefits as well. In addition to the research cited by CCAP above, a 2006 report by the International Economic Development Council looked at 8 case studies from a cross section of America, from areas traditionally associated with these strategies – Portland, OR and Silver Spring, MD – to those that are not – Paducah, KY and Burlington, IA. The report found that leading local economic indicators – income levels, private investment, local GDP and tax revenue, commercial vacancy rates, etc. – often significantly improved after development of smart growth-style projects or public transportation facilities.

As my colleague Deron said, here at NRDC, we tend toward optimism that we can and will successfully deal with climate change as a nation. That’s why we work each day toward the vision of zero-emission cars and carbon-free transportation fuels. That optimism also carries over to the goal of connecting communities with a more efficient and sustainable transportation network that offers American families the high quality of life we have come to enjoy--just without all the associated GHG emissions.

When we set out on the process that became Moving Cooler, we were unsure what the analysis would find. Needless to say, our optimism is fueled by the findings, and we hope they can provide valuable information during a critical debate over both our energy and our transportation policy. We know that implementing these solutions will be a challenge, but we steadfastly believe that our nation is up to the task.

While there may be some (limited) room for argument over the amount of necessary carbon reduction by sector, the indisputable fact remains that carbon emissions as a whole need to be reduced including those from the transportation sector. All options, from VMT reductions to trip avoidance techniques to land use policies to improved vehicle technologies and fuels to capacity expansion, need to be on the table and available to meet the local mix of barriers and opportunities. There is no simple “one size fits all” answer to this issue.

When coupled with the issue of transportation infrastructure funding, it becomes doubly important that the incentives and disincentives at the federal level encourage the even-handed use of all options to meet the needs served by our current transportation mix, both now and looking to our future economic and emission reduction needs. We need to recognize what it costs to subsidize certain types of trips, including those from a single occupant vehicle, and appropriately balance our subsidies and our costs. And where alternative travel or non-travel options are not available to meet needs, making those options available and meaningful should be the focus of our construction policies, revenue generation policies, and spending policies.

This issue cannot be examined or dealt with separately, but must be a component of our overall look at the financing of transportation infrastructure.

Aviation accounts for approximately 3 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 12 percent of transportation emissions. While airports are responsible for a fraction of that contribution, they recognize the importance of addressing aviation’s contribution to climate change. Airports are taking aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with sources under their control, such as reducing their energy usage, converting to low emission vehicles, and recycling.

Airports cannot control the aviation industry’s largest contributor to its carbon footprint - aircraft. Still, airports have worked to identify where they can play a role in helping to reduce aircraft emissions.

Airports recognize that this important issue can only be tackled through the joint cooperation of the entire industry at a global level. In late June, the ACI-NA Board of Directors took the position that GHGs “are best reduced through a multi-faceted approach that includes operational advances, technology improvements, infrastructure investments, alternative fuels, and economic measures.”

Air traffic control modernization—called NextGen here in the United States—promises to cut GHG emissions through greater reliance on shorter point-to-point routings, improved traffic flow management, and fuel efficient aircraft takeoff and descent profiles. Enhanced surface traffic management at airports, which is also planned under NextGen, will reduce the amount of time that aircraft spend with their engines running awaiting departure clearance or an available gate. Deployment of these technologies and the procedures that they enable—many of which are available now—needs to occur as soon as possible.

Investments in infrastructure, such as runways and taxiways that reduce delays, particularly delays associated with adverse weather conditions, can and do cut aircraft fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. Projects like the ongoing O’Hare Modernization Program clearly illustrate that targeted infrastructure investments are a key part of the solution. Investing in better intermodal links between our airports and the communities they serve—moving passengers and employees out of their cars and on to transit—is also worthy of renewed consideration. An increase in the passenger facility charge (PFC) is essential to such infrastructure development. This financing tool allows local communities to determine their needs and map out a plan for improvements and development at the airport in coordination with the airport users.

With respect to economic measures, we encourage the U.S. and Canada to work with governments throughout the world to “incorporate the true environmental and economic costs of GHG emissions into the price of energy through the development of appropriate economic measures.” Further, any revenues from economic measures “should be invested in a manner that will have the greatest impact on long-term GHG emission reductions within the aviation industry."

In February, ACI-NA’s Board of Directors also voted to adopt a slate of ambitious airport environmental goals to be achieved in the coming years. Several of the goals specifically address measures to reduce aviation’s GHG emissions.

I read that Pennsylvania is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the discovery of oil on Aug. 27, 1859, in Titusville, Pa. This oil well would go on to pump 20 barrels a day and serve as the vital resource for countless oil products that would change the world .

We have come a long way in 150 years, but when it comes to finding solutions to sustain our world while continuing to prosper, we have a long way to go.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill

Several descriptions, including on this blog, have misinformed readers about the new Moving Cooler report. This new analysis is the product of nearly a year of work by a reputable firm (Cambridge Systematics), with support and advice from a diverse Steering Committee that included FHWA, ITS America, NRDC and Shell Oil. It spans nearly 100 pages, and technical appendices that provide even more material will be available shortly. And yet writers, either unfamiliar with the concept of a technical potential assessment or a scenario analysis, have taken a handful of assumptions underpinning the maximum deployment scenario and conflated them with the entire study's findings. This is misleading, belying the content of a robust, objective report that I urge readers to review for themselves.

Having said that, no one disputes the fact that there are many low-hanging-fruit reductions to be gained by improving technology. We at NRDC have always been technology optimists, and with vehicles that's definitely warranted. This is why we were a proud sponsor of another study cited by another blogger, the McKinsey study looking at emission reduction potential of measures including vehicle and fuel improvements. But McKinsey, we believe, left some strategies for reducing emissions from transportation on the cutting room floor. Cambridge has much deeper expertise in this area, and that's why it's appropriate that they have helped fill this analytical gap with Moving Cooler.

It's worth the candle because, as those of us who've considered the scale of our climate and energy security challenges realize, an array of strategies will be useful (for a sobering assessment by energy economist Peter Tertzakian, check out this video about his latest book). One specific, modest example of a complementing effect described by Moving Cooler is that as TOD and generally more efficient land-development are encouraged by metro areas, plug-in hybrids will become a more viable option since travelers will be better able to meet their daily needs within the range limits of advanced batteries. And more generally, the more that is done to moderate demand the more scaleable that makes substitute transportation energy sources such as electricity for plug-ins or sustainable biofuels for the tank.

As we move forward in this, the 21st century, the demographic and energy picture is fundamentally different from the last time we faced monumental energy challenges (the 1970s oil embargoes), as is the need to constrain carbon emissions. The scale is daunting. But growing public awareness of that fact (witness the popular 2007 and 2009 boosts in vehicle fuel economy standards, for the first time in decades) means we also have the wind at our backs. Growing public support, increasing relevance of metropolitan regions to the nation's prosperity as well as the remarkable energy price trends of the past few years make the solutions in Moving Cooler much more palatable and possible than many realize.

And that's why I remain an optimist about it all -- vehicle tech, fuels AND strategies to improve traffic flow, moderate travel demand and provide more mobility choices.

There are many possible ways to reduce climate change emissions. Some, however, provide significant co-benefits, and so are much more cost effective and beneficial overall.

Emission reduction strategies that simply increase vehicle fuel efficiency or promote alternative fuels at best achieve two planning objectives: energy conservation and emission reductions. They do nothing to reduce traffic congestion, road and parking infrastructure costs, accidents or sprawl, or to improve mobility options for non-drivers. In fact, by reducing the per-mile cost of driving, strategies that simply increase vehicle fuel efficiency tend to stimulate additional vehicle travel, called a "rebound effect," which exacerbates other transport problems. For example, if regulations or feebates increase average vehicle fuel efficiency from 20 to 30 miles-per-gallon, total vehicle travel is likely to increase about 10% compared with what would otherwise occur, increasing traffic congestion, roadway costs, accidents and sprawl.

On the other hand, mobility management (also called transportation demand management or TDM) strategies reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions by increasing total transportation system efficiency. This includes improving transportation options (improved walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit, telecommunications that substitutes for physical travel, and delviery services), incentives to use the most cost-effective mode for each trip, and more accessible, multi-modal community development (called "smart growth"). Although individually these strategies have modest effects, typically reducing just a few percentage of total travel, their impacts are cumulative and synergistic. These solutions provide a variety of benefits: congestion reductions, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer savings, accident reductions, community redevelopment benefits, energy conservation, emission reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers, and improved public fitness and health.

Critics of these strategies often claim that they harm consumers and the economy, but this is not a debate between environmentalists and economists. Many mobility management strategies reflect market principles, such as cost-based pricing and improved consumer options, and so tend to increase economic efficiency and equity overall.

Described differently, although few motorists want to give up driving altogether, many people would prefer to drive less and rely more on alternative modes, providing they have good quality options, such as good walking and cycling facilities and high quality public transit services. Mobility management is the policy approach that can give consumers what they really want: a more diverse and efficient transportation system.

This is not to suggest that policies that increase fuel efficiency should never be implemented, but they should be implemented in conjunction with mobility management strategies. The key to selecting the best overall emission reduction strategies is to apply comprehensive analysis which considers all benefits and costs. When all impacts are considered, mobility managment strategies are often the most cost effective solutions to transportation problems.

For more information on these subjects see:

Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (www.movingcooler.info ).

Smart Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies (www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf ).

Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes, (www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf).

Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions(www.transportation1.org/RealSolutions/index.html ).

We need it all: efficient vehicles, efficient fuels, travel-efficient communities and an efficient transportation system. The deep cuts in GHG emissions necessary to stave off the worst impacts of climate change will require reductions from all sectors of the economy and from all “legs” of the transportation stool. It is true that vehicle technology and fuel improvements will play a major role in reducing transportation GHG emissions, but it is also clear that they cannot counter unchecked growth in driving.

As I noted in my July 14th testimony to Senate EPW, even with major progress on vehicle efficiency (55 mpg CAFE in 2030) and fuel GHG intensity (15 percent reduction in 2030), 2030 GHG emissions from passenger vehicles would be off track from levels needed for climate protection, given the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projection that per-capita VMT will rise 15 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels.

CCAP calculates that a 10% reduction in VMT per capita (below 2005) levels is necessary for achieving necessary GHG reductions. And even with major improvements in vehicle technologies and fuels, deeper cuts in VMT will be needed by 2050.

The good news is that demographic and real estate market trends indicate increased demand for compact, walkable communities, which suggests that EIA’s VMT growth forecast is probably too high. Federal, state and local policy makers have a tremendous opportunity to meet the growing demand for travel-efficient communities. In fact the more we can increase accessibility and travel choices, the less pressure there is on expensive new technologies.

Moreover, as documented in CCAP’s recent study, “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices,” smart growth and travel efficiency measures can reduce CO2 emissions at a net cost savings by reducing net infrastructure costs, attracting private investment and increasing local tax revenues. At the same, households in communities with better transportation choices spend 30-60% less on gasoline and therefore have more freedom as to how they spend their money. And compact development can also deliver important energy security, health and natural resource efficiency benefits.

We have a wealth of empirical evidence that people drive less in areas with greater accessibility and travel choices. And places like Arlington, Virginia, Portland, Oregon and New York City demonstrate that they can grow the economy without increasing VMT and traffic.

The question going forward is how to ensure that the transportation investments and land use decisions we make increase accessibility and improve travel choices for the sake of the economy, quality of life and the environment. Under business-as-usual transportation policy, few places will have the opportunity to realize those benefits. We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on transportation infrastructure – we must Ask the Climate Question as to whether those investments will increase or decrease GHG emissions.

More good news. We have learned enough to graduate from academic studies of GHG emission reduction potential to start implementing directionally correct measures, assessing their impacts and adjusting policies accordingly. This is what CCAP calls a “Do. Measure. Learn.” approach.

In stead of debating whether transit-oriented development is more effective than eco-driving, or “sexy sidewalks” are better than traffic flow smoothing, let’s dedicate some real money to implementation and measurement and see what works where. Then we can identify the areas with a higher market demand for smart growth, identify the cohort of drivers most oriented toward eco-driving, and spend our limited resources wisely. The most effective solutions will be locally determined – this is not a set of issues that can be dictated from the top down.

The Senate climate bill presents a perfect opportunity to provide critical technical assistance and implementation funding to prime the pump, foster on-the-ground change and increase our knowledge about what works where.

For a background to the current discussion, I am posting our recent NewsBrief (August 18, 2009). The debate flared up with the publication of the "Moving Cooler" report which lays emphasis on reducing driving and changing land use patterns as the key levers to reducing carbon emissions. The report has been severely criticized by the transportation community as lacking in balance and objectivity.
A Controversial Report Has the Transportation Community Up in Arms

While the nation at large and the political community are consumed by the current debate about health care, another controversy is being played out on a smaller stage but with no less intensity. The object of the controversy is a recently released report entitled "Moving Cooler". The report, unveiled with great fanfare on July 28 before a large gathering of the Washington environmental community, purports to estimate the potential reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can be achieved from surface transportation. The report’s authors conclude that a combination of strategies and policy actions involving changes in vehicle and transportation system operations, travel behavior, land use patterns and level of transit service could reduce annual GHG emissions by up to 24 percent from the expected baseline levels in 2050. The authors further maintain that with "strong economy-wide pricing measures" (read, VMT fees and PAYD insurance), annual GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 47 percent.
The report was commissioned by a group of sponsors and written by a well-known transportation consulting firm, Cambridge Systematics. Sponsors included two environmental advocacy groups (Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council), several foundations, the American Public Transportation Association, the Urban Land Institute, ITS America, Shell Oil Company and three government agencies – Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), one of the original sponsors, withdrew its support after concluding that the study "did not produce results upon which decision-makers can rely." Specifically, AASHTO expressed concern that decision-makers could be led to rely on the study’s conclusions "without understanding the drastic steps that would have to be taken" to achieve the promised reductions.
At an August 13 meeting convened by AASHTO to discuss the report, many of the study assumptions were described as "extreme, unrealistic and in some cases downright impossible." A list of 37 specific issues challenging the report’s methodology and requiring clarification was presented by a team of researchers that analyzed the study. Transportation professionals reached after the meeting were equally blunt. "This is an advocacy document pure and simple, couched in the form of a pseudo scientific analysis," one state DOT official told us. Other transportation professionals, speaking on background, criticized the study as "not meeting scientific standards," "using implausible assumptions," "failing to adequately disclose key analytical assumptions," "lacking in objectivity," " a deeply flawed analysis," and "following a questionable peer review process."
Precisely what kind of assumptions did the report use to warrant such a severe condemnation? Here is a partial list of measures assumed by the report’s authors that would be needed to achieve the estimated reductions:
+ Institute tolling of all interstate intercity highways throughout the U.S. by next year (2010). Minimum toll would be 5 cents/mile. As the presentation to AASHTO pointed out, this would require immediate Federal legislation to authorize tolls and a massive crash effort to install toll equipment on these highways within the next year. The tolls would likely shift some traffic to other roads and hit rural areas hardest. According to the analysis, a 5 cent/mile toll would be equivalent to increasing the gas tax for interstate trips by $1.10/gallon for vehicles that get 22 MPG and $1.75/gallon for high-efficiency vehicles.
+ Impose congestion pricing in 125 metropolitan areas, at 65 cents per mile. The presentation to AASHTO pointed out that a 20-mile round-trip commute trip would cost an additional $26 each day . Service workers and delivery vehicles could face much higher increased costs. The top 125 metro areas where congestion pricing would be imposed include such small urban areas as Canton, OH; Jackson, MS; Flint, MI; Modesto, CA; Greenville, SC; and Lancaster, PA.
+ Impose or significantly increase parking fees in the CBD and require $400 biennial residential on-street parking permits
+ Reimpose a national 55 mph speed limit
+ Invest $1.2 trillion over 40 years in expanding urban transportation. Increase transit operating subsidies by next year to allow transit fares to be cut by 50% in all regions.
+ Increase highway capacity above the baseline by either $640 billion ("aggressive deployment") or $1.2 trillion ("Maximum deployment") over 40 years.
+ Add bike lanes and paths at 1/4 mile intervals in high density areas (more than 2,000 persons/square mile.)
+ Require at least 90% of new development to be in compact, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods with high quality transit. The report notes that the land use measures "may require strong regional land use planning and oversight agencies,... may result in higher housing prices and...some people might need to live in smaller homes or on smaller lots than they would prefer."
While the report’s authors acknowledge in the body of the report that implementing the strategies at their "maximum deployment level" would require a major shift in national attitudes and political will, the presentation and press releases distributed at the July 28 report rollout ignored this caveat. They also ignored the report's conclusion that lower emission reductions would be achieved at less intensive -- and more realistic-- levels of deployment. Thus, an impression may have been created, says Allen Biehler, Director of PennDOT and AASHTO’s President, that emission reduction targets in the range of 24 to 52 percent are reasonably achievable. This, in turn, could lead to their adoption in EPA rulemaking and legislation pending in Congress.
Environmental sources contacted for this story allege that the threat of climate change is no less urgent than the threat of air pollution was 30 years ago, and the means to combat it happen to be largely the same: reduce reliance on and volume of automobile travel, greatly expand public transit, support nonmotorized travel (biking and walking), and change development patterns to achieve more compact "walkable" communities. They had to be reminded that improvements in air quality over the last 30 years have been almost entirely achieved through changes in vehicle and fuel technology and not through changes in travel behavior and land use patterns. Indeed, urban air pollution has been substantially reduced from its 1970s levels despite rising vehicle-miles of travel (VMTs) and continued dispersal of homes and jobs.
Be that as it may, the present controversy is not about challenging the legitimacy of the emission reduction strategies advocated in the "Moving Cooler" report. It is, rather, about using allegedly flawed analysis and unrealistic assumptions that could mislead policymakers and the public and raise unreasonable expectations about how much progress can be achieved using these strategies. Evidence from the last 30 years shows that "travel demand management" and "smart growth" have been largely unsuccessful in reducing auto dependency and automobile trips. There is thus good reason to question whether these two strategies, if applied in a reasonable manner, would be any more effective in reducing future vehicular-based GHG emissions.
Lance Neumann, President of Cambridge Systematics, the consulting firm that authored the report, responds:
Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation circulated regarding the Moving Cooler study. Contrary to some reports, Moving Cooler does not advocate for any particular approach to reducing GHGs, nor does it assess the political feasibility or the overall merit of the strategies examined. Rather, it presents estimates of how much GHGs might be reduced for a very large number of measures and under a very wide range of assumptions about how aggressively they are implemented. For Moving Cooler, organizations with varying perspectives were invited to join the steering committee, and members collaborated in selecting the specific measures and the range of implementation assumptions for each measure to estimate strategy effectiveness in reducing GHGs. It is intentional that the implementation aggressiveness of each measure reflected a wide range of assumptions.

Given the range of measures and implementation scenarios examined, it is not surprising that AASHTO disagrees with some of the assumptions used. Many members of the Steering Committee also disagreed with some of the implementation assumptions that were evaluated. However, there was consensus among Steering Committee members that exploration of the strategies under the range of assumptions defined was a worthwhile exercise to inform public debate. We believe that Moving Cooler provides additional objective information to inform the debate, whether you agree with all of the assumptions or not.

It should also be noted that, although the study did not explicitly analyze fuel efficiency, it did use for its baseline forecasts more aggressive estimates of future fuel efficiency improvements than were used by the Department of Energy in its forecasts of future fuel efficiency. So, Moving Cooler analyses clearly acknowledge the absolutely critical role of fuel efficiency improvements in reducing GHG emissions.

Ed. Note: The Steering Committee that Mr. Neumann refers to included representatives of the American Public Transportation Association, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, ITS America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Shell Oil Company, the Urban Land Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional sponsors (but not members of the Steering Committee) included the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Surdna Foundation and The Kresge Foundation.

There is a broad consensus that it is in our national interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All sectors of the economy that emit greenhouse gases should participate in this national (and global) effort. Given economic, technological, and social constraints, some sectors will be able to reduce emissions more than others. The transportation community is in agreement that our sector will have an important role to play in reducing emissions.

While most experts agree that greenhouse gas emissions can be most cost-effectively reduced from fixed point sources, we agree that mobile source emissions also need to be reduced.

About 17% of the greenhouse gases caused by human activity come from cars and light trucks on our roads. Some of these emissions occur during commutes; most result from other types of trips like shopping, recreation, and social/family trips. It is important that we find ways to reduce emissions from all of these trips, while still enabling travel to all of these important destinations. After all, travel is an important element of Americans’ quality-of-life and a proven path to economic growth for people of all income levels. In the U.S., highway travel and highway-oriented development has led to a democratization of prosperity, economic productivity, lower poverty levels, and unparalleled mobility and access.

In developing national transportation and environmental policy, it is critical that we consider what the federal government can do, what it should do, what should be avoided, and the costs and benefits involved.

Improvements in vehicles and fuels, measures to reduce congestion, and increased driver education are the most rational and feasible national solutions. These focus areas are most compatible with American freedom, traditions, and values.

New vehicle and engine technology has an important role to play. Already, the 2009 Toyota Prius emits less carbon per passenger mile than public transit, according to Wendell Cox. The 2007 fleet of cars emits 396 grams per passenger mile, the 2030 fleet would emit 270, the 2030 new vehicle would emit 223, a 2009 hybrid Prius emits 143, and a newly developed Volkswagen two-seater emits only 38.  President Obama has proposed government-funded research to help put one million 150 mile/gallon cars on the road by 2015 – these would emit 52 grams per passenger mile.
 
With regard to alternative fuels:  Emissions per passenger mile are reduced 9% with methanol, 20% with liquid petroleum gas, 22% with corn ethanol, 23% with CNG, 41% with Hydrogen, 47% with electricity, 56% with sugar ethanol, 67% with biodiesel, and 91% from cellulosic ethanol. 

But government plans to reduce per-capita driving, reduce the number of vehicles per household, and limit freedom of choice for shippers are destined to fail for a variety of reasons. Transportation control measures employed to achieve these goals have been costly with very limited (sometimes negative) environmental benefit, particularly when compared to technological solutions. In addition, these policies will fail due to political, financial, and economic infeasibility (including the stifling of efforts to reduce poverty).

In 2007, McKinsey & Company released a groundbreaking report, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? The report includes a comprehensive review of more than 250 options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encompassing efficiency gains, shifts to lower-carbon energy sources, and expanded carbon sinks.

The report found that U.S. greenhouse gas emission reduction goals can be met at an average of $17 per ton (less than the U.N. IPCC’s recommended maximum feasibility cost of less than $50 per ton) while “maintaining comparable levels of consumer utility.” This means, according to McKinsey, “no change in thermostat settings or appliance use, no downsizing of vehicles, home or commercial space and traveling the same mileage”. In other words, social engineering is not necessary.

This report appears to have alarmed those who were already convinced that we need to get Americans out of their automobiles and densify our growth patterns. Even before global warming was recognized as an environmental problem, social engineering and behavioral control programs were considered critical by some special interest groups to improve air quality. Yet forty years of experience has shown that transportation pollutants can be effectively reduced through technological and efficiency gains, even as Americans prosper and travel and car ownership increase.

Following the McKinsey report’s release, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) published reports, “Growing Cooler” in 2008 and “Moving Cooler” in 2009. Unlike the McKinsey report, which found that social engineer is not necessary, the ULI reports focuses on the environmental impacts of reforming Americans’ behaviors.

Our analysis of the “Growing Cooler” study criticized the costs of the strategies discussed. For example, the proposed aggressive "transit emphasis", would give transit a 4.5% share of the personal motorized travel (or 4.25 times the present amount of transit travel).  According to our analysis, the cost per GHG removed by transit by 2030 would be approximately $7800 per metric ton of carbon removed, more than 50 times the $50 ceiling recommended by the IPCC.  Under this scenario, automobile use would still increase 47%.  Moreover, truck traffic would continue to increase. Under a combined "lane use and transit" emphasis, the costs would be even higher.

The most recent report, “Moving Cooler”, developed by Cambridge Systematics, attempts to place positive numbers to the benefits and costs of these onerous behavioral strategies. The results have been so tilted in favor of the social engineering strategies that many doubt their validity and have demanded to see the raw data and assumptions involved. The press coverage of the report has led to considerable angst in the mainstream transportation community. While some media outlets picked up on eye-popping environmental conclusions (i.e. Transportation Emissions Can Be Slashed In Half), few have noticed how many of the strategies are unrealistic to achieve. The report attempts to develop benefits and costs for behavioral strategies but creates more questions than answers due to the obvious attempts to promote anti-automobile strategies. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which represents all State Departments of Transportation, withdrew its support after concluding that the study "did not produce results upon which decision-makers can rely."

The authors of “Moving Cooler” have not yet released their assumptions and methodologies. With the absence of raw data, transportation experts have doubted the report’s credibility. One stinging criticism from Alan Pisarski can be read here.

Many have questioned the fact that the “Moving Cooler” authors do not consider the economic benefits associated with cars and highway use, such as faster travel time, greater employment & shopping access. Nor do the authors consider the public costs inherent in rationing land development into dense urban areas (i.e. cost of expanding city water and sewer lines).

From a political perspective, many of the strategies are simply infeasible. Most would not receive public support and many would require universal ordinances passed by tens of thousands of local governments. Federal mandates over personal mobility and restricted land use would be guaranteed to cause public outrage.

Strategies reviewed in the “Moving Cooler” study include pricing all street parking, taxing private parking, requiring $400 residential parking permits, tolling all interstate highways at a minimum of 5 cents/mile by 2010, requiring insurance companies to charge per mile, setting a vehicle-miles-traveled fee equivalent to $2.53/gallon (indexed) by 2015, requiring 90% of all new development in high density apartments (greater than 2000 people per square mile), cutting transit fares in half by 2010, reducing government agencies to 4-day work weeks, freezing the number of urban parking spaces by 2015, and restoring a 55 mph national speed limit.

Unlike the serious research done by McKinsey & Company, the Moving Cooler report is quickly being discredited. Fortunately, technological solutions show great promise and the transportation community has much to contribute to the national goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s work on the solutions that unite us.