Skip to main content

Tag: electric vehicles

Why Transportation for America joined an electric vehicle coalition

If you’ve been following Transportation for America for a while, you know that electric vehicles on their own aren’t enough to reduce emissions from the transportation sector—the largest source of U.S. emissions. That’s why we joined CHARGE, a new coalition of cross-industry stakeholders advocating for a holistic approach to electrifying the U.S. transportation network. 

A Washington, DC Metro platform. Credit: Kyle Anderson, WMATA

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, and most of them come from driving. Electrifying cars would seem like a sure bet to reduce these emissions, but with the dramatic rate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is increasing coupled with the slow pace of vehicle fleet turnover (cars are lasting longer and longer!), there’s no way we can electrify cars fast enough to prevent devastating outcomes of climate change. 

And why would we want to? A transportation system where your only “option” is to drive everywhere—even to destinations less than a mile from your home—is far from equitable. Requiring that every working adult spend $10,000 per year on average on a car to participate in the economy isn’t good for our businesses, quality of life, or ensuring that everybody—regardless of your ability—can access the things they need. 

That’s why we joined CHARGE, a new coalition of 37 transportation, industry, environmental, labor, health, equity, and civic organizations that support smart policy to electrify America’s transportation system. With CHARGE, we created three policy principles and a set of concrete policy recommendations for Congress and the Biden administration to develop smart zero-emission transportation policy for the next stimulus or infrastructure package. 

The unique thing about CHARGE is that it’s the only “electric vehicle” coalition where public transit is a priority—the number one priority, in fact. CHARGE knows that electrifying vehicles is critical, but it isn’t enough to reduce our emissions: we need to give Americans more zero-emission transportation options by expanding and electrifying public transportation. 

Here are some of our concrete recommendations to expand and electrify transit: 

  • Creating a $20 billion annual operating support program to incentivize more and more frequent and expanded service, particularly for communities of color and low-income communities; 
  • Incentivizing transit agencies to develop and support equitable multimodal transit systems, operations and infrastructure; 
  • Significantly increasing funding and financing available to support conversion to, maintenance of, operation of, and workforce training to support electric fleets and related infrastructure as rapidly as possible while simultaneously increasing service. 

POLITICO Pro reported last week that $25 billion of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (which analyzed in-depth here) will go to electrifying public transit vehicles, an early win for our new coalition. 

Also according to POLITICO Pro, two-thirds of the $85 billion for transit in the American Jobs Plan will go to maintenance, with the rest set for expansion and improving accessibility for people with disabilities. This is huge, but we definitely need ongoing, federal operating support for public transit in order to provide frequent, high-quality service necessary to reduce transportation emissions. 

We’re thrilled to team up with organizations across the transportation policy spectrum on recommendations to holistically electrify transportation—not just maintain the same car-dependent paradigm but with electric vehicles. We urge you to check out CHARGE’s principles and policy recommendations, and if you represent an organization, sign on to support these ideas! 

Everything we liked (and didn’t like) at Buttigieg’s Transportation Secretary confirmation hearing

Last Thursday, former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg faced the Senate for questioning on his nomination to be Secretary of Transportation. We liked almost all of his answers, and we weren’t alone: Senator Tester said Buttigieg’s testimony was “refreshing.” Here’s what T4America liked and didn’t like from Buttigieg’s confirmation hearing. 

Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg facing the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee as President Biden’s nominee to be Secretary of Transportation. Screen grab from C-SPAN.

✅ Complete Streets is a priority for Buttigieg

When answering a powerfully-worded question from Senator Schatz (D-HI), a cosponsor of the Complete Streets Act, Buttigieg confirmed his commitment to a Complete Streets approach. He even highlighted the Complete Streets projects that took place in South Bend. (Smart Growth America provided technical assistance to South Bend to pursue Complete Streets demonstration projects.)

“It’s very important to recognize the importance of roadways where pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, any other mode can coexist peacefully. And that Complete Streets vision will continue to enjoy support from me if confirmed,” Buttgieg said. 

✅  Our “autocentric view” is a problem

Doubling down on his commitment to Complete Streets, Buttigieg noted that transportation in the United States overwhelmingly prioritizes cars. “There are so many ways that people get around, and I think often we have an autocentric view that forgets historically all of the other different modes,” Buttigieg told Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN). “We want to make sure that every time we do a street design that it enables cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, and businesses and any other mode to coexist in a positive way. We should be putting funding behind that.” 

✅  Addressing past damages is a priority 

Transportation infrastructure—particularly urban highways that have demolished and divided communities of color—is sometimes a major roadblock to improving equity in this country. Buttigieg knows this and told senators so in his opening remarks. “I also recognize that at their worst, misguided policies and missed opportunities in transportation can reinforce racial and economic inequality, by dividing or isolating neighborhoods and undermining government’s basic role of empowering Americans to thrive,” Buttigieg said. 

✅  Policy hasn’t kept up with automated vehicles 

Automated vehicles (AVs) is one of the transportation technologies that often captures lawmakers’ imagination. But in response to Sen. Fischer (R-NE), Buttigieg acknowledged that the federal government has failed to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that AVs actually deliver the benefits they promise. “[AV technology] is advancing quickly and has the potential to be transformative, but in a lot of ways, policy hasn’t kept up,” Buttigieg said. 

This couldn’t be more true. After investigating deaths from two separate AV crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) billed the utter lack of federal safety performance standards as one of the causes for the fatalities. 

But proactive federal policy is needed for more than just ensuring that AVs are safe. Policy is needed to ensure that AVs are equitable, accessible, and sustainable. That’s why we joined Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and other partners in creating tenets for AV policy. 

✅  He supports passenger rail

Buttigieg said he’s the “second biggest enthusiast for passenger rail in this administration,” referring of course to President Biden, a long-time rider and fan of Amtrak, as the first.  “Americans deserve the highest standard of passenger rail,” Buttigieg said. 

When Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)—a major supporter of restoring passenger rail to the Gulf Coast—asked Buttigieg if he’s a rail rider himself, Buttigieg said he enjoys short rail trips “and long ones too.” In light of Amtrak’s proposal to cut its long-distance network, this might signal Buttigieg’s support for those critical routes.  

✅  The BUILD program should be easier to apply for

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) offers a host of grant programs for cities and towns to construct and maintain transportation infrastructure. But the application process is often daunting for smaller entities. As mayor of a small city that wasn’t able to have “full-time staff managing federal relations,” Buttigieg told Sen. Wicker (R-MS) that making BUILD and INFRA grants easier for small and rural municipalities to apply for are one of his priorities. 

“It’s very important to me that this process is user-friendly, that criteria are transparent, and that communities of every size, including rural communities and smaller communities, have every opportunity to access those funds,” Buttigieg said. 

✅  Senators on both side of the aisle support Buttigieg

Buttigieg felt the love from both sides of the aisle during his confirmation hearing, with Sen. Tester (D-MT) going as far to say that Buttigieg’s testimony should serve as a model for other nominees facing Senate approval. Sen. Wicker (R-MS) listed Buttigieg’s accomplishments in his opening statement, praising his “impressive credentials that demonstrate his intellect and commitment to serving our nation.”

With slim Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, bipartisanship will be key to passing surface transportation authorization. But historically, infrastructure is one the areas where lawmakers bipartisanly agree to pass bad policy—rather than ruffling feathers and taking a hard look at what the federal government spends money on and why. (We blogged about it here.) It will take lots of work—like the herculean effort the House underwent this summer to pass a new kind of transportation bill—to make sure that the long-term transportation bill lawmakers must pass this year actually connects funding with the outcomes Americans want.

🚫 His climate answer only mentioned electric vehicles 

When Sen. Schatz asked about Buttigieg’s approach to climate change, Buttigieg only discussed electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, and increased vehicle fuel efficiency as a solution. Yet it’s a fact that electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency—while critical—aren’t enough to reduce transportation emissions on their own. 

While we applaud Buttigieg’s support of President Biden’s “whole government” approach to addressing climate change (meaning that climate work isn’t confined to a single department like the EPA), we need Buttigieg to understand that USDOT needs to do more than invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution.

We like what we heard. Now let’s make sure it happens 

Buttigieg might be one of the most promising new Secretaries of Transportation that we’ve seen, but we must hold him accountable to following through on these initiatives. Now is not the time to lay back: we have a lot of work to do to ensure that USDOT does what it can internally to connect transportation funding to the outcomes Americans want (like our three principles) and that Congress passes a long-term transportation bill that ends decades of broken, misguided policy.

We’ll never address climate change without making it possible for people to drive less

With transportation accounting for the largest share of carbon emissions in the U.S., we’ll never achieve ambitious climate targets or create more livable and equitable communities if we don’t find ways to allow people to get around outside of a car—or provide more housing in places where that’s already an option. Our new report shows how we can reach those targets while building a more just and equitable society. 

Join us on October 28th for a short online discussion about what’s in Driving Down Emissions. We’ll be walking through the report briefly and sharing some stories about how one state has had some success—and the limitations of electric vehicles. Register here.

It seems like climate-focused policymakers have a single-minded obsession with the silver bullet solution of everyone in America buying a brand new electric car, while ignoring an underlying system that requires everyone to drive further every year, kills people walking in record numbers, and creates communities that cuts people off from jobs and opportunities. Yet the simple truth is that we’ll never achieve our ambitious climate targets or create more livable and equitable communities if we don’t find ways to allow people to get around outside of a car. 

We need a different set of solutions to pair with one day being able to convert our current gas-powered vehicle fleet to electricity.  Driving Down Emissions, a new report from Transportation for America and Smart Growth America, explores how our land-use and transportation decisions are inextricably connected, and unpacks five strategies that can make a significant dent in the growth of emissions while building a more just and equitable society:

  • Getting onerous government regulations out of the way of providing more homes where people naturally drive less;
  • Making safety the top priority for street design to encourage walking, biking, and shorter driving trips;
  • Instituting GHG reduction and less driving as goals of the transportation system;
  • Investing heavily in other options for getting around, and;
  • Prioritizing access to destinations. 

Reducing transportation emissions and reducing the distance we drive is both needed and possible. The vast majority of Americans are clamoring to spend fewer hours behind the wheel, not more. Only a cynic would declare that Americans want to drive more and more each year to accomplish all they need to do each day. Polling and consumer preference research has consistently shown that millions would prefer to live in walkable, connected places where trips are short and there’s a menu of options for getting around.

Yet that demand is going unmet, and some of the biggest obstacles to meeting it are onerous government regulations and policies (at all levels) that make it nearly impossible to build more housing in places that fit this bill, or to retrofit streets to make more areas safe to walk or bike in. These factors combine to make existing housing in walkable places unaffordable and unattainable.

Let that sink in: millions of Americans would love to live in places that guarantee shorter trips, fewer trips, more ways to get around, and less emissions—whether climate change is their motivating factor or not. But millions can’t find a place they can afford because of zoning requirements that make it either incredibly difficult or downright illegal to meet this demand, and because transportation designs and objectives that make it dangerous to try to get around elsewhere without a car. 

If lower-income Americans can’t afford a car then they have no choice but to limit the possibilities for their lives to what can be reached on dangerous streets by foot or bike, or via infrequent buses or trains on underfunded transit systems that fail to connect them to opportunity, even if the emissions are low. Finding ways to put more housing in places where people can drive less—and making those homes attainable and affordable—will be a key aspect of transitioning to a low-carbon economy without placing a new burden on lower-income Americans. 

This report shows that reducing emissions from transportation is entirely doable—which is a good thing, because there are other areas where making significant reductions will be far more difficult. While we don’t want to repeat the economic conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the massive drops in traffic and emissions during the shutdown showed us the potential benefits of lowering driving rates, even if just a modest amount. And while we have no idea how to completely electrify our fleet of vehicles or how long that transition will even take, we can absolutely lower emissions in a short timeframe by meeting the demand for more housing in smart locations—helping millions of Americans who want to live in places where they can emit less and drive less find ways to do so. 

The urgency of our climate crisis requires it.

Download Driving Down Emissions

Webinar recap: How the Senate’s transportation proposal would make climate change worse

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, and most of it comes from driving. But a long-term transportation bill passed by a Senate committee last summer would only make this problem worse. Last week, along with Third Way, we discussed the role federal transportation policy plays in making climate change worse—and what a better transportation bill looks like. 

Last summer, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed a long-term transportation bill that was, quite frankly, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The bill included a groundbreaking $10 billion for carbon reduction programs (“groundbreaking” simply because no prior transportation law had ever included any climate-related funding), while pouring 27 times that amount into programs that are perfectly designed to increase carbon emissions.. 

That’s why we teamed up with Third Way to host a webinar debunking the bill’s climate-friendly ethos. Our Policy Director Scott Goldstein and Third Way’s Transportation Policy Advisor Alexander Laska discussed how the Senate bill will just wind up increasing emissions, and what a better long-term transportation bill looks like (psssssh: it looks an awful lot like the bill passed by the House of Representatives this summer). 

Here are three of the most frequently-asked questions from the webinar. 

Why isn’t electrifying vehicles enough to reduce transportation emissions? 

The reason: Americans are driving more than ever, and electrification can’t keep up with the pace of growth. As federal transportation policy and funding encourages more and wider highways, destinations—like housing, businesses, schools and more—get placed physically farther apart from each other to accommodate highways. This results in people living further away from the things they need and the places they go, causing them to drive further and further just to reach everyday destinations, as our former colleague Emily Mangan wrote in this slam dunk of a blog post. 

This ever-increasing driving (known as “vehicle miles traveled”, or VMT) is why emissions have increased despite relatively large increases in fuel efficiency standards and the slow-but-steady adoption of electric vehicles thus far. Despite an admirable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet from 1990-2016, emissions still rose by 21 percent. That’s because the total amount of miles traveled increased by 50 percent in that same period. 

If we only electrify the fleet but don’t find ways for more people to drive less each day, this trend will continue to go in the wrong direction. And make no mistake, this Senate bill gives states billions in new money for new roads that will just produce more driving.

What role does Congress play in local land use decisions? 

The common belief is that land-use decisions are made strictly at the local level, and that the federal government has no role or effect on them. That’s false. Federal policy plays an enormous role in local land use decisions, largely due to the incentives that federal programs create. 

In the federal transportation program, 80 percent of funding is set mostly for highways, where the overarching priority is to increase vehicle speed, not to improve safety, not to make it easier to bike or walk, and not to make transit more efficient. As a result, towns and cities make decisions in response to these federal priorities and investments: they’ll widen a highway instead of repairing the existing street network or building a protected bike lane, and decide to zone more land for low-density housing or retail. 

Changing federal incentives can have a ripple effect on local land-use decisions. Allowing cities and towns to use transportation dollars to invest in transit operations and maintenance might encourage local governments to make zoning decisions that support those investments: that means denser, walkable neighborhoods and downtowns. 

Congress can also unlock more federal funding for equitable transit-oriented development. As we wrote with Third Way in their Transportation and Climate: Federal Policy Agenda, Congress should require that the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) coordinate to leverage billions of dollars in existing loan authority that could support mixed-income, mixed-use development and provide new revenue streams for transit, affordable housing, and local governments. 

How can college-aged students and climate activists help amplify the importance of this issue?

There’s a lot that anyone can do to make sure that long-term transportation policy actually reduces carbon emissions. 

It’s vitally important that members of Congress understand the connection between transportation and climate change. Anyone can understand that cars pollute the air, but making the next step—that we need to reduce driving, not just electrify it—is something that needs to be explained to many people, particularly our elected officials. The failure to understand this point has been bipartisan.It’s not enough to somehow make every vehicle electric: we also need a transportation system that allows more people to bike, walk, and take transit, as well as take shorter trips in a vehicle. Making marginal changes to yesterday’s transportation policy won’t get us there. 

We have a couple of ways you can start educating your members of Congress about the real connection between climate and transportation: 

  1. Send a letter to your members of Congress explaining why the Senate EPW Committee’s long-term transportation bill is actually really bad for the climate. We have a draft letter you can use, which you can find here. 
  2. Tweet at your members of Congress (particularly your Senators) to urge them to pass a climate-friendly transportation bill. You can use our social media toolkit. 
  3. Submit a short letter to the editor to your local newspaper explaining what it takes to truly reduce transportation emissions: investment in a transportation system that makes shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible. 

EPA rolls back CAFE standards, highlighting the need to reduce driving

This week, as the coronavirus crisis worsens, the Trump administration finalized its rollback of clean car standards, a move that will undermine public health and place even more of a burden on finding ways to reduce driving to reduce emissions.

As expected, the Trump Administration released the second part of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, which would require automakers increase fuel economy of passenger cars by 1.5 percent each year, compared to the previous more stringent 5 percent increase mandated by the Obama administration. This would allow cars on American roads to emit nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the vehicles.

As cities and towns across the country urge people to stay home and only venture out for essential trips, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have dropped drastically across the country. In Los Angeles, a city notoriously choked with smog from tailpipe emissions, skies have been remarkably clear as highways have been empty, demonstrating just how much pollution comes from all those cars and endless highways in any other normal week. 

But while empty highways have been one of the most visceral signs that our economy has come to a standstill, we shouldn’t need to sacrifice our lungs and health for the sake of a robust economy. 

There are ways to have both a booming economy and cleaner air and clear skies. One way is through more efficient and electric vehicles. But with the federal government reluctant to set ambitious efficiency standards for automakers, the floor dropping out on oil prices, and relatively slow sales of EVs, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. (Ford and GM are only planning to make 320,000 electric vehicles in 2026, fewer than Tesla made last year.) The only other way is to provide meaningful transportation options that would help people reduce the distance they need to drive—or eliminate vehicle trips altogether. 

We need fuel efficient vehicles, but this crisis has also shown us the deep value of having other transportation options, especially for those who need it the most. Over 600,000 transit commuters work at hospitals, in doctor’s offices, or as home health providers; 165,000 people take transit to jobs in grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 workers in social services commute on transit. Transit is essential now more than ever, and it will be essential to getting our economy back up and running again.

We need more robust federal support for transit operations so buses and trains can provide frequent and reliable service. We also need a better way to fund projects that build new or expand existing transit service. Across the country, there are dozens of projects trying to get off the ground, collectively hoping for more than $23 billion in federal support. To reduce emissions and provide options other than driving, local transit agencies need a reliable federal partner. 

While the clean air across the country is welcome but also a painful reminder that we’re in a crisis, it also shows us what could be possible if we found ways to reduce driving and remove even just a small share of cars off the road. But to do that, we need to give people cleaner options. This week’s latest action proves once again that the administration is moving in the wrong direction. 

Step 1: Electric vehicle chargers. Step 2: Real structural reform.

Last week, Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Andy Levin (MI-9) released the “Electric Vehicle Freedom Act,” a bill that would aim to “establish a nationwide electric vehicle charging network within five years.” The creativity behind this bill is exactly what Congress needs—we just need to focus on more than EVs.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at SXSW 2019. Photo by NRKBeta on Flickr’s Creative Commons

You’ve (hopefully) heard it all before: transportation accounts for the largest share of carbon emissions in the United States, and those emissions are rising—even as other sectors have improved. 

Tackling those rising emissions is the goal of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Andy Levin’s  new “Electric Vehicle Freedom Act.” The bill—released in tandem with the House majority’s new infrastructure framework—would build an electric vehicle charging network along the nation’s highways, according to the Hill. 

It’s rare to see a bill that uses transportation funding for something brand new, like EV charging. On that front, this bill is a clear winner. Now it’s time for Reps. AOC and Levin to completely rethink the transportation program overall—because the structure of the program itself sets the U.S. on a course to increase transportation emissions. 

Like a terrible prophecy, the federal transportation program spends billions every year to build new highways, encouraging more and more driving. With the limited funding for transit, rail, walking and biking overwhelmed by the billions spent on highways, federal policy is designed to keep us in our cars (which generates more congestion and pollution). 

More and more driving negates any emissions reductions from electric vehicles because the fleet of U.S. vehicles isn’t turning electric as quickly as vehicle miles traveled are increasing. Despite an admirable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet from 1990-2016, emissions still rose by 21 percent because driving increased by 50 percent in that same period.

Electric vehicles are absolutely necessary to decrease our emissions, but they aren’t enough. We need to drive less. That means a complete restructuring of a federal transportation program built to increase driving. We would love to work with Reps. AOC and Levin on crafting a forward thinking transportation bill that will put the entire country on a path to truly lower carbon emissions.

Do climate plans do enough on transportation?

Climate change has become a top issue for Americans, so how do the top Democratic candidates plan to reduce emissions? Here’s a brief look at what some of the presidential candidates are proposing when it comes to emissions from transportation.

A recent poll found that most American teenagers are “frightened” by climate change. It is no surprise then that candidates for president and members of Congress are releasing their plans to combat the climate crisis. So what do the Democratic presidential candidate front-runners say about transportation in their climate plans? Not nearly enough.

Virtually every plan released to date focuses on promoting electric vehicles (EVs) and strengthening fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. While EV adoption and increased efficiency are essential for reaching any ambitious climate target, they will not be sufficient on their own to decarbonize the transportation sector.

T4America Director Beth Osborne explained why recently in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Transportation is now the largest single source of climate pollution and the vast majority of those emissions—83 percent—come from the cars and trucks that people drive to the grocery store or school or that deliver our Amazon orders. All that driving is why transportation pollution keeps increasing, despite gains in fuel efficiency standards and the adoption of electric vehicles. Between 1990-2016, despite a sizable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet, national emissions rose by 21 percent. Why? Because those improvements were accompanied by a 50 percent increase in driving. Cleaner and electric vehicles are essential, but they’ll only ever be a small part of the solution. For one, it takes a long time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. Even if Americans purchased nothing but electric vehicles starting today, gas-powered cars would still be on the road for at least another 15 years.

Emissions won’t drop fast enough if we pin all our hopes on EVs. We need to reduce the amount and distance people drive through better land use and by promoting transit, walking, and biking. Today, our federal policy incentivizes high speed, long distance driving—rewarding states that increase both with more money—and makes it far too difficult to build communities which provide people with transportation choice.

Even the Green New Deal fails to adequately address the need to reduce driving and rethink our land use decisions.

The climate plans & transportation

We took an in-depth look at the climate plans from the top eight presidential candidates (according to RealClearPolitics polling data as of November 1, 2019) for the Democratic Party nomination. We’ve also included Jay Inslee in our analysis, despite the fact that he dropped out of the race, because his climate plan is widely considered to have set the standard for climate plans.

There are some candidates running for the Republican nomination for president, but none of them have released climate plans. The closest thing President Trump has to a climate plan is the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule which could actually increase pollution.

Note: Investments, quantifiable targets, or policy proposals below are bolded; broad value statements or acknowledgements of an issue without a proposal to address it are not bolded.

PollingCandidateElectrify vehiclesReduce drivingPromote bikeable/walkable communitiesInvest in transitSupport passenger rail
n/aBiden's unity task forceSupport “cash-for-clunkers” style approaches to incentivize accelerated adoption of zero-emission passenger vehicles. Provide incentives for manufacturers to build new factories or retool existing factories in the United States to assemble zero-emission vehicles or manufacture charging equipment.“Encourage states to prioritize allocation of transportation funds for public mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and ensure transportation options and infrastructure meet the needs of tribal, rural, and urban communities to fully participate in zero-emissions transport.”“Encourage states to prioritize allocation of transportation funds for public mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and ensure transportation options and infrastructure meet the needs of tribal, rural, and urban communities to fully participate in zero-emissions transport. Make major improvements to public transit and light rail. Preserve and grow the union workforce within the rail, transit and maritime sectors.”

“We commit to public transportation as a public good, including ensuring transit jobs are good jobs.”		Invest in high speed passenger and freight rail systems, while reducing pollution, helping connect workers to quality jobs with shorter commutes, and spurring investment in communities more efficiently connected to major metropolitan areas and unlocking new, affordable access for every American.
1Biden500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030 and restore the full electric vehicle tax credit.Altering local regulations to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit would cut commute times for many of the country’s workers while decreasing their carbon footprint. Communities across the country are experiencing a growing need for alternative and cleaner transportation options, including transit, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares, and first- and last-mile connections. Ensure that America has the cleanest, safest, and fastest rail system in the world and will begin the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts.
2WarrenZero emissions in all new light and medium duty vehicles by 2030.Expand and improve public transit across our country.
3Sanders100 percent electric vehicles powered with renewable energy.For too long, government policy has encouraged long car commutes, congestion, and dangerous emissions. Create more livable, connected, and vibrant communities.$300 billion investment to increase public transit ridership by 65 percent by 2030.$607 billion investment in a regional high-speed rail system.
4ButtigeigAll new passenger vehicles sold be zero-emissions by 2035.Switching from individual vehicles to public transportation not only reduces traffic congestion, but also reduces emissions while improving air quality.$100 billion over 10 years, which will include installing bike and scooter lanes.$100 billion over 10 years, which will include modernizing subways and other transit systems and deploying electric commuter buses and school buses.
5Harris100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035.Incentivize people to reduce car usage and use public transit...focusing our transportation infrastructure investments toward projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled and address gaps in first mile, last mile service. Funding robust public transportation networks to bring communities together.
6YangRequire all models from 2030 on to be zero-emission vehicles.$200 billion grant program to states to electrify transit systems.
7GabbardWhile Gabbard has not released a climate plan, she has introduced legislation in the U.S. House that would require all new vehicle sales to be 100% electric by 2035.
8O'RourkeRapidly accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles.$1.2 trillion through grants and other investments, including: Transportation grants that cut commutes, crashes, and carbon pollution — all while boosting access to public transit.
--Honorable Mention: Jay InsleeInvest federal moneys and expand effective public policies linking community-based economic development to housing affordability and mobility. Promote vibrant communities, more healthy and walkable neighborhoods, and both the preservation of existing affordable housing and construction of new affordable units.Invest in expanding public transit and connecting people in communities through safe, multi-modal transportation options. More than double annual federal investment in public transit systems and incentivize expansion of transit networks.Provide major new federal investment in electrifying passenger and freight rail throughout the country, and offering federal investment to states and regional partnerships to expand ultra-high-speed rail.

Politicians think EVs will solve our transportation problems

It’s telling that each candidate has ambitious targets for EV adoption but largely lack policies and investments for other forms of transportation. While EVs will go a long way toward reducing transportation emissions, they don’t go quite far enough. As we’ve written about previously, an all electric vehicle fleet won’t reduce emissions enough to reach our climate targets.

Not only will EVs fail to address the climate crisis, but they will do nothing to address the larger shortcomings of our current transportation system.

EVs won’t make our communities more walkable, bikeable, or transit-oriented. We’ve designed many of our roadways and communities so that it’s almost impossible to get around without a car. People often have no choice but to sit in traffic to get to work and the grocery store. Electrifying everything won’t change this. Nor will it help those who can’t afford a vehicle in the first place, regardless of how it’s powered. We need holistic transportation solutions that make it safe, affordable, and convenient to get people where they need to go.

The elephant in the room

These plans are all missing any meaningful discussion and understanding of how land use and transportation are inextricably linked, likely because we tend to think that the federal government plays no role in land use decisions.

But federal transportation policy drives local land use decisions. Where we build roads and highways influences where developers build houses and stores. When we give states a blank check to build a new highway while giving them a minuscule amount for transit (if they can jump through all the regulatory hoops we apply to transit funding), we’re encouraging more sprawl. As houses, businesses, parks, and other daily destinations spread farther apart, people are forced to drive farther and farther, increasing our emissions in the process.

Federal transportation policy has an essential role to play in reducing transportation emissions and making our transportation system work for everyone. How we spend federal transportation money should reflect this and keep climate goals in mind. So far, it seems as though most Democratic presidential candidates don’t quite understand this.

Behold! The entirety of our #BeyondEVs Tweet Chat

It’s #CoveringClimateNow week, and over 220 media outlets have pledged to devote coverage to climate change. Unfortunately, there’s usually something missing in these important conversations: driving.

Driving makes up most of transportation emissions (and the transportation sector emits more greenhouse gases than any other). And every year, vehicle miles traveled increases. If we don’t do anything to drive a little bit less, we’ll negate all of the benefits from electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency.

It’s time to move #BeyondEVs. We hosted a Tweet Chat yesterday to discuss why we need to reduce vehicle miles traveled, how government policy at all levels can help do this, and the additional benefits of driving less.

Thanks to our tremendous co-hosts for making the Tweet Chat a success: Smart Growth America, America Walks, League of American Bicyclists, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Salud!America, Shared Use Mobility Center, TransitCenter, and U.S. PIRG.

If you’re a journalist or researcher, check out our climate change resources. And everybody stay tuned for a Tweet Chat on October 23rd on why the federal transportation program needs to prioritize maintenance over expanding highways.

Question 1: Electric vehicles are necessary but not sufficient to reduce transportation emissions. What else should we do to move #BeyondEVs and create a cleaner, zero-carbon transportation future?

Question 2: What can make it easier for people to take low-carbon trips by using transit, walking, or biking?

Question 3: What changes do we need (at the federal, state, and/or local level) to place destinations closer to where people live?

Question 4: The feds dedicate the vast majority of transportation money to building highways. How can we better distribute funding to reduce climate pollution?

Question 5: What else is missing from the debate about transportation and climate change?

Question 6: Reducing the amount/length we drive is essential for lowering transportation emissions. What are additional benefits of reducing the distance we drive?

Question 7: The implicit goal of the federal transportation program is to increase and encourage driving, which raises emissions. What would be a better, explicit, stated goal?

Question 1: Electric vehicles are necessary but not sufficient to reduce transportation emissions. What else should we do to move #BeyondEVs and create a cleaner, zero-carbon transportation future?

Back to top of the page

Question 2: What can make it easier for people to take low-carbon trips by using transit, walking, or biking?

Back to top of the page

Question 3: What changes do we need (at the federal, state, and/or local level) to place destinations closer to where people live?

Back to top of the page

Question 4: The feds dedicate the vast majority of transportation money to building highways. How can we better distribute funding to reduce climate pollution?

https://twitter.com/NUMOalliance/status/1174389963967758338

Back to top of the page

Question 5: What else is missing from the debate about transportation and climate change?

Back to top of the page

Question 6: Reducing the amount/length we drive is essential for lowering transportation emissions. What are additional benefits of reducing the distance we drive?

Back to top of the page

Question 7: The implicit goal of the federal transportation program is to increase and encourage driving, which raises emissions. What would be a better, explicit, stated goal?

Back to top of the page

 

10 questions every presidential candidate should answer about transportation and climate change

The debate has passed, but the relevance of these questions have not. We’ll continue to urge candidates to answer these questions.

On September 4, 10 Democratic presidential candidates will participate in a town hall focused solely on climate change. We have a list of questions related to transportation that we want every candidate to answer. 

Climate change is undoubtedly a defining issue of our times, and the transportation sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. But there’s little understanding about where transportation emissions come from or how to reduce them. Many think we just need to replace all gas powered vehicles with electric vehicles (EVs). But we cannot address this crisis without an understanding of the crucial role that the design of our communities and roadways play in producing our transportation emissions. 

While many other sectors have reduced emissions, transportation is headed in the wrong direction. Driving represents 83 percent of all transportation emissions and these emissions are rising—despite cleaner fuels, more efficient and electric vehicles—because people forced by our development patterns and transportation system to drive more and make longer trips. 

It’s time to have a more robust conversation about the connections between transportation and climate change. The future depends on it. Here are the questions every candidate should be asked: 

1) How does your plan to respond to climate change allow people to make fewer and shorter car trips? 

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and those emissions are rising. Studies show that we cannot reduce emissions by relying on expected growth in clean vehicles and fuel, that we must also reduce expected growth in driving. 

2) What are the ways in which we can change development patterns to place jobs and other essential services closer to the people who need them? 

Our reliance on cars and driving to our destinations often goes back to development decisions that place people’s needs—banks, groceries, schools, jobs—far away from where they live. 

3) As President, what will you do to ensure the United States measures greenhouse gas emissions in transportation?

You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Soon after taking office, the Trump Administration scrapped a U.S. Department of Transportation plan to measure greenhouse gas emissions in transportation. If we aren’t taking the basic step of measuring these emissions, how can we take steps to reduce them? 

4) How should Congress rethink how federal highway dollars are spent?

Federal surface transportation policy prioritizes highways over all other forms of transportation. Federal highway formula dollars are guaranteed and allow states to spend over $40 billion per year on highways and highway expansion. Highways often result in a more spread out development pattern, which generates both more traffic and more emissions. There is no limit on federal funds used for highway expansion and no requirement that states use that money to maintain the system we already have. As a result, our emissions keep going up and our potholes get larger. 

5) How does your plan orient more investment toward transit? 

The federal government makes it easy for states to build and expand highways, providing up to 80 percent of funding for highway projects. In contrast, the federal government will only pay no more than half of the cost of public transit projects, which places a greater burden on communities to build transit compared to highways. The federal government spends five times the amount on highways than on transit. 

6) How would you shift the program to promote and reward efficiency and reduced emissions?

Under the current formula structure of the federal program, states are rewarded for inefficiency. The more gas is burned—the more people drive and the more they emit—the more funding the state gets. Is this the message you support? 

7) What should change in the federal transportation program to support walkable communities which are better for the economy and the environment? 

Core, walkable areas are responsible for the highest density of economic activity in most regions. Yet the federal program is much more focused on supporting high speed vehicle traffic, even in these walkable areas, which makes walking deadly. 

8) How does your infrastructure plan address this pedestrian safety epidemic and make it possible for people to take more trips by walking and biking?

Almost half of all car trips are under three miles. But our roadways are designed for vehicle speed over pedestrian safety, making it unsafe in many situations for people to walk instead of drive. In the past decade, the number of people struck and killed while walking increased by 35 percent, reaching overall level of fatalities not seen in nearly 30 years. 

9) How would you support communities that are shifting their transportation systems to integrate more transit? 

Small and mid-sized cities across the country are recognizing that providing transit options is essential to boosting their economic activity and reducing their emissions. 

10) As President, what would you do to strengthen and support Amtrak’s existing long distance and inter-city network?

Many presidential platforms, including the Green New Deal, proclaim the need to invest in and build a national high speed rail network as a way to connect communities and reduce emissions. 

Hawaii can reach their clean energy goals with the help of smarter growth and land use

Ten years ago, Hawaii set ambitious goals to reduce their dependence on imported oil and create a clean energy future by 2045. But when it comes to their transportation system, Hawaii has to look beyond just electrifying their vehicle fleet or finding cleaner sources of energy. Smarter land use will reduce the length and frequency of car trips, and encourage more walking, biking, and transit use.

The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is charting a new path toward an energy-independent future for Hawaii. Today, imported oil supplies 80 percent of Hawaii’s energy. Our dependence on oil threatens our most precious resources—the land, air, and water that sustain us. And it places our economic security at risk. Simply stated, our current way of meeting our energy needs is not sustainable. Hawaii must alter its course.

– Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative

Hawaii leaders and residents have a vested interest in both reducing their dependence on foreign oil and also finding cleaner sources of energy. Ten years later, on Earth Day 2018, how can Hawaii continue moving toward this vision? What are the key changes required, and what can the state to do make it happen? To analyze what it would take to get Hawaii to a clean energy future by its goal of 2045, The Elemental Excelerator turned to Smart Growth America (T4America’s parent organization) and the Rhodium Group.

Download the report, Transcending Oil:Hawaii’s Path to a Clean Energy Economy

 

What did we find?

If Hawaii did manage to shift to an all-electric vehicle (EV) fleet—included in our recommendations—but continued growing in the same form as today, the energy grid would need to produce one-third more energy than it does today. The power industry will already be struggling to find enough renewable energy without having to add such a large load. But if they pair EVs with building more connected, compact, mixed-use development with improved facilities for non-auto travel, vehicle miles traveled would go down by over 20 percent from what is projected, making it easier to meet Hawaii’s clean energy goals and saving people money.

To make the shift to clean energy, Hawaii needs to convert all vehicles to electric, such as today’s Nissan Leaf or the Ford Focus Electric. But no state can make this happen overnight, as the lifespan of a new car can be about 15 years. That means even if Hawaii required 100 percent of vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2025, it would still take until around 2040 to see the fleet turn over from gas/diesel engines to EVs. And electrifying the fleet would be a monumental challenge. Hawaii would only have the authority to do this by joining California, who through a federal waiver has the authority to set their own vehicle emissions standards. Otherwise, fuel standards are controlled by the feds—standards that the Trump administration recently announced they’d like to roll back.

Compounding the problem, during that time period, Hawaii would also need to build out the infrastructure needed to fuel and charge all of those EVs, including a way to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements when there is no gas left to be taxed.

An all-electric fleet is only as clean as its energy sources

The Clean Energy Initiative aims to reduce petroleum use for transportation, which today accounts for two-thirds of the state’s overall energy use. In order for Hawaii to reach their clean energy future with an all-electric fleet, all of the energy used to power those vehicles would need to come from clean sources—solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

Even still, with no other structural changes, the net energy required would increase. If Hawaii kept growing and developing across the state in the same form, an all-electric fleet would add a 33 percent load to the electric grid in Hawaii.

Clearly, more is needed than just producing cleaner vehicles powered with cleaner energy sources.

Reduce transportation energy demand by pairing these changes with smarter growth

One reason the transportation sector uses so much energy is because we’ve put people’s homes far away from all the things they need—like jobs, groceries, schools and medical care. We don’t have to do this: we do this by choice.

This development pattern leaves residents little choice but to drive—usually alone. Rarely are two neighbors’ destinations located close together with everything so spread out. This drives the cost of living up by essentially requiring most people over the age of 16 to own a vehicle just to participate in the economy. Imagine that: a $10,000 cover charge to enter our economy. We want everyone to be able to participate in the economy, especially those that don’t have $10,000. Yet we exclude them in the way we design and build our communities.

Don’t be fooled—the free market did not create these conditions. In fact, prices in walkable communities with amenities near homes are worth a premium these days. But the supply of homes in these places doesn’t even come close to keeping up with demand. And our zoning codes prohibit the types of development seen in many of those in-demand neighborhoods that save residents money and cut down on fuel use. We require big houses set back from the street, separated from other houses with lots of parking and no amenities nearby. We engineer the “flood of traffic congestion” that results from all of it.

Just think: changes to state or local zoning codes would allow more traditional development where apartments are close to townhouses and single family detached housing, where houses are close to retail, restaurants, groceries, parks and schools. All types of households—young, single, married, seniors—could all spend less on transportation and put more money into retirement/housing/education/savings, and we could easily use less energy.

Reducing the demand for energy through smarter growth will help Hawaii make all its energy renewable and clean. This is the future we are encouraging for Hawaii—and indeed the rest of the country. Read our full report to see how it can be done. While Hawaii is unique, there are more lessons in common with the other 49 states than not.

 

Indy’s “more is better” approach to transportation leads to new all-electric carsharing service

BlueIndy, a new all-electric carsharing service in Indianapolis launching today, is evidence of Mayor Greg Ballard’s open-minded approach to transportation innovations to improve options in the city for residents.

Blue Indy

This brand new system is a cross between a bikesharing service (cars can go one-way between numerous locations), a service like Zipcar (the parking spots are reserved) and Car2Go (smaller compact cars for one-way use) with one major exception: All of the cars are 100% electric and charge via small hubs installed next to each parking spot that are wired into the electric grid. In addition to keeping the fleet charged, anyone with an EV can also pay a small membership and hourly fee to charge their own cars at the hubs scattered around downtown.

Blue Indy MapThe system is launching with 50 vehicles and 25 charging stations (doubling as the reservable parking spots) around the city, with a plan to soon expand up to 500 electric cars and 200 stations. The city is paying $6 million in dollars earmarked for infrastructure projects, with the French company that owns the service investing somewhere over $40 million.

The new system ties into two of Mayor Ballard’s key goals: to improve energy security by reducing dependence on foreign oil and to provide innovative new mobility options for Indianapolis residents. BlueIndy comes several years after the opening of the economically successful Cultural Trail through the city, closely on the heels of the launch of the Pacers bikesharing system, and in the midst of the city’s effort to dramatically expand and improve public transportation.

It was a long time coming, but now Indianapolis has a new option for getting around their city, and a range of travel options are one of the things most coveted by the younger, mobile workforce that Indy is desperate to retain (and attract) as part of their economic development goals.

As Time Money wrote today, “Without knowing any better, it would be reasonable to assume that a cutting-edge program like this would first appear in a city that already stands out for green initiatives and electric car adoption.” While some cities (Washington, D.C, Seattle and others) are known for a booming number of transportation startups disrupting entrenched systems due to favorable regulatory environments, BlueIndy is a testament to what can happen in other perhaps less likely cities that have civic leadership committed to improving transportation options for their residents (and often visitors) by any means necessary.

Whether by raising new money to expand and improve a transit system that hasn’t kept pace with the growth of the city, by building a downtown walking and biking path that’s the envy of other cities, or encouraging new mobility companies like BlueIndy or Car2Go to set up shop, Indy’s “more is better” approach is already reaping economic dividends.

Mobility is changing incredibly fast and cities that open themselves up to these exciting changes will be much better positioned to reap the rewards. It’s encouraging to see a place like Indianapolis on the list of places stepping forward into this future of new, different, exciting mobility options. Regardless of how well BlueIndy fares going forward, this step is one they’ll be glad they took for years to come.