Okay, previously I got this started off with mention of some aviation issues and trains. (I also managed to get a rescue because of some commentary about the Senate Energy Bill - thanks!) I'm going to continue to look at a range of energy related news, connections between energy policy and environmental policy, and a bit of the politics.
I'm going to keep with the transportation theme for the moment and take a look at buses and cars today. And, I may digress a little on just how green is green. If you can spare some bandwidth, I'll try to make this worth your while. This is a long post - so think of it as a digital equivalent of that Sunday supplement to the paper with the long articles that won't fit during the week.
BUSES:
Chances are, if you're talking about moving people on the highways and NOT talking about some kind of personal vehicle or a taxi, then you're talking about a bus, AKA public transport, mass transit, school bus, etc. The typical bus runs on diesel fuel and gets terrible mileage compared to a car. But - several factors have to be considered. Stop and go city driving is the worst, highway mileage is better, and where the bus gains points is in passenger miles. That is, while a bus may get fewer miles on a gallon of fuel (and it doesn't have to be diesel), it can move a lot more people over that mile than a car. So, while the Senate bid to raise CAFE standards for cars is important, getting people out of cars and into buses also deserves serious consideration - and it's not just about energy.
- Getting people out of cars and into buses reduces highway congestion - and fuel wasted sitting in traffic. (Or you can plan to pay more for the privilege of driving.)
- Buses can connect different transport modes: peripheral parking lots, rail/subway stations, airports, etc. and thus extend the reach of all the connected systems.
- Convenient and frequent bus service can revitalize an urban area.
- Buses can serve elderly and disabled people who may not, or should not, or don't want to be drivers.
- Buses can open up an urban area - because they reduce the need for parking spaces and garages.
- Buses - built to industrial standards - can have a longer service life than a personal vehicle.
- Buses can have a higher utilization rate, because they don't have to be parked for hours like a personal vehicle while the owner is doing something else.
- Buses can reduce the cost of personal vehicle ownership - riding a bus means gas not burned in a car, parking fees not paid, and reduced car maintenance bills.
- Buses are good candidates for alternative fuels - their size lets them handle technology that won't fit in cars, they can have dedicated service and fueling facilities, and their use can be limited to routes that best match the technology on board.
- Dedicated bus lanes on expressways can cut through congestion.
In the interests of being 'fair and balanced' I should mention some disadvantages of bus travel too.
- Riders have to work with the schedules and routes, instead of "on demand" access.
- Buses are expensive.
- "Personal space" issues - especially on crowded routes or at rush hours.
- Class/status issues.
- Population density needs to be at a certain level to get the right cost/benefit ratio. (But what costs, and what benefits? It's not all about dollars.)
- Diesel/gasoline buses can produce pollutants in amounts that can be problematic - especially if idling for a long time.
- Because of standardization, design/structural problems can affect an entire fleet.
- Siting bus stops and making roadway accomodations for buses has to be factored into costs and city planning.
- Setting up a rider fee structure is a tricky balance between attracting ridership and managing system costs, as is setting levels of service.
- A bus fleet has to be tailored to local conditions. There are quite different operating envelopes for a hilly northern city with harsh winters versus a flat southern city with hot summers versus a decentralized city crossed by expressways. There ain't no one size fits all bus solution.
That's a quick take on pros and cons; I'm confident there are more and feel free to add any I've missed that are important to you. Note that energy concerns and green concerns are not identical. Nor are the benefits always direct, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. Just getting people out of cars can save fuel with a well designed bus system. Alternative fuels and technologies can cut fuel consumption and reduce pollution, though not always simultaneously. Sometimes the technology isn't quite ready, or it's still too pricey.
In my neck of the woods, the local Lords of Transit are doing their part to address these issues, thanks to Mike McNulty D-NY21. A front page story in the 6-19-07 Times Union tells the tale.
CDTA hybrid buses set to roll on Route 5
New electric-diesel coaches can reduce air pollution by 90 percent over older models
By CATHY WOODRUFF, Staff writer
First published: Tuesday, June 19, 2007
ALBANY -- The Capital District Transportation Authority's first hybrid buses are hitting the streets this week, humming along the busy Route 5 corridor between Schenectady and Albany.
CDTA purchased six of the 40-foot buses from California-based Gillig Corp. for $3.18 million and rolled them out with fanfare for a public debut on Monday.
SNIP...
"We all ought to be following the lead of CDTA," said U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island, who sought the federal money that funded the hybrid purchase.
"With a problem like global warming, there is a tendency to say, 'What could I possibly do to make a real change,' " he said. "We all need to do our part."
SNIP...
CDTA's traditional diesel engines average around 3.5 miles per gallon, said Executive Director Ray Melleady, and preliminary estimates are that the hybrids could get about 4.8 miles per gallon.
That could add up to big fuel savings over the life of a CDTA bus, which typically travels 500,000 miles over a 12-year span before retirement, he said.
That savings can help the authority make up for the higher price of a hybrid bus: $497,000, compared with $330,000 for a similar 40-foot diesel bus.
The six new hybrids are CDTA's first foray into alternative-fuel buses, and another 22 hybrids are in the purchase plan for the coming year.
Still, the bulk of the 287-vehicle fleet remains diesel, and Melleady said the authority will continue to purchase some diesel buses as part of its ongoing fleet renewal system.
It's a start - and one of the things that may be overlooked is that the funding sounds like it came through the dreaded Congressional earmark. Republicans have been quick and loud to denounce the practice by Democrats - but it's one of the ways projects like this get started. Earmarks can be legitimate or illegitimate, depending on how openly they're created, and just who they benefit. It would appear there's a clear public good in this case, and McNulty is to be congratulated.
Hybrid technology isn't just for urban transit buses either. While the car makers in Detroit have been dithering, things have been happening with the yellow fleet that carries our kids to school. While it's still early, initial reaction seems enthusiastic. As the Christian Science Monitor notes,
Each of the first 19 buses costs over $200,000 – more than double the cost of a regular model. At that price, they won't pay for themselves over their lives, even with superior fuel savings. It's a chicken-and-egg problem because until about 1,000 buses roll off assembly lines, the cost of production will keep prices high.
Even after manufacturing efficiencies and competition bring the price down, plug-in hybrid school buses may still cost $40,000 more than a regular bus. But at that point, they will pay for themselves in just a few years with lower maintenance and fuel costs, analysts say.
Ordinary yellow "type C" school buses get about 6 to 8 miles to the gallon. But the new plug-in hybrid models, rated at more than 12 m.p.g., could cut fuel consumption about in half in many districts. That could mean a big fuel savings for tight budgets.
If the nation could double its fleet miles, school savings could be significant. About 475,000 buses transport 25 million kids each day. Traveling more than 4 billion miles a year, those buses burn about 550 million gallons of fuel annually, Mr. Gray says.
"If we could cut our fuel use in half, boy, we've done something good," says Mr. Schroyer of the Florida Department of Education. "It's that much less pollution, that much less cost."
It's a question of numbers: initial investment versus savings over time and economies of scale. Again, federal funding to jump start the process seems like a good idea, and it beats waiting for fuel costs to rise. The next time a school budget comes around to you for a vote, check to see how much they're budgeting for new buses, and how much for fuel to operate them. It's an opportunity to act locally and have a global effect.
Again, like trains, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of attention given to mass transit and/or buses in the Congressional energy bill process so far - but there's still time for input as Nancy Pelosi will be working to muster the House version of the energy bill, and eventual reconciliation between the two versions in conference. If Reid and Pelosi take a page from the GOP book, the conference committee is where miracles will occur and the nation will be saved - or not. Keep your fingers crossed - and send some e-mails and make some calls. You never know until you try.
UPDATE: There's a good summary of what the Senate bill does and does not do here at this rescued diary by The Cunctator.
Meanwhile.....
CARS
It's not for nothing that the one big accomplishment so far on energy from the Senate involves raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The video clips linked above give some idea of the stakes. There have also been some good day by day reports on NPR, complete with sound clips of senators debating. Check out the week past for Morning Edition and All Things Considered, or download the podcasts.
In a classic example of all politics being local - to some extent - among the sound bites at NPR are clips from Senator John Tester, D-Montana and Senator Robert Byrd, D-Virginia making impassioned pleas for greater use of coal. Considering how much of their states' economies are based on coal extraction (just check out Powder River Basin for one), it's not surprising. It's one reason why larger Democratic majorities are so vital, so that regional interests are less likely to dominate national interests. (You can also hear clips from assorted Republicans complaining about the terrible things the Democrats want to do to the oil industry.) Mark Fiore has a really good animated summary of it all.
Given that America has essentially spent the last 60 years building the nation around a car-centric lifestyle, it's past time that CAFE ratings are finally getting some attention. I'm not going to go into the details of how we're going to get more fuel efficient cars and alternative fuel vehicles; plenty of people are already doing that here at KOS. (Like this one, for example.) I am going to offer some thoughts on the strategies being pursued.
Requiring Detroit to come up with a way to put more fuel efficient cars on the road is long overdue. Detroit has been chasing the high profit margin market of SUVs, minivans, and trucks. While the rest of the world has been developing technology, Detroit's corporate manueverings, mergers, and buyouts have largely made bankers and lawyers richer but produced little else.
GM started Saturn to remake the way the company's culture works - but has largely assimilated it into conformity again. They also managed to design, build and then kill off an electric car that people are desperate to have now. Leadership at Ford tried to put Green policies into practice at their factories - but couldn't manage to put anything green into the showroom that people wanted to buy. The synergy of the Daimler-Chrysler deal fizzled; the biggest accomplishment seems to have been killing off the Plymouth name. In a pathetically symbolic bit of timing, Daimler is taking big losses to unload Chrysler at just about the same time as this story broke. The Chrysler that Lee Iacocca rescued is long gone, and Lee Iacocca knows why.
Mandating Detroit to improve CAFE standards over time is not entirely unreasonable. If they don't build it, ain't nobody gonna be able to buy it. I'm a bit concerned that it only addresses the supply side though. Pushing CAFE standards higher is the 'easy' way out because it has been done before - but there are alternatives. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California has been pushing the idea of 'mileage credits' where car makers with low CAFE stats can purchase credits from companies that have good CAFE stats. Personally, I think it's time to look at the demand side as well.
The Senate bill mandating higher CAFE standards for the auto industry is being hailed as a green victory. Don't get too excited yet though. It still has to make it into the corresponding bill on the House side, survive possible amendments and conference committee and survive a possible veto of the entire energy bill - and then it still has years to be fully implemented. And that's assuming all of the loopholes and qualifications written into the standards don't give the auto industry an out somewhere down the road - a time during which the auto industry will be doing everything it can to weaken, delay or overturn the CAFE standards. If this is a green victory, pray spare me from a defeat.
There's no question the industry could be doing better on fuel efficiency - but they have every incentive to do otherwise. They make a larger profit on fuel guzzling SUVs and trucks, and they can't get American consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles - or so they claim. The CAFE approach violates Kauffman Rule #12: Don't make rules that can't be enforced.
Imposing higher CAFE standards attacks the problem of oil consumption from only one side. Essentially, Congress is saying to the auto industry "We want you to magically reduce the amount of gas/diesel we burn in our vehicles so we can keep doing what we're doing without making drivers angry at us by making them do anything." Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL. (Kauffman Rule #4 - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.) Technology can only be pushed so far without tradeoffs, and there is no 'magic' solution without the pain of change being felt somewhere.
The obvious solution is to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel. It's also a non-starter. Fuel prices are rising quite nicely without any help from the government - and that actually leads to pressure to cut fuel taxes. People at the lower end of the economy just can't absorb higher fuel prices and they need cars to get to work. Further, even though gas prices are now hovering around $3 a gallon, those prices don't seem to have really had a significant effect on demand yet.
Kauffman's Rule #11 suggests a different approach might be better. "Don't try to control the players, just change the rules." Rather than simply mandating higher fuel efficiency from car makers or raising fuel taxes, let people buy and drive what they want - but make them pay for the privilege of driving gas guzzlers. Specifically, let people who want to drive a large low mileage vehicle pay a surcharge based on the mileage it gets, and its carbon footprint over the life of the vehicle. Ditto for the costs of registering a vehicle. This could cancel or reverse the price difference between hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles over conventional vehicles. There might be an allowance/tax break for commercial vehicles and small family farmers, (Musn't hurt precious economy!) but they shouldn't be wholly exempt either.
Republicans are going to scream about new taxes and fight like mad to keep a precedent from being set. We need to look them right in the eye, smile, and say "Yes it IS a tax - a SIN tax. They have no problems with imposing morality with tobacco and alcohol taxes after all. Someone who can afford a Hummer or an Escalante should be able to pay for the privilege - and it IS a privilege given the cost to society. Let Republicans complain. Ask them why they have a problem making Limousine Liberals pay more? Isn't doing something about gluttony a moral issue? Don't they have any sense of moral values?
The advantages of this approach are manifold. It can be implemented quickly. It is incremental, coming into play only as people purchase vehicles. It requires no technological breakthroughs - though it will certainly provide an incentive to produce them. It doesn't require the government to punish anyone - what happens if the auto makers can't meet CAFE goals is an unknown. And, it can be adjusted in response to other factors by adjusting the tax formulas. The biggest obstacle is that the Republicans and their think tanks have spent years telling Americans that all government taxation is bad, and that taxes must only be cut. The implicit lie is that that money is taken out of your pocket, given to someone else (usually undeserving) and does you no good at all. (This coming from people who called efforts to cut tax breaks for oil companies awash in profits to fund renewable energy efforts a "tax increase" is just invidous.)
The counter argument needs to smash that meme head on. One way of phrasing it is to note that taxes are simply using the government to harness the mass buying power of the people to purchase things that individuals would find hard to do - at least people who aren't billionaires. The Sin Tax meme mentioned above is another. As for what to do with the money raised, it must be directed to new technology and alternative transport modes; hybrids, PHEVs, buses, trains, light rail, etc. and research on alternative energy. The idea is to reduce oil consumption and carbon loads. We have to make the case that this will help us A) buy the time we need to come up with answers that benefit everyone, B) make us more secure as a country by reducing our need for imported energy, and C) help keep climate change from getting worse. It will also give us an incentive to develop technology we can sell to the rest of the world - which is way ahead of us on this stuff.
Meanwhile, here's two more Global Fast Facts! as taken from the print edition June 20, 2007 Times Union.
• As of 2007, 70% of new vehicles purchased in the United States have six or eight cylinder engines. - Wall Street Journal
• In Europe, where the average fuel economy is about 35 miles per gallon, 89% of cars have engines with four or fewer cylinders. - Wall Street Journal
BONUS: A Siegel of the Energize America team has posted a diary about how PHEV efforts are taking off (including a link to a blog on PHEV buses.)
Hmm. This is a bit longer than I intended, so let me offer a quick thought on 'Greeniness' as Colbert might say. Cutting energy consumption is green - but it's not the whole answer. Developing renewable energy is green - but it's not the whole answer. Reducing or eliminating carbon loads on the atmosphere is green - but it's not the whole answer. Improving energy efficiency is green - but it's not the whole answer. Developing appropriate technology is green - but it's not the whole answer. They are all parts of the solution, and it's going to take attention to every line of attack we can pursue to even have a chance at finding an answer - and it's something everybody has to do. The most important natural resource is the one between our ears; and the information I'm putting out here will, I hope, stimulate it into coming up with an answer.
UPDATE: Sara Robinson over at Orcinus has a thought-provoking post about Thom Hartman and Three Great American Myths. Hartman is author of Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class. One of the reasons we have an insane national energy policy is that it has made a handful of people extremely rich at the expense of everyone else. - and they are determined to keep it that way. At the end of Sara's article is a succinct call to arms.
The third myth, according to Hartmann, is that we elect leaders in the United States. "We do not elect leaders…we elect representatives. We elect people to represent us." (And, looking at our leaders, it's sobering to consider just who and what it is that they represent.) "We can't sit around thinking some politician is going to save us….Congress, the Senate, the president, Ralph Nader's group -- none of them are going to do a thing until we push them into it. "
Politicians, Hartmann told us, don't initiate change. Invariably, they wait for a parade to form, and then get out in front of it and claim it as their own. "If enough of us create the parade -- I 100% guarantee it, because it's always happened this way -- some politician will run out in front of it, hoist up his flag, and say "This is my parade!"
So, concludes Hartmann: Like every generation of Americans before us, it's our turn to get out there and be the parade. The fate of the comfortable American middle class -- and the democratic government it supports -- hangs in the balance.
That will do it for now. I'll try to finish this series up with food and fish as promised Real Soon Now. Meanwhile, here's a really neat new technology, and for those who didn't get enough of trains last time, a look at a cool hybrid you won't find in a car showroom.
UPDATE: There are a couple of editorials in the NY TIMES today that are relevant to this diary. Congestion Pricing specifically mentions how mass transit reduces congestion, saves fuel, and more.
Washington correctly sees traffic gridlock as a drain on local economies, and relieving it as a worthy investment. Congestion pricing works. It cut tailpipe emissions and cleared clogged streets in London and Stockholm. Commuting times were pared down and business deliveries were faster. The revenues pumped up public transportation to handle the riders who gave up driving to work.
The Subway Beat describes how not using a personal vehicle doesn't mean not feeling like you have personal transportation.
.... It’s 7:30 in the morning, and this isn’t just a subway ride. This is going to work. Nearly all the people on this train are in their usual spots, within a few minutes of their usual time, and the ride is not separable from the larger and more complicated rhythms of our private lives. It is possible to be on this train and not yet be in public.