Comment Log Display

Overlooked Opportunities to Fight Global Warming,

I am a city planner and currently serves on the Piedmont Planning
Commission. I attended the Oakland meeting hosted by
Assemblyperson Hancock on July 29th and offer the following
comments:

The vague and limited recommended measures currently described by
CARB staff will never produce the type of significant GHG
reductions that AB 32 envisions. As long as the current disparity
in funding exists between highways and other more Green means of
transportation, it is unlikely that there would be any reduction
at all. Please consider the following data:
•	Trains are among the most energy-efficient modes of transport. 
In the United States, a truck uses about eight times as much
energy to transport freight between cities as a train. 
•	Trains are among the most energy-efficient means to move people.
 Based on a measure of the amount of energy required to move one
passenger one kilometer in the United States, an inter-city train
uses 948 kilojoules.  A commercial airplane, on the other hand,
uses three times this amount of energy, and an automobile with a
single occupant uses six times this amount of energy. 
Source: U.S. Department of Defense website:
(https://energy.navy.mil/awareness/tools/tools_7.html)

Given the differing energy demands generated by the different
modes of transportation, which transportation mode does this
nation fund most heavily? Considering all the rhetoric we hear
these days about our need for energy independence and concern with
global climate change, the following results should be a surprise.
The 2009 Federal Transportation budget contains the following
proposals: 

Federal Highway program:                                          
                 $40.9 billion (60%)
Federal Aviation Administration:                                  
               $14.6 billion (21%)
Federal Transit support				                   $10.1 billion
(14.8%)
Federal Rail subsidies 				                   $1.1 billion (1.6%)
Other (maritime, pipelines, canals)                               
               $1.1 billion (1.6%)
Source: http://www.dot.gov/bib2008/pdf/bib2008.pdf, p.11

In other words, 81% of the annual $68 billion federal
transportation budget goes to provide additional infrastructure to
expand the two forms of transportation which are the most energy
wasteful and emit the most greenhouse gas. 19% goes to all the
rest. California highway spending mirrors the federal
disparities.“If you build it, they will come” is more than a
cliché from a movie. When we extend or widen highways and
freeways, the results are obvious to all. Motorists take advantage
of the newly unfettered road capacity. The total miles traveled
grows, while travel on competing modes of travel falls. The US has
been pursuing just this policy for the past 50 years, and the
consequences have become obvious. Our auto-dominant travel
patterns have long outgrown our energy supply, leaving us
dependent on uncertain foreign sources. 

The relatively recent awareness of global warning has caused
numerous initiatives to address the energy problem. AB 32 is
California’s version that I fear is little more than a series of
platitudinous goals and recommendations. The largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions in California comes from cars and trucks.
But unfortunately, most efforts deal with relative minutiae like
fluorescent bulbs or paper vs. plastic bags. Or else, politicians
pursue pie-in-sky magic pills like The Hydrogen Highway. Again,
unfortunately, few of our leaders propose changes to the
big-ticket items like providing real incentives to get people out
of their cars, or to take the train for the shorter inter-city
trips? I believe there needs to be increased public awareness
about our current transportation spending priorities before we can
effect change. 

Clearly, President Bush is no help. He has been trying to kill off
the paltry Amtrak funding for 8 years. Few environmental groups
have pursued the goal of: “Instead of continuing to put 81% of our
funding into roads and airports each year, let’s think about
putting that kind of money towards the green modes of travel: rail
and transit.” I would hope that is changed. Other than a few rail
buffs and academicians, neither the media nor politicians are
advocating doing those things that could substantially affect our
energy and climate balance sheet. Several recent local news
stories highlight our misplaced spending priorities: the $420
million approved for a 4th bore for the Caldecott Tunnel; the
State takes $50 million from BART; and AC Transit is forced to
raise fares again. Given the political clout of the highway,
trucking, auto, and oil industries, making the substantial changes
in our transportation funding formula will be a struggle, but it
needs to start sooner rather than later.

Very truly yours, 


Michael Henn 
226 Wildwood Avenue 
Piedmont CA 94610 
calstep2@aol.com