The benefits of such an idea are clear: stop sending billions to repressive oil-rich regimes, stop twisting our national priorities to support these maniacs, and stop sacrificing our children on the altar of cheap gas for our SUVs.
But to do all this, you don't have to mount windmills for the length of the Rockies or pave Arizona in solar cells. Because we don't use oil in our power grid, we use it in our cars.
To get off the oil addiction, we have to change our transportation picture. Here are the technologies that can do it, and a ten year plan to make America safer, cleaner and adding millions of jobs along the way.
Did I say long? I meant very long. Very, very long. But worth it.
Updated to include some of the great ideas that have popped up in the conversation.
Transportation Revolution Act of 2006
or how we stop burning oil and start making jobs at home in ten quick years
The first thing we need to recognize is that transportation is about more than how we build a car. It's about how we build our cities and how we choose to build our careers. If we want to fix this problem, we're not going to be able to plunk hydrogen tanks into our Hummers and continue on our merry way. We're talking radical social upheaval here, um, dude. Only in a good way. In a way that leaves our cities stronger, our nation safer, and our air cleaner.
Part1) Busways
Greyhound, eat your heart out
Chances are, if you live in the US, you've never head of a busway. They're a vital part of the transportation system in many countries in South America, and they're growing in Europe, but they're almost unknown here.
The simple explanation is that a busway is a bus system that works like a train system. The system contains articulated buses that work in concert with special platforms designed more like train stations than bus terminals. The buses are designed to open at the side, so passengers can enter and exit quickly as they do in a light rail system. They behave like a light rail system in almost every way -- except for the rails.
Why are busways important? Because many communities who would like to install light rail find it completely impractical. The costs of putting in a rail system from scratch are daunting. What kind of costs? Well, St. Louis is an example of a mid-sized city trying to put in light rail, and its light rail has been a success when measured against expected ridership. But the price has been very high. St. Louis city, county, state, and federal support for the light rail system currently runs $105 million / year. At that cost, you could buy every person who rides the system a new car every five years and still come out ahead. Why so pricey? Because putting in a system means reaching into communities that have no rail systems. Buying land. Tearing down buildings. And significant infrastructure costs. Adding a new line takes an average of eleven years from planning to production.
Busways run on roads. Putting in a new busway line means nothing more than building the stations. Busways can operate among normal traffic (good), work in bus only lanes (better) or run on their own special roadways (best). But you don't have to start out with the best solution first. You can experiment with busways, change routes, add lines, close lines, and refine your system before anyone starts to pour cement. And since many highways have room to add a lane or two, even if the busway gets so popular that it needs its own lanes, space is already available.
Just how popular are busways where they've been used? Very. They've been a tremendous success story in South America. In contrast to St. Louis and its 48,000 light rail riders, take a look at Porto Alegre in Brazil. St. Louis boasts around 2.5 million in the metro area, Porto Alegro is much larger, with 9 million. A decade ago, St. Louis started on light rail, while Porto Alegro bought into busways. And after a decade, how did it work out? St. Louis is still working on opening its second light rail line after years of litigation. God knows, getting 40,000 cars off the streets of St. Louis is tremendous, but it could be better. What about Porto Alegre? The flexibility of busways has let them add new routes much more quickly. They're now up to 16 lines and daily ridership now stands at 1,742,000. To put that in perspective, that's as many daily passengers as the rail services in Washington, Baltimore, and Chicago combined.
Want to see the story of how Quito added a single busway, cost at $57m, and quickly reached 180,000 daily riders? Check it out here. And if you want to see how the State of Connecticut plans to make extensive use of busways in their transportation mix right here in the US of A? Check this out.
The federal government needs to put in place a program that encourages and supports the development of busway systems. This should be offered to cities and towns of all sizes as a real, affordable alternative to light rail. Even cities that are planning light rail, or have light rail underway, can implement a busway in the interim, or use it to supplement their rail lines.
Busways immediately reduce the number of cars on the road, get riders used to a system other than their own vehicle, and drastically reduce pollution. All of these things bring down the demand for oil, and that's our goal. Get rid of oil.
Part 2) High Speed Rail
It's not just for people any more
Nothing sounds cooler on paper than sleek bullet trains cracking across the country at a pace that would make a plane jealous. It seems to be one of those ideas that everybody loves -- but no one will pay for.
Part of the problem is that we've been tackling the problem piecemeal, and often through the purposely ruined, permanently broken carcass that is AmTrak. We install a bit of high speed commuter rail here, experiment with maglev here, and after fifty years of talk, all the best trains are running over there, as in overseas.
But there's a better reason for putting in improved rail lines that just allowing people to commute 200 miles every day (hey you people, move closer to your work or find a job closer to home!). That problem comes down to all the cargo we move around the country and how we all love to share the road with thousands of huge transport trucks.
If you want to put your finger in the drain that's sucking down a large part of the oil, you have to stopper the hole that is the Class 8 Truck. Class 8, you know 'em, you love 'em. They're the guys looking down from a two story monster hauling plate steel down the highway as you peddle hard to keep out of their way. There's no bigger category for fuel consumption than that of the long haul, class 8, over the road truck. If you hope to ever make a real dent in the American thirst for oil, you have to get rid of these beasts.
You do that with two things: better trucks (coming soon to an essay near you) and better rail service. We need nothing less than a new "Interstate Railway" system of rails that takes the best of the existing lines and brings them up to the specs needed to handle new high speed trains for both people and cargo. This may also mean shooting some rails into areas that are now poorly served.
This may not sound revolutionary. After all, it's just doing a better job of what we already do. But we have to do it with focused resolve: we must see that adequate, well-maintained, rail systems come near enough to all areas so that trucks making hauls over 200 miles are eliminated and trucks making hauls greater than 100 miles are exceedingly rare. Folks, that's revolutionary.
By the time this plan ends in 2016, all your goods should be whisked from port to your metro area by clean, high speed, electric train and finish the journey on a short-haul transport. As a bonus, 50% of all Americans should be traveling to Grandma's house without touching a private car.
Part 3) The End of Gasoline
It's the end of the car as we know it, but you'll feel fine
This is the big one. And it means making sacrifices and laying out cash. Personally, it means I'm not going to buy that new Mustang that I want, or that new RX-8 that I really, really want. Because in ten years, I want filling either of them to take a special trip and cost ten times what it does today.
If you want an effective "Manhattan Project" to get the US free of our current stupid policies in the Middle East, support a plan to eliminate gasoline from our national energy diet. This means picking a mechanism -- hydrogen storage, improved batteries, etc. -- and starting heavy-duty development of the infrastructure to support this technology. Personally, I'd bet on batteries rather than hydrogen.
Hydrogen does well on the energy density game. A kilogram of hydrogen has about the same amount of energy as 2.8 kilograms of gasoline. Of course, keeping a kilogram of hydrogen in the same space as 2.8 kilograms of gasoline is where the picture gets difficult. Hydrogen is neither as dangerous, nor as difficult to make as some of the opponents make it sound. In fact, a hydrogen car would in all probability be much safer to drive than a gasoline car when it comes to threats from fuel spills and explosions.
So why am I not supporting hydrogen? Hydrogen is just an energy storage technology. Remember that ultimate goal? Get oil out of our cars, get our cars on the grid. If we use hydrogen as an energy storage material we're adding an extra step into our system (creation of hydrogen) that costs energy every time we fuel the car. And, while a hydrogen fueling system may look comfortably close to what we have for gasoline, that's not always a good thing.
Instead, let's look at batteries. Not big, heavy lead-acid batteries like those used by both your car and by hybrids today. Better batteries. Lithium polymer batteries like those used in many notebooks. Want a glimpse of the battery powered future? Look at this speed demon and his 230 mph electric car. And that bad boy has a 200 mile range. Today. Now.
If you're using your vehicle for commuting, you never stop at a gas station. Let me repeat: you never go to the gas station. Plug your vehicle in at night, and in the morning it's ready to go. Taking a trip? Plug it in at the hotel. Or the office. Or the restaurant while you're taking a break. Think these places won't let you charge up? If we go the battery route, you better believe they will.
So, what do we need to do? First, be decisive. If we're going battery, announce it. Set some standards so that, in case you have to go on a 500 mile drive, you can zip into a battery station and swap out your power cells faster than you could ever fill your gas tank. These batteries should be as common and ubiquitous as the "D" cells in a flashlight. Sure, if you had to buy them all they time, they'd be expensive. But you're not going to buy them. You're just going to swap them out if they're dead and you're in too big a hurry for the charge. (By the way, charging the new systems should take about an hour.)
And here's the big step: we fund it. We pile on the cash, people. We give auto manufacturers incentives to get started. We give car buyers incentives to buy in. We especially fund two categories -- the small, inexpensive car, and the short-range large capacity cargo truck. We fund the trucks, because that's a big win in the "get off of oil" game. We fund the cars because poor people need a chance before we start to stick it to them.
That's right, we're talking gas tax. This is the ugly funding mechanism for this whole plan. Midway through the program -- say 2011, by which time the new electric cars will have to be available -- we impose a fifty-cent a gallon tax on gasoline. In 2012, it's a dollar. When it reaches two dollars and fifty-cents in 2016, we let it stay there. People who want to drive their 2005 Mustangs and RX-8's to specialty auto shows will still be able to afford a tank full every now and then, but they wouldn't want to commute in the things -- not unless they're the same kind of bozos who drive a Hummer today and have Conspicuous Consumption tattooed on their foreheads.
Want some additional incentive? Hiroshi Shimizu, the guy that built the zippy electric car mentioned above, says he expects the costs of these things to fall through the floor. An electric car is a much less complex vehicle than the gas cars we drive today. He puts the blame for our electric-free highways squarely on the auto makers, who are protecting their margins and market share by keeping gasoline on the road.
By 2016, running into a gasoline powered vehicle on our highways should be almost as rare as seeing a '57 Chevy. Oh, and did I make it clear that this is a plan which generates American jobs and American technological advantage? We build it here, we copyright the standards for batteries, engines, and anything else we can think of. Those incentives? American companies only.
And don't forget the new electric engines in our busways!
Part 5) Work at Home
Because you can never be too scruffy
This one is simple: employees who do more than 80% of their work from home, will be given a reduced tax rate to compensate for the reduced cost to both the infrastructure and the environment. There. Pick a number, write it up, and get it on the floor of the senate (though we might want to wait until a few Democrats can be found).
You think there's only a few groups of people who can make work from home work? You haven't heard about the guy who is outsourcing the McDonald's drive thru. You pull up, a voice takes your order, and when you hit the window, your food is ready. The trick is, you never talked to anyone inside the building. Develop this one more step, and someone could be taking your food orders in their underwear. Okay, maybe that's the wrong image, but darn it, information exchange is not just in the IT department. We can cut the commute down to zero miles for a lot of people, and that's one energy plan that's hard to beat.
Part 4) Monorail
What'd I say? Monorail!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! Okay, I'm only kidding about the monorail (though I like the one at Disney). If you read this far, you deserved a joke, no matter how weak.
That's it folks, that's the plan. We can reach a point where no US government need ever again sacrifice our children to keeping pipelines open. We can hold reasonable policies in the Middle East, without being held up by dictators who control the tap.
And this is what it takes. Hydrogen is not a magic word. Solar cells won't save us. This plan is going to involve (hold onto your seats) coal powered plants and nuclear (not nuke-u-lar) plants, too. Once we have the oil out of our cars, we should work to get the coal and nuclear out of our electricty. But one gigantic, colossal task at a time, please? Let's not confuse the problem of oil with the problem of energy. If it's any comfort, power plants are much easier to regulate and clean up than cars (at least when a Democrat is in office).
Well, to be honest, this is part of what it takes. The complete picture involves some big changes in urban planning, and social revolutions almost as great as those to transportation infrastructure. But by now, you're definitely wanting to get on to the next post.
Hey, big thanks for sticking with me, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
UPDATE
With all the terrific ideas that have poured in, I thought it was worth dragging some of the information up here.
Mass Transit
Several people have pointed out that busways may not be as good a fit as I would like with the American market. You can see the anti-busway info at the excellent site Light Rail Now. I find it unfortunate that busways vs. light rail seems to have become a left/right issue, with many progressive groups suspicious of busways as being stealth highway development, and conservative groups down on light rail for reasons that often boil back to a kind of shadow racism. I find worth in both technologies and I'm loath to take either arrow out of our quiver.
Railways
Discussion below raised the possibility that total electric trains are not likely, because of the costs of eletrifying the system. With this, I have to agree. Until and unless we get a system that would allow us to power up a train quickly (perhaps an offshoot of the same tech we could use for juicing up an electric car), hybrid engines are likely the way to go. The wonderful Inductrack technology, which promises maglev on ordinary rails also got a mention. A very good find.
Cars
Several different technologies for cars was discussed. There are many fans of biodeisel. For discussion of this area, I'd recommend Biodiesel America as a good place to start (though I miss their old name "Veggie Van").
Some mention of the air car also came up. And I love the thought of this little guy. However, it looks like a little caution may be needed, as this technology may not be up to the claims.
Hydrogen fans pointed out the Rocky Mountain Insitute started by Amory Lovins. Lovins is a smart guy, and a bigger dreamer than me by far. It's worth looking into his ideas on any subject.
There were several mentions of hybrids, including this car made by a graduate student. I have to tell you, this one has me sold. I think it's very close to ideal -- enough electric power that short to medium trips run entirely on the batteries. The gas engine only kicks in only on the logest trips when the batteries are exhausted. Well done, and on a student's budget.
There were also mentions of car sharing programs like City Car Share, Zip Car, and Flexcar. All of which are good solutions and will hopefully become more widespread.
Folks, I'd like to thank everyone that's participated in this discussion. It's been tremendous fun, and highly educational.
Update [2004-11-24 9:58:49 by Devilstower]: I've removed the link to Public Progress, as the guy behind the site seems to be heavily in the pocket of conservative groups who are more interested in attacking light rail than actually supporting purpose built busways.