Report Gets Frosty Reception From Transportation Community
A recent article in the Innovation Briefs newsletter analyzed a recent report entitled “Moving Cooler”. The report made the claim that the United States could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 47 percent by the year 2050 just by making some changes to the transportation system.
The report was not well-received by the transportation community. Here are some comments on the report by transportation officials:
- “This is an advocacy document pure and simple, couched in the form of a pseudo scientific analysis.”
- The report does “not [meet] scientific standards.”
- The report”[uses] implausible assumptions.”
- The report “[fails] to adequately disclose key analytical assumptions.”
- The report is “lacking in objectivity.”
- The report contains “a deeply flawed analysis.”
- The report “[follows] a questionable peer review process.”
Ouch. So why was this report so heavily criticized?
The answer lies in how the report suggests we’ll be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so dramatically:
1) Institute tolling of all interstate intercity highways throughout the U.S. by next year (2010). Minimum toll would be 5 cents/mile.
The Innovation NewsBrief explains, “As the presentation to AASHTO [American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials] pointed out, this would require immediate Federal legislation to authorize tolls and a massive crash effort to install toll equipment on these highways within the next year. The tolls would likely shift some traffic to other roads and hit rural areas hardest. According to the analysis, a 5 cent/mile toll would be equivalent to increasing the gas tax for interstate trips by $1.10/gallon for vehicles that get 22 MPG and $1.75/gallon for high-efficiency vehicles.”
2) Impose congestion pricing in 125 metropolitan areas, at 65 cents per mile.
The Innovation NewsBrief mentions that, “The presentation to AASHTO pointed out that a 20-mile round-trip commute trip would cost an additional $26 each day . Service workers and delivery vehicles could face much higher increased costs. The top 125 metro areas where congestion pricing would be imposed include such small urban areas as Canton, OH; Jackson, MS; Flint, MI; Modesto, CA; Greenville, SC; and Lancaster, PA.”
3) Impose or significantly increase parking fees in the central business districts and require $400 biennial residential on-street parking permits.
4) Reimpose a national 55 mph speed limit.
5) Add bike lanes and paths at 1/4 mile intervals in high density areas (more than 2,000 persons/square mile.)
6) Require at least 90% of new development to be in compact, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods with high quality transit.
And these are just some of the measures that would have to be taken to get to that 47% reduction. It’s no wonder that one transportation official called the report “extreme, unrealistic and in some cases downright impossible.”
The NewsBrief explains why it’s important that people analyze the report’s findings correctly:
While the report’s authors acknowledge in the body of the report that implementing the strategies at their “maximum deployment level” would require a major shift in national attitudes and political will, the presentation and press releases distributed at the July 28 report rollout ignored this caveat.
They also ignored the report’s conclusion that lower emission reductions would be achieved at less intensive — and more realistic — levels of deployment.
Thus, an impression may have been created, says Allen Biehler, Director of PennDOT and AASHTO’s President, that emission reduction targets in the range of 24 to 52 percent are reasonably achievable. This, in turn, could lead to their adoption in EPA rulemaking and legislation pending in Congress.
Other Related Articles
- Why Haven’t Toll Road Charges Been Reduced?
- EZ-Pass Or EZ-Cash? Why Toll Roads Are A Bad Idea
- Texas Toll Authorities Double-Bill 50,000 Drivers & Have No Plans To Stop In The Future
- Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
- 9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
This would be very expensive to impliment it would be cheaper for our government to build a new energy infrastructure.
It would be cheaper to get a new government,
George what is a governent going to do except maybe make you drive a slower speed to save fuel or a much more efficient vehicle than you are driving now. If you say the government is not doing the right thing then what do you want them to do? From your posts it would be that they should do nothing.
This report fits into the NMA web site. Everything pretty much fails in every report promoted on this web site. Why not add another one to tear apart because if it has in it that they want to bring back the 55 mph speed limit no matter how crazy the report it is worthy to have on this site. The report does have some true things in it though. If we want to use less fuel and pollute less we would have to decrease the speeds that we travel and make it so that you live closer to work and other things. With the amount of people that drive 50 miles or more one way to work each day that is using a lot of resources. It all depends on if you want to do things before fuel gets high or wait and do those things when it is $10 a gallon.
Oil industry experts predict that gasoline is going to get real cheap but this time it will be a bad thing not a good thing because it will trigger a deflation spiral.
Tony if gasonline gets cheap it will be a bad thing because the world will use a lot more and when the easy oil gets used up it will get really expensive.
We need to go to another type of fuel to run our cars on like hydrogen all the 55mph speed limit did is give us a false sense of security so we stayed on oil thats why the oil industry supports the 55mph speed limit they know as long as we have it we will have an excuse not to go to another type of fuel if the 55mph did not exsist in the first place we would have got rid of oil in 1979 this Tim Casleman says he is an enviromentalist but he is secretly for the oil industry thats why he is for going back to the 55mph speed limit instead of advocating us useing a different type of fuel instead of oil.
TONY RICH where do you get your information? Where ever it is, take it off your favorites and go elsewhere. Where do you think we get hydrogen from? The answer is it is made from other energy sources and does not just come out of the water by itself.
Oil companies promoting a 55 mph speed limit? I would like to see the source for that.
Where is your source that Tim Casleman is for the oil companies?
Tell us at least one fact that you have a verified source for.
To start with we can make hydrogen from water useing the electricty from solar panels the oil companys run ads on the radio all the time asking us to slow down back in 2006 Tim Casleman stood on a overpass above a California freeway dressed up like the statue of liberity in red, white and blue holding a banner that says drive 55 it caused a backup for miles on the freeway down below the California highway patrol had to asked them to leave I e-mailed them and asked them how much fuel did you waste causeing that backup on the freeway down below a lot more than driveing 75 I would think I bet the CEOs at all the major oil companys lit up an extra big cuban cigar that day when a car is sitting stopped with the engine running it wastes fuel it is not going anywhare and it is still burning fuel you are right about one thing the best thing to do is let the price of gasoline go up as high as the market will pay for it.
TONY RICH you do not know any facts. How many solar cells would it take just to drive one vehicle? The answer is a lot. Where are you going to fill up at? How much is it going to cost to make that many solar cells? How many watts of energy from solar cells would it take to make one watt of hydrogen energy?
Your answer is to make the price of gasoline to go up so much it will then affect people. In the mean time there are dozens here that say they have a lot of money to drive their 300 hp engines or drive 90 mph so they do not care what the price of fuel is. In the mean time there are millions of people out ther that do not have the money to waste and increase fuel costs come out of their overall budget so they can not afford to do a lot of of other things just because many here are increasing the price of fuel for everyone that can not afford the increase..
Transporation only accounts for 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions 80% are from coal fired plants and cattle ranches the 55mph speed limit only saved 1% the fuel they said it would save and its repeal added 2 to 3 billion dollars to the US economy so your talking 1% of the 20% which is not very much according to Japanese researchers eating a steak dinner is worst than driveing a big SUV with a big V8 engine 90mph and I was talking about a hydrogen plant whare you can have big solar panels and this is only one way you can make hydrogen another way is to mix water with hydrogen peroxide and then add zinc this makes hydrogen with no energy another way is to use metal hydrates they give off hydrogen on contact with water all congress has to do is pass a law that after a given model year cars have to run on another type of fuel but this won”t happen because the oil industry is too big a lobby.
TONY RICHJ I disagree with your simplistic view. All you have to do is just take hydrogen and put it in your vehicle you say. If it was that easy it would have been done. Forget the oil industry. There are thousands of people against the oil industry. Why have they or you not done what you are saying? The answer is that it is not that easy or efficient. If it was that easy I would do it myself and forget the oil industy. Give us the plans and procedures and we all will do it. How is it running for you since it is so easy?
A lot more automotive reports should be checked for accuracy and “out-of-the-blue” claims.
http://www.carnorama.com/