I want to talk today about the Green New Deal and how those
of us in the green transportation community can contribute to filling in the
policy details in our field.
The Green New Deal has stimulated lots of discussion, although
perhaps there has been more heat than light in much of that discussion. As I have said previously (here) I
support the concept of the Green New Deal, believing that it provides an
excellent framework for formulating the work that needs to be done to guide our
nation through the dangers of this century while improving the lives of our
citizens and advancing our values.
Right now, the Green New Deal is a name, a congressional
resolution setting out broad goals and objectives, and a miscellaneous set of
documents. Supporters of the Green
New Deal recognize that it is a unifying concept, not a program, that now needs
detailed policy work in a dozen fields.
It’s time for those of us in the transportation policy space to begin
that work for transportation.
As I noted in my previous posting, the transportation
provisions of the Green New Deal (as represented in the Congressional
resolution, H. Res. 109, available here) are limited to a broad goal with only
three specific strategies mentioned:
“overhauling transportation systems in the United States to
eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector
as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i)
zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable,
and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.” This goal – which I think can be
restated as “decarbonize the transportation sector” – will require thinking
about a variety of issues, including some not mentioned or implied by the
language of the resolution and related documents.
So let me do a quick review of some of those issues to –
hopefully – help advance the discussion.
As I am presenting a generally “can do” assessment I will from time to time
refer to the “no can do” arguments, which I think are best articulated by Eric
Adams in his article in The Drive entitled “Here’s Why the Green New Deal’s
Bold Transportation Ideas Are All But Impossible to Pull Off” (available here).
The Green New Deal resolution doesn’t actually set a target
for electrifying the passenger fleet but it specifically calls for investment
in EV manufacturing and infrastructure. And it is clearly a key element in
getting to a “zero net GHG emission” state by 2050. This goal is nothing new and many of us have been working on
it for several years. Can we get
to a completely decarbonized passenger fleet in the next 30 years? Adams (my “no can do” advisor) is
skeptical, citing a report that estimates that only 14 percent – at best – of
passenger vehicles on the road will be electric by 2030. And, he adds, assuming we can ramp up
the manufacture and sale of EVs, how do you turn over the huge existing
fleet? In my view, although the
task of electrifying the passenger fleet is big, it isn’t particularly
complicated. We pretty much know
how to do everything that needs to be done. It’s largely a matter of scaling up. What are some of the ways ahead?
·
Subsidies and more subsidies – This is a proven
way to move the market. (And no, I
have no compunctions about “picking winners and losers”.)
·
Carbon pricing – Many states are exploring
“carbon cap and invest” and similar techniques for making fossil fuels more
expensive and using the revenue gained to advance clean energy.
·
“Cash for Carbon Clunkers” – Adams suggests this
(perhaps sarcastically?) but it worked in the Stimulus program and it can be
easily scaled up to deplete the old inventory of internal combustion vehicles.
Other issues?
Yes, environmental justice (poor people drive clunkers for a reason),
transitional hardships, urban/rural equity, etc. More work to do!
Electric vehicle infrastructure
Electric vehicles need charging. Although most EV owners charge their vehicles at home and
battery range is improving rapidly, many people in the field believe that an
extensive public charging network is needed (this includes me, but by no means
everyone in the field – still a debated issue). My view is that providing an extensive network of publicly
accessible rapid chargers, especially on the Interstate and National Highway
System networks, will enable easy intercity travel by EV owners, assuage “range
anxiety” by potential buyers, and demonstrate a solid government commitment to making
EVs work. Adams (no can do) cites
a report which estimates that a vast number of chargers (both home and public)
will be needed and that “some sort of magic” may be required to make that
happen. I am unpersuaded. I can cite another report (link here),
which estimates that a relatively small number of strategically placed charge
points can make a national travel network possible. I believe that a vigorous national program to build a rapid
charger network, perhaps spurred by making FHWA funds available at a 100% rate,
can put that network in place fairly rapidly. That strategic network, combined with the development of a
smart electric grid, faster charging technology (for instance, see here), more and
better home storage batteries, and improved car batteries, can solve the
charging problem.
Clean, affordable, accessible public transportation
Most folks in the climate change fight believe that a
better, more extensive transit system is an essential part of the portfolio of
GHG reduction measures in the U.S.
Improved transit also has big transportation equity implications, as the
poorest segments of society depend heavily on buses to get them to jobs and
other essential destinations. And
of course better transit can support more sustainable settlement and
development patterns.
Unfortunately, the Green New Deal debate has arrived just as public
transportation in this country is in a crisis. First, chronic funding shortfalls have caused the level of
service to decline in most places.
Second, this decline in the level of service, combined with the rapid
rise of Uber and other alternative modes, has caused ridership to fall. Third, these factors, together
with increasing capital costs, hostile legislatures, and an ideological assault
funded by fossil fuels interests, have stalled or killed transit expansions in
most places. Yeah, not good
times. Fortunately, many of these
factors can be turned around:
·
Funding – The answer for a funding shortfall
is……..more funding! Significant
funding is needed at the federal, state, and local, both for capital and
operating.
·
Ridership diversions – Some people believe that
the rise of transportation delivery companies (Uber, etc.) spells the end of
mass transit. I side with the
Jarrett Walker position that the actual geometry of cities (density) means that
they won’t work well without the means to move large numbers of people
efficiently along corridors, in other words, transit. Transit systems, of course, need to deliver faster, more
convenient services to fill their role successfully.
·
Cost of expansions – We need to make a lot more
money available for transit expansions while at the same time dramatically
improving project delivery and cost control. More rapid transit lines in separated rights-of-way are
absolutely needed to make cities thrive.
A prime example is the city of Baltimore, where the proposed Red Line
light rail line would provide major leverage toward revitalization of that
troubled city. Killing that
project (as has been done, at least for the moment) may have condemned it to
decades of failure.
·
More buses – Comparatively, buses are
cheap. When run with upgraded
service, as Bus Rapid Transit, they can outperform private autos and approach
light rail speed and service and can be good candidates for automatic
operation.
·
Electric buses – What can be done right
now? Flood the country with
electric buses! These are just now
approaching market competitiveness and are ripe for robust government subsidies
(see my posting on the topic here).
High-speed rail
OK, this is a tough one. In the heyday of high-speed rail planning, following the
Obama Stimulus, several projects looked promising in the near term. Now, with California HSR imploding, no
project looks promising. Upgrading
the Northeast Corridor, if not yet to full HSR standards, should definitely be
in the top tier of a Green New Deal transportation program. At the national level, the future is
murkier. If willing candidates are
found, perhaps some of the 2009 initiatives can be relaunched (I’m talking to
you, Wisconsin). Beyond that, I
think there will be some years of planning before there is anything like a
national program.
Freight
I won’t attempt to sort through all the issues affecting
goods movement in this country.
I’ll just say that this is an area where we need to count on technology
to help us deal with greenhouse gases.
Fortunately, that technology is on the way (or at least almost on the way.)
Delivery trucks:
Electric power beginning to work here.
Long-haul trucks: New electric rigs debuting (my comments
here).
Rail: Hopefully hydrogen fuel cells (my comments here.)
Aviation
This subject has attracted lots of attention in Green New
Deal talk – although it’s not even mentioned in the resolution! Some of the associated documents have
mentioned the high GHG emissions associated with air travel and suggested that
high-speed rail could replace some or all of that travel demand. I talked a bit about the problems with
HSR above. The U.S. is a very big
country, and while you can make a strong case for rail replacing a lot of air
travel in 300-mile-long corridors, it’s hard to see that working for 3,000-mile
trips. I’m afraid we’re going to
have to look to new technology to help us out here.
Infrastructure
There is a widely shared view in the transportation
community that we need a massive investment in infrastructure in this country
to restore our systems to a state of good repair, to address unmet needs, and
to prepare for the future. Many –
but not all – of these needs can easily be classified as Green New Deal. Some thoughts on the connection between
the Green New Deal and broader transportation infrastructure questions:
·
Fix it first—A lot of money needs to be spent on
bringing elements of our legacy systems to a state of good repair. This work doesn’t always advance the
Climate Change fight, but it needs to be done. Funding generated for the Green New Deal must not draw
resources away from these bread-and-better needs.
·
Resiliency—The Green New Deal for transportation
should include goals and strategies for making the system more resilient to
Climate Change and the associated extreme weather events. This subject doesn’t seem to have
attracted much discussion, but it is vitally important. The work that needs to be done under
this heading includes hardening of facilities, elevating roads and bridges, and
building redundant facilities.
·
Materials—More work needs to be done in the
research and development of materials (concrete, asphalt, etc.) with reduced
GHG impacts during their production and application. I’m looking forward to seeing more “smart” materials!
I want to give just a few final thoughts on how and why the
Green New Deal can be accomplished.
Perhaps the best argument I have seen for the Green New Deal
– and certainly the best defense against the barrage of opposition – is the
recent piece by David Roberts on Vox (available here). The title says it all: “This is an emergency, damn it: Green
New Deal critics are missing the bigger picture.” Roberts’ central point is that the Green New Deal represents
the “courage and fresh thinking” we need to address the Climate Change crisis
on an urgent basis. The various
critics “seem oblivious to the historical moment, like thespians acting out an
old, familiar play even as the theater goes up in flames around them.” He believes that the political energy
generated by supporters of the Green New Deal may be the only way to jolt the
U.S. political system into taking the actions needed.
I certainly agree with the need for a sense of urgency, and
I suggest that we remember the real success that was achieved under the Obama
Stimulus Plan. I believe that if
we had sustained that level and overall shape of a transportation program on an
annual level, much of what we are seeking to do would already have been
achieved. Although “one off” and
thrown together in a hurry, the Stimulus demonstrated that a high level of
funding – especially when tied to high aspirations – can produce great results.
Finally, if this work is as necessary and urgent as many of
us believe it is, we just really need to figure out how to do it. My favorite analogy is the famous CO2
scrubber scene in the Apollo 13 movie (which actually happened), in which
engineers had to figure out how to solve a problem using only what materials
and techniques that they had at hand.
Let’s do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment