Hill Heat

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to view and ride in a plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) on the Capitol Mall during the Earth Day festivities. Flexible-fuel PHEVs offer a promising opportunity to reduce dependence on imported oil, decrease greenhouse gas and other transportation emissions, revitalize local economies, and lower fuel costs. The single largest contributor to America’s foreign oil dependence is the transportation sector which accounts for two-thirds of US oil consumption. Moreover, the transportation sector is 97 percent dependent on petroleum.

The vehicle, an XH-150, was developed by the Bellevue, Washington-based AFS Trinity Corp. and is a modified 2007 Saturn Vue Greenline SUV that gets up to 150 miles-per-gallon. Its energy storage system combines lithium-ion batteries with ultracapacitors. Adding ultracapacitors allows the vehicle to achieve top speeds and rapid acceleration in electric-only mode equal to a conventional hybrid. For a typical daily commute of 40 miles round trip, the vehicle does not use its internal combustion engine at all. The XH-150 was unveiled in January at Detroit’s North American International Auto Show. Look for the AFS Trinity Truck on the Mall.

Witnesses

• Siva Yam, President, United States of America-China Chamber of Commerce
• John Isbell, Global Director of Delivery Logistics, Nike
• Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and Shepard Trucking, On behalf of the American Trucking Associations
• Edward Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

This hearing is the first in a series of hearings exploring emerging themes in transportation policy and practice, the needs of our national surface transportation system, and the reauthorization of our surface transportation laws. The Subcommittee will continue this series by holding hearings in the near future on the issues surrounding freight access and goods movement, infrastructure preservation and modernization, highway safety, mobility and connectivity of rural areas, and other issues.

Witnesses

• Robert Puentes, Metropolitan Policy Program at The Brookings Institution
• Robert D. Yaro, President of the Regional Plan Association in New York
• The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive, Seattle, Washington
• Jolene Molitoris, Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation
• Michael R. Wiley, Executive Director of Sacramento Regional Transit District
• Ron Kirby, Transportation Director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Witnesses Panel I: Status of Surface Transportation Trust Funds and Impact on Federal Spending

• James S. Simpson, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
• James D. Ray, Administrator (Acting), Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation
• John F. McCaskie, Chief Engineer, Swank Associated Companies (Transportation Construction Coalition)
• William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association

Panel II: Future Outlook and Budgetary Needs for AMTRAK

• Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration
• Donna McLean, Chairman of the Board, National Railroad Passenger Corporation-AMTRAK
• Alexander Kummant, President & CEO, National Railroad Passenger Corporation-AMTRAK
• David Tornquist, Assistant Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation
• Joel M. Parker, International Vice President & Special Assistant to the President, Transportation Communications International Union

Alex Steffen at WorldChanging in January, with My Other Car is a Bright Green City (edited for publication in BusinessWeek), and Allison Arieff at the New York Times’s By Design blog on Monday, with Is Your House Making You Look Fat?, take involved and interesting looks at the environmental, energy, and health consequences of America’s love affair with sprawl. In Steffen’s words: “The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.” Arieff mirrors his sentiment: “First, let’s talk about cars. Stop designing for them.“

Their excellent essays have spurred varied responses.

Ezra Klein at the American Prospect, yesterday: How We Live Now:

There’s often a tendency to assume that the status quo is the most “natural” way for things to be, and that rejiggering the relevant subsidies is somehow more artificial and presumptuous. But the current system was built atop a massive structure of subsidies and tax breaks. The mortgage tax deduction advantaged bigger homes; funding schools through inequitable property taxes encouraged families to move out of cities where the property taxes were low and into richer suburbs where the schools would be wealthy; putting billions into costly and little-used roads made far-flung developments appear cheap to those who only saw the finished product; underfunding public transportation heavily influenced development patterns, and so on and so forth.

Matt Yglesias picks up at the Atlantic: Dense:

What’s particularly astounding about this stuff, in my view, is that fixing the problem would hardly require some totalitarian density police to come around and force us to all live closer together. Instead, the main step we would need to take would simply be to allow people to build more densely if they want to. As a secondary measure, scrapping or limiting the tax code’s weird and destructive subsidy of big houses would do some good.

Other blogs that picked the thread up include Duncan Black’s Eschaton, 2020 Hindsight, Urban Grounds, Dove’s Eye View, Trinifar’s Some Maintenance Required, The Vigorous North, and The Velorution.

On February 4, 2008, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters released the 2009 fiscal year (FY) budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to fund construction, maintenance, and operation activities for the nation’s roadways, railways, and air transportation. The proposed $68.2 billion total represents a $2.13 billion decrease from the FY 2008 appropriations bill enacted in December 2007. Moreover, proposed budget rescission measures totaling $3.89 billion would further reduce the budgetary resources available to DOT in FY 2009 to $64.31 billion.

The Administration is again proposing dramatic cuts in federal support for Amtrak. Congress appropriated $1.3 billion for Amtrak in FY 2008 with $850 million going to capital and debt service and $475 million to operating subsidies. The Administration’s budget proposes a total of $800 million, a cut of $525 million or 40 percent. The Administration proposes $525 million for capital and debt service grants and $275 million for “efficiency incentive grants” which would replace direct operating subsidies and give the Secretary of Transportation discretion in how the funds are used.

Other highlights in the Department of Transportation (DOT) budget include:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) – $1.8 billion. CMAQ supports transportation projects that assist in meeting and maintaining national ambient air quality standards.
• Clean Fuels Grant Program – $51 million to support transit operators in transitioning to cleaner and more efficient buses and fuels, an increase of $2 million from $49 million appropriated in FY 2008.
• Transit Planning – $113.5 million to support the activities of regional planning agencies and states to plan for transit investments, an increase of $6.5 million from $107 million appropriated in FY 2008.

Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, prepared by a specially convened Commission, meets the charge given under Section 1909 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Report includes detailed recommendations for creating and sustaining a pre-eminent surface transportation system in the United States.

EE News:

Advisory panel expected to put gas tax increase plan before House committee

Alex Kaplun, E&E Daily reporter

A House panel is poised to open a debate this week into increasing the federal gas tax as a means for funneling additional dollars toward bridge repairs, highway construction and other transportation projects.

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing Thursday to examine a report from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which is expected to outline a series of recommendations for improving the country’s transportation infrastructure.

The report will not be formally released until tomorrow morning but reports late last week indicate that the majority of the 12-member panel will endorse raising the gas tax to pay for a wide range of transportation initiatives. The size of the proposed increase to the 18.4 cent per gallon tax remains unclear and could range from as little as a dime or as much as a quarter per gallon.

Three members of the panel – including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters – are expected to oppose the increase. The Bush administration has consistently opposed any boost to the gas tax, arguing that it is an inefficient way to pay for future transportation projects.

Still, several key lawmakers in the last couple years have said that Congress should explore increasing the tax to inject extra dollars into federal transportation funds that are failing to keep up with the nation’s needs. But the idea has yet to gain any significant traction on Capitol Hill.

In the wake of last summer’s Minnesota bridge collapse, T&I Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) proposed a temporary five-cent gas tax increase to repair and replace bridges across the United States. The increase would sunset after three years and raise roughly $25 billion over that period.

Oberstar’s plan never made it out of committee before the end of the last session of Congress. It remains to be seen whether he will try to revive a similar plan this year.

But one influential Republican has already come out against any proposal to increase the gas tax, saying that it would place an extra burden on consumers without substantially increasing federal transportation dollars.

“This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars. A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “Raising the gas tax puts the brunt of the long-term trust fund expenses on automobile drivers, when diesel trucks and other heavy vehicles also use the highways.”

The Urban Land Institute will hold a news conference to release a report titled “Growing Cooler: The Evidence” that will discuss the relationship between urban development and carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles.

Contact: Nicole Daigle at 202-715-1553

Urban Land Institute, 1025 Thomas Jefferson St. N.W., Suite 500 West