Transportation For America » Could an “oil security fee” and increased transportation options ensure better energy security?

Could an “oil security fee” and increased transportation options ensure better energy security?

November 30, 2010
By Sean Barry

Photo courtesy of the Vancouver Sun.

America’s reliance on oil, particularly by our thirsty transportation system, comes with numerous costs that do not always show up at the pump, as well as the heavy dependence on foreign sources to sell us most of the oil we need to keep things moving each day.

A diverse group of experts are calling for a new approach that would acknowledge these hidden costs and help pave the way for a more diverse transportation system that could reduce oil consumption, keep us more safe and give us better options for getting around.

The proposed “oil security fee” would be added to gasoline and diesel fuel to reflect the true cost of securing these supplies. Revenues from the fee would go toward increasing mass transit, intelligent transportation systems, telecommuting and other options to provide more choices for how to get around. Allowing Americans to live closer to where they work, play and go to school is also among their menu of 10 smart new policies.

As the “Mobility Choice” coalition put it, “Now is the time to shift forward toward a future where Americans have real, viable transportation options.”

For decades policymakers have favored an oil dependent transportation system through the creation of our world-class interstate highway system, zoning and tax policies that make it easier build housing farther and farther away and a lack of investment in the kind of travel options — buses, light-rail, walking and biking — Americans want. More than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say “the United States would benefit fro expanded and improved transportation,” according to recent polling, and 79 percent of rural voters agree as well.

The coalition also points to the potential of new and emerging technologies that can provide real-time information and increased efficiency. Mobile phones and GPS technology enable drivers to receive up-to-the-minute updates on where to find parking, cutting back on idling and circles around the block, and a coordinated program like this is already underway in San Francisco. The same systems make it easier for bus passengers to know when the next arrival should be expected. (We profiled some of these new systems in a series of case studies on intelligent transportation. – Ed.)

Policies like an additional levy on oil might typically be associated with environmental organizations, and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s federal transportation policy director, Deron Lovaas, is in fact a co-author and contributor. But some other perhaps less-expected people have also signed on, including Gabriel Roth of the libertarian Independent Institute and Kenneth Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. They join a number of right-leaning policy thinkers in concluding that an oil fee is among the most efficient and market-friendly methods of cleaning up our air and becoming energy independent.

The coalition also includes a number of national security and foreign affairs thinkers, including Admiral Dennis McGinn, former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane. They and others have noted that energy independence is in our national security interests – and it’s past time we act upon that interest.

Although the political climate around both transportation and revenue is volatile and uncertain, this commanding group of experts – and bold proposal – cannot be ignored.

You can find out more about Mobility Choice coalition and read the full report here.