Transportation

Update: New Safety Rules for School Buses

Christina Satkowski — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:37:00 -0400

Yesterday, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced new safety rules for school buses. Beginning in 2011, buses weighing 5 tons or less (smaller buses that generally seat 16-20 students) will be required to have a shoulder/torso seat belt in addition to the lap belt that is currently required. Larger buses will be required to increase the seat back heights, all in hopes of better protecting students in case of violent crashes.

As we wrote yesterday, child safety experts recommend extra safety measures for vehicles transporting smaller children, including weight- and height- specific restraints and safety monitors. This move by Secretary Peters works to address these concerns. Many young children ride on smaller buses, though they ride on larger buses too, which will not be covered by the new rule.

In the rules, David Kelly, Acting Commissioner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, writes that the upgrades will not present a significant economic burden to bus manufacturers, though the cost will likely be borne by school districts in the end. The Department estimates the cost of retrofitting a small bus will range from $1,166 to $2,481 per bus, while it will cost about $125 to upgrade larger buses. Kelley writes that the Department supports using Highway Safety Grants to help pay for the upgrades. Given the challenges facing districts that upgrade to accommodate pre-kindergarten-sized children, we wonder if it will be as easy as they expect. Either way, districts should keep in mind the safety of their smallest passengers as they work to comply with these new safety rules.

To Drill or Not to Drill?

Jenna Cittadino — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:10:00 -0400

That is the question of my blog this week. Watching Rudy Giuliani speak at the Republican Nation Convention last Wednesday and listening to thousands of people chant, "Drill, baby, drill," I realized how confused our country is on this, well, confusing issue. Somehow we arrived at a place where Republicans and Democrats are more divided than ever, and over issues like offshore drilling, which had once been off limits by both parties. I believe people are misinformed, because if the facts were understood, the choice would be clear, no matter what your party affiliation.

The major misconception I've observed is that offshore drilling will lower high gas prices. The fact is that if these projects were to start today, it would take years before new refineries would affect the market...if ever. Not to mention the amount of oil that could be produced is tiny in comparison with the amount that is produced worldwide. And let's face it-these refineries really can't start producing today, because realistically it would take years to build a new refinery and.... large amounts of money.

Since there seems to be a consensus with both parties that we have a problem with our oil addiction, why not get over that addiction by investing that money into developing alternative fuel infrastructures and converting more cars to run on alternative fuels? Terry Tamminen, Executive Director of the Climate Policy Program of the New America Foundation, says that just 20% of the cost of the current war in Iraq could have completed an alternative fuel infrastructure in our country and converted the majority of cars to run on alternative fuel. Even former president of Shell's U.S. operation, John Hofmeister, said, "The internal combustion is a great invention that has served us well for a century, but it is time for us to move on" (www.newsweek.com/id/142130).

I believe the majority of the population wants this to happen. A recent event illustrates this shift. Last week my husband and I were in an accident which totaled our car. This dumped us into the car market, which I learned is a very strange market at the moment: Priuses are in the "luxury" car price range, the Kelly bluebook value for a Honda Civic has actually increased, and the fun new 2009 Honda Fits are so hot that no dealer can hold them through a weekend (and the asking price is $4,000 over the regular price!). Meanwhile, I had an exchange with someone today who said that he wants to buy a Suburban because "they're so cheap right now and the money [he] will save will just go towards gas" (he'll still find he loses out big time with those gas bills!). Who would have thought 10 years ago that a tiny hatchback would be a hot commodity and that one could hardly give a Suburban away? There was also an article in the LA Times yesterday that called the '94 Geo Metro a "dream machine" because of its fuel efficiency, and stated that "the '92 Civic hatchback gets 60 mpg." Interestingly enough, the Geo Metro was made by the now struggling General Motors-if only they had realized what was good for the environment was good for them.

The car market is reflecting what people want and need: fuel efficient, reliable cars. If we begin offshore drilling, we will be backtracking and only fueling our problem (pardon the pun). In Senator Obama's acceptance speech for the Democratic Presidential Nomination he claimed that in 10 years our country will no longer be dependant on foreign oil. I agree this dependence needs to end, but I would like to take it a step further and ask that in 10 years our cars no longer be dependent on oil. Period. I would like to believe that saving money, preserving our health by eliminating cancer and asthma causing toxins, and protecting the planet so our children can survive are issues both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.

Land Use and My Bicycle

Kristina Haddad — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:53:00 -0400

(By SASHA ABELSON, Guest Blogger to the Climate Program)

When I first moved to LA I told people I hoped to find a job close to home which did not involve an hour commute to and from the office. The response to this statement was generally one of uncontrollable laughter. I, however, did not think it was funny.

I was born and raised in New York City and the idea of walking to work was not a foreign concept to me. In fact, in all of my years as a New Yorker, I was able to get to each place of employment on foot. I always enjoyed my walk to work, and I appreciated the fact that it was indeed possible to walk to work.

I am now a resident of LA and my current commute takes me approximately 10 minutes - on my bike. I will always remember that I am one of the lucky ones! A colleague of mine just explained to me how she spent 3 hours last night traveling the 19.1 miles to her home.

My goal to live near work goes beyond the desire to avoid traffic and arrive at the office with windswept hair and tanned forearms. It has to do with effective land use, and a need to have a relationship with the land that is both environmentally friendly and economically viable. Nearly 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. As the population continues to grow and sprawling suburbs continue to be developed, the state's greenhouse emissions will continue to soar unless it dramatically changes the way it builds cities and suburbs

An article in the LA Times discussed a report, "Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change."[1] This report concluded that compact development such as mixing housing and businesses in denser patterns, with walkable neighborhoods, could be as effective at lowering emissions as some state and national climate policies. According to the study, compact development would allow consumers to spend less on gas while saving money in taxes that would otherwise be spent on pumping water and building new roads to far-away suburbs.

Frankly, I am thrilled with my 10 minute commute, my once monthly trip to the pump, my lower CO2 emissions, and my not-so-LA-approach to urban planning and land use. Who's laughing now?

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/21/local/me-climate21

Transportation for America

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:04:00 -0400

I just came across the Transportation for America campaign. It's a coalition of some great organizations who recognize the strategic importance of building out a 21st century transportation network for the United States.

In a nutshell, T4A is advocating the following:

Build a world-class rail and transit network that puts us ahead of the rest of the developed world, not behind.
Help communities meet the soaring demand for homes in neighborhoods that require less driving and have access to high-quality transportation options;
Restore, and then keep our existing highways and public transportation networks in tip-top shape.

This is important.

My colleagues in the Smart Globalization program here at New America recently hosted former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and CEO Leo Hindery to talk about how our health care crisis is creating a massive competitive disadvantage. Our transportation infrastructure is doing the same thing.

Our current system, especially in terms of passenger travel, is dependent on the automobile. Beyond the pain at the pump this causes, for the daily routine of going to work and school, this is like giving everyone in a hi-rise building their own personal elevator car. I love that analogy because it is so true. The amount of land, energy, and income we waste on personal transportation is incredible. Especially when that system so often results in traffic jams and so much wasted time. No wonder our suburban families are stressed to the breaking point.

I digress. My favorite recent study, the McKinsey Global Institute's report, China's Urban Billion, details how the rural-urban migration of 700 million Chinese from the countryside and into the cities will challenge the world. Energy, transportation and land-use are three of the four dimensions of that challenge and this initiative is the first serious coalition I've seen that is capable of even starting the conversation here in the States.

But it is also popular. As T4A points out, "90% of Americans believe that new communities should be designed so we can walk more and drive less."

Folks, it's time to recycle suburbia.

The California Budget Loot That Won't Stay Stolen

Mark Paul — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:52:00 -0400

One of the prime uses of the California initiative process is budget theft: a special interest, unhappy with its cut of state spending, passes a ballot measure to increase or fence off its budget. But sometimes the loot doesn’t stay stolen.

Just ask the road lobby. Alarmed by reports that Republican legislators want to grab dollars from transportation accounts to paper over the state’s budget deficit, it has launched a radio ad campaign to defend its booty.

The loot at issue is the portion of the state’s sales tax revenue derived from the sale of gasoline.
Until this decade, the state, for tax purposes, treated gasoline like any other purchased good. California levied the normal state sales tax on sales at the gas pump and put the money into the general fund, along with the revenue from sales of surfboards, Steely Dan records, and other goods. This money helped pay for schools, health care, and prisons. (The sales tax should not be confused with the separate 18-cents-a-gallon state excise tax on motor fuels, a levy on road users exclusively dedicated to fund road maintenance and improvement.)

But as the new century rolled around, the road lobby had a problem. The revenue from the gasoline excise tax, last increased in 1994, was being eaten away by inflation and more fuel-efficient cars. The inflation-adjusted gas tax revenue per mile driven fell by about 20 percent even as the number of cars and miles driven increased by about 20 percent. California no longer had enough gas tax money coming in to maintain and improve roads.

There was, of course, a tried-and-true solution available for this problem: raise the fuel excise tax on road users and index it to inflation. User-pay has been the central road financing mechanism for the better part of a century. But telling voters that they must pay for driving is against the California way –– remember, Californians drive on freeways, not highways. And with the Internet boom at its peak, California was rolling in revenue.

So the road lobby stole some of that money, fair and square. In March 2002 it convinced voters to pass Proposition 42, shifting the state sales tax on gasoline purchases out of the General Fund and earmarking it for transportation.

But like the tax cuts California enacted during the dot-com stock bubble, the road lobby’s raid was built on an illusion. Once the hot Internet money evaporated, the raid threatened to add another $1.4 billion to the state’s growing budget gap. To prevent that, the Legislature and Governor stole the money right back, suspending Proposition 42.

Not for long. In November 2006 the road lobby got voters to pass Proposition 1A, which limits how often the sales tax shift can be suspended and requires any suspension to be treated as a loan, to be paid back to transportation accounts, with interest, on an accelerated schedule.

Where’s the high moral ground in this budget border war of raid and counter-raid? Both sides have plausible claims. California is in no fiscal shape to shift general fund revenues away from schools, colleges, and health care. But it has also failed to adequately fund transportation. (For the moment, let’s give the road lobby a pass on the Loony Tunes nature of earmarking the sales tax, a general tax on consumption, according to the kind of goods being purchased. Other than to ask, What’s next? Dedicate the sales taxes collected on condoms and Victoria’s Secret lingerie to family planning services?)

What’s indefensible is having a two-track budgeting system: a main legislative track where budgeting is a matter of priorities and trade-offs; a second ballot-box budgeting track where voters decide every question in isolation, without the discipline of having to make the needed trade-offs for what they want. It is hard to see how California can ever escape budget hell unless it changes the initiative process to require every measure submitted to the voters to include its own funding source.

The World Was Flat

Sam Sherraden — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:20:00 -0400

With the rising price of oil, a consensus has been building that the world is becoming less "flat" than it was in Tom Friedman's bestseller The World is Flat. With higher energy prices global supply chains will fail, countries in East Asia will re-think their export orientation and try to stimulate domestic demand, and countries such as the United States may gain a competitive edge in their domestic market. Oil makes up nearly half of total freight costs and over the past three years every one dollar rise in oil caused a 1% increase in transport costs.

Snapshot asks, will higher energy costs make U.S. manufacturing more competitive?

Business Week - Can the U.S. Bring Jobs Back from China?
Morgan Stanley - High Transport Costs to ‘Un-Flatten' the World
Wall Street Journal - China's Export Machine Threatened by Rising Costs
CIBC - Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization?