Transportation For America » American Power Act fuels the transportation options people say they want

American Power Act fuels the transportation options people say they want

May 27, 2010
By Sean Barry

Our nation’s petroleum reliance comes with definite risk, a point that is on our minds and atop headlines as oil keeps gushing off the Gulf Coast. Often forgotten, however, is the degree to which transportation drives that dependence – 70 percent of the oil we use is consumed for motoring around.

The American Power Act, sponsored by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, acknowledges transportation’s role in oil consumption and climate change and proposes serious solutions. The legislation embraces the principle that revenues generated from transportation should go toward projects that reduce oil usage, decrease emissions and recognize the unique role transportation plays in both. It’s a basic principle: We ought to get what we’re paying for.

Critics of the Kerry-Lieberman bill suggest these revenues would somehow detract from core transportation needs. Make no mistake: We need urgently to pass a surface transportation reauthorization, preferably this year. But this climate bill is hardly standing in the way. The truth is that Kerry-Lieberman is the first new source of revenue for transportation in many, many years and more than has ever been allocated in one bill. Clean transportation can mean anything from light rail to increased options for walking and biking to more fuel efficient cars.

Transportation for America has worked closely on the transportation provisions in Kerry-Lieberman with a broad range of stakeholders, from environmental organizations to transportation and business interests. Unfortunately, the transportation old guard that benefits from the status quo are going all out to reverse this progress. They’ve asked Congress to rewrite the transportation section entirely without any accountability for reducing emissions or oil dependency, relying once again on the status quo that left us with excessive emissions and a transportation system that consumes 70% of the oil we use.

Why would a bill aimed at clean energy and lower emissions go all in for more of the same?

Tell your senators you support the climate bill’s investment in the future of transportation that is cleaner, smarter, and more accountable – and that you want to see more money, not less, go toward cleaner transportation options.

The focus on clean transportation options is also an economic boost for local communities and households. The Center for Neighborhood Technology found something very telling: In communities where people are able to walk places and have good access to public transit, the typical household spends just 9 percent of monthly incomes on transportation. In contrast, those living in the most car-dependent areas spent more than 25 percent. Investment in public transportation is a job creator, yielding about 16 percent more jobs than highway construction.

It is also worth remembering that Kerry-Lieberman delivers what Americans say they want. In every survey commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, more than half of respondents said they wanted to live in a neighborhood where they can walk and access public transportation, yet few places meet their expectations. A recent poll found 82 percent of Americans believe the U.S. would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system, and 75 percent agreed that these increased transit options will “help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” Among rural residents, 79 percent believed there would be a benefit to more transportation options.

Of course we must maintain a focus on getting a new surface transportation bill done, but let’s not pass up the chance to put a dent in our oil dependence with the forward-looking transportation program in Kerry and Lieberman’s bill.

To read more about the opponents of the Kerry-Lieberman bill and where their arguments fall short, check out Ya-Ting Liu’s rundown at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign blog.