Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Biography provided by participant
Deron Lovaas is the Federal Transportation Policy Director for NRDC. He has worked at the intersection of transportation, energy and environmental policy for fifteen years and recently served as the chief strategist for major bipartisan oil savings policy and the 2005 federal transportation bill. He is also a member of the Board of 2020 Vision, an energy and security group, and Chair of the Air Quality Public Advisory Committee for the metropolitan Washington, D.C. region. Lovaas has testified before Congress several times and authored numerous analyses, reports and articles. He has his own blog at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlovaas. Previous to his seven years at NRDC, Lovaas worked, among other places, for the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and Maryland's Department of Environment. Lovaas is a graduate of the University of Virginia who grew up in other countries including Honduras, Panama and Niger.
First let me say that I'm an admirer of Mary Peters. She has a lot of good ideas, including a broad focus on policy that would affect demand for, and not just supply of, transportation services. This translates to a relentless focus on efficiency of the system, something that's desperately needed. To her credit, she also has a clear vision for the system's future, and has consistently driven towards fulfillment of the vision. However, for reasons stated by others on this blog (such as Parris Glendening), while there are useful components to her vision that should be incorporated into a… Read more
I think the best definition of "livability" I've heard from a DOT official is "the capacity to have a high quality of life at a low cost of living." Both of these can be defined or quantified in terms of local, or preferably (to address Secretary Biehler's point that absolute local economy can lead to poor choices in the aggregate) regional metrics. What percentage of the population has access to various mobility options? Good telecommunications? Affordable housing choices? Good schools? Safe neighborhoods (in terms of crime and traffic)? And so on. I think many will agree that such standards for… Read more
Excellent question from Lisa, and a lot of thoughtful responses. I have just a few thoughts, having struggled with this as others have as well: Framing matters: John Horsley makes this excellent point in his post. Explaining the modest level of investment expected per-consumer eases some of the anxiety about a tax. So does an explanation of the results consumers can expect from their investment, as Steve Van Beek points out -- economic growth, fewer potholes, more mobility options, energy security, cleaner environment, that kind of thing. And it's especially useful if it's easily translatable into visible, tangible benefits as the Washington State… Read more
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.… Read more
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… Read more
"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… Read more
Updated at 12:41 p.m. on Aug. 3. First, as a Steering Committee member I want to explain Moving Cooler for those who haven't perused the materials yet. While the 2007 McKinsey report on technical potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions analyzed vehicle technologies and energy alternatives for reducing emissions from transportation, adding to a stack of other such analyses, there is a dearth of assessments of transportation policies that could save fuel and reduce pollution by improving traffic flow and influencing overall travel activity. Moving Cooler helps to fill that analytical chasm. It examines nearly fifty transportation measures (highway and… Read more
Another good question for us to consider this week, especially as we head toward the second decade of this new millennium. I agree with the items on Janet’s and Steve’s lists. While a detailed list of modernization needs could span many pages, here are three overarching categories: Adopt Performance Objectives: It is frankly bizarre that this massive public investment program isn’t driven by standards for achieving results beneficial to the nation. Transportation is a means, and making efficient and effective use of it requires specifying ends that must be furthered by investment of hard-won taxpayer dollars. Thankfully, companion bills with… Read more
Some of the participants have written about the correlation between VMT and economic growth as if you can't have one without the other. Given lower VMT per capita in other industrialized countries as I mentioned in my previous answer and the fact that here in the U.S. there are regions (Austin and Portland come to mind) where this relationship not as tight as others, this seems like a pretty flimsy thesis. This is understandable once we see that VMT is not an end in itself (we drive to get to and from places, yes?); it is a means. This is… Read more
Reducing VMT can be achieved in many ways that improve the American lifestyle while maintaining or even facilitating economic growth. Back in the 1980s, naysayers said the US couldn’t decouple energy use from GDP. In many similar respects we’re now facing the same situation with VMT and GDP. Already, before the economic recession in the past five years, VMT per capita has been leveling off at the same time that public transportation use has been increasing (which Keith Laughlin already mentioned). Federal policy can put more momentum behind trends that are already occurring due to the realization of multiple benefits… Read more
Like some of my blogging colleagues, I sense the urgent need to put a new law in place. And the T & I bill provides some of the foundation for a better law by estabilshing a large program aimed at reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance of our infrastructure assets, consolidating programs and providing more funding directly to metro areas where the vast majority the public and the nation's business are located (a state-dominated program no longer makes sense given this reality). Transportation for America has a brief analysis and critique of the bill on its web site, which makes… Read more
In order to meet GHG reduction targets necessary to prevent the worst consequences of climate change an economy-wide cap must include transportation fuels in a cap, upstream. NRDC describes our preferred policy here. The contribution of the transportation sector to US emissions is significant - it has in recent history both the second largest and fastest growing source - and leaves consumers dependent on foreign oil producers and bound to volatile energy prices. The Waxman and Markey climate proposal not only includes fuels in the cap, but also lays out complementary performance standards and incentives. The Waxman-Markey cap covers both… Read more
The administration has indicated that our curing our nation’s ailing infrastructure is a priority, and has revealed its forward-thinking stance by allocating $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed passenger rail, as well as $5 billion in its proposed budget. This represents an important downpayment on a more modern transportation system that's a better fit for an oil- and carbon-constrained world. China is currently on track to reshape its landscape through a $1 trillion public works program to expand its rail network, including high-speed intercity rail. While not all policy from China is transferable (as Mr. Roth points out),… Read more
This week's question has spurred some thoughtful responses. I especially agree with Mort that this may not be a replacement but a supplement in terms of policy, and with Steve that should serve the function of providing an incentive for demand moderation as well as revenue generation. I notice everyone is in favor of considering this policy seriously. Rob Puentes of Brookings and I agree, which is why we penned a piece for another blog, infrastructurist.com. Our final point in that piece is worth bringing up here -- revenue investment policy deserves a serious look. This is a worthy end in… Read more
Congress and the Administration should put a cap and trade system in place expeditiously, and it should include gasoline, diesel, natural gas and aviation fuels upstream (refiners and importers). Including transportation fuels in the cap will ensure we meet an economy-wide emissions target. As Eileen Claussen points out, this is just the first of three prongs for addressing transportation sector emissions. The second is performance standards such as fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, which were raised for the first time in decades in the 2007 energy bill, which also included first-time-ever standards for heavy trucks which I'm glad to see endorsed by… Read more
This topic has really stirred up some interesting ideas and viewpoints. I like the two posts that bookended it before I added mine. Steve's point that a "user" of the system is looking for a certain service and is not necessarily wedded to a particular mode, meaning we are all transportation users, not highway users vs. transit users, etc. I also love Patrick's post about innovation. We saw plenty of that during a study trip through Europe, co-sponsored by AASHTO and FHWA, last fall. A delegation of state, local and private sector experts spent a week-and-a-half learning about transportation planning,… Read more
First of all, I don't think that any other part of the package would have to be cut in order to expand the investment in transportation. Second, what matters -- both in substance and in terms of marketing this portion of the package -- is how the money is spent, not just how much. I agree with John Krieger about requiring that the highway and bridge money go to repairs and maintenance, given the backlog of such projects, the likelihood that they are "shovel-ready" and public concern about crumbling infrastructure. That portion of the monies should also go to ITS,… Read more
Chairman Oberstar set the bar for judging any proposal with his package unveiled a month ago. The highway level remains the same, although the accountability and transparency provisions do provide some assurance that it is less likely to be wasted. But by cutting transit by 25%, including zeroing out operating assistance for struggling agencies, and slashing rail by 78%, the proposal fails to clear the bar. The House, and the nation, deserve better.… Read more
Secretary Porcari and others are quite right that eliminating our repair backlog (which could productively soak up as much as $1 trillion, as Geoff Anderson points out) is job 1. Unfortunately, simply prohibiting earmarks in the package is far from a guarantee that taxpayer money will be spent first and foremost on this priority. A tremendous amount of "free money" simply relayed to states and localities, with no strings attached, isn't a recipe for smart targeting of taxpayer funds. Some will spend wisely, but as publicly available wish lists make clear, many will not. The package needs to be written… Read more
Robin, I love the video as well and I am reminded of a different Toles cartoon about the stimulus. One comment I have about the role of the gas tax. Several years back, someone remarked to me that development impact fees are revenue-generating devices, and have little actual effect in terms of steering development since they are a relatively small expense. Unless we are talking about a very large increase in the price of gasoline at the pump, the same applies to the gasoline tax. It is a revenue-enhancement tool that has little impact on behavior. First, it is a… Read more
First of all, oil and therefore gasoline prices are unlikely to remain low. While this past year’s eye-popping $140/barrel price level may or may not return, it seems pretty clear that the era of cheap oil is over. In the interim, to ensure we don’t slip into our habit -- as the President-elect has said – of moving from “shock to trance” with our oil addiction, we must use policy to press forward with efficient vehicle technology, development of oil substitutes and construction of oil-efficient transportation infrastructure to facilitate reduced miles-of-travel per capita. Let’s set aside policy for development of… Read more
Secretary-designate LaHood will take the helm of a ship that is caught in some historic shoals. His career-long pragmatism and commitment to bipartisanship should serve him, and the nation, well as he charts a course toward a better, cleaner, more energy-efficient transportation system. As our Executive Director Peter Lehner said in a statement about his appointment: “President-elect Obama’s choice of Ray LaHood to head the Department of Transportation highlights the need for bipartisan efforts to fix our broken transportation system. Congressman LaHood will face some of the greatest transportation and infrastructure challenges in our nation’s history, but also some of the… Read more
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} The short answer is that yes, the time is ripe for making a larger commitment to public transportation than has been the case in the last 50 years. In tough economic times, we should be looking for infrastructure investments that can accomplish diverse policy goals in order to make the most effective use of limited taxpayer dollars. The American Public Transportation Association has a useful paper… Read more
I agree with some points made by Ken Orski and Pete Ruane. These project lists are being assembled hastily, and Congress does not appear to be scrutinizing them. This legislation needs to be crafted expeditiously but with a great deal of care, so as to avoid unintended consequences as Ken Orski notes. Pete Ruane has some good ideas for such accountability. Regardless of the specific mechanism or mechanisms, national performance objectives which assure multiple payoffs including reduced oil dependence and pollution must be used as tools for screening project lists. Leaning on a single, thin "shovel-ready" criterion would yield boondoggles… Read more
News accounts say this will be a package with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in infrastructure spending that some say will rival the Interstate Highway System. Recently, we've seen two packages make their way through Congress, the financial industry bailout and the auto company bailout (still pending). The latter has really put the recipients through the paces, ensuring a commitment to, and a business plan for, what the President-Elect has called a "sustainable" industry. He also said automakers must "adapt to these new circumstances," referring among other things to a marketplace that values fuel economy. This is all well… Read more
1) Rebuilding rail: More than 100,000 miles of rail mileage have been lost since 1965, leaving us with an intercity rail system less than half the size of our interstate highway system. This is alarmingly poor footing for a nation burdened with a dangerous oil addiction and a global warming challenge. Rail mileage should double so that it is on par with the highway system, and the next bill should put us on the right course to get there. 2) Rewarding performance: We need strategic investments based on national objectives. Regions, states and the federal government should drive investments by adopting aggressive… Read more
Biography provided by participant
