Freight Transportation In America

On May 22, President Obama directed the government to set the set the first-ever mileage and pollution limits for big trucks and to tighten rules for future cars and SUVs.

"The nation that leads in the clean energy economy will lead the global economy," Obama said at the White House. "And I want America to be that nation." The presidential memorandum he signed aims to reshape the country's driving habits long after he leaves office.

With the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico underscoring the risks of the country's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, Obama gave federal agencies just over a year to come up with fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks and buses.

Such vehicles are big polluters and fuel consumers even though they're far outnumbered by passenger cars. The Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group, said large trucks represent about 4 percent of all vehicles on U.S. highways but devour more than 20 percent of the fuel consumed.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, commercial trucks account for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector - compared with 33 percent for passenger cars and 29 percent for SUVs, pickups and minivans.

The new standards, to be issued in July of next year, would apply to big trucks and buses for model years 2014-2018.



This is certainly progress, but given that trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel, the best longterm strategy by far is for the federal government to do everything in its power to facilitate the shift from longhaul truck to the rails.  Right now the railroads are operating at near capacity.  The first task is to lay more track, lots of it, cross country. 

Putting Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure on an Even Footing with Roads and Transit

I'm not making this, it's from a story on today's Bike To Work Day, emphasis mine:

"At DC's Freedom Plaza, Under Secretary for Policy Roy Kienitz spoke about why we are so keen on putting bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on an even footing with roads and transit--and laid out a number of practical points to bike skeptics:


"We have some cold, logical reasons for this policy. We believe all transportation investments should justify themselves based on how effective they are in meeting overall goals like safety, environmental sustainability, convenience, etc. And it turns out that travel by bike helps us achieve all of these things. Plus, bike infrastructure is flat-out less expensive."

Also at Freedom Plaza, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff spoke about the role that bikes and transit can play in fostering livable communities. "When I'm not riding public transportation," he added, "I'm on my bike!"

Many of my old colleagues in Congress agree, especially Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon who has been a passionate biking advocate for as long as I can remember. Rep. Blumenauer and 23 members of Congress--from both sides of the aisle--sent me a very kind letter yesterday thanking me for and DOT for "recognizing biking and walking as important components of our transportation system that deserve dedicated funding." Rep. Blumenauer has a great op-ed in the Huffington Post today on this subject as well.

Exciting things were also happening closer to DOT headquarters this morning. Next door, at Nationals Park, the Federal Highway Administration's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager Gabe Rousseau spoke about the $1.2 billion federal investment in bicycle-pedestrian projects this fiscal year. He also reminded attendees that over 4 billion trips last year were taken by bicycle. Both of these are new records."

See more on this fantastic development at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html
These are quotes from people with the power to make the profound changes they now advocate.  This is an exciting and overdue change in the way transportation dollars are allocated. 

California Proposition 13 in 1978, and 2010

Calif. bill seeks to close property tax loopholes


By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, May 9, 2010 at 10 a.m.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democratic lawmakers are determined to close tax loopholes they say cost state and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars each year, as they search for ways to trim California's enormous deficit.

A report by the union-funded California Tax Reform Association found that the share of property tax paid on residential property has increased since two-thirds of voters approved California's landmark Proposition 13 tax law in 1978, while the share paid on commercial property has decreased.

In Contra Costa County, for example, taxes on residential properties now make up 73 percent of property taxes collected, up from 48 percent in 1978.

Democrats and unions say many corporations are using loopholes when they buy and sell properties to avoid having them reassessed and their property taxes go up.

"The system is an incredible mess," said the association's executive director, Lenny Goldberg. "People are constantly changing their share of ownerships, figuring out ways to avoid reassessment."

So, a great idea, stopping senior citizens from being forced to sell their homes due to rising value, has been corrupted by corporations, nor real surprise here.  The fact that our government, and I use the term 'our' loosely, has taken so long to even begin to do something about this corruption.  The Republicans are opposed to 'tinkering' with the law, again no surpise here. 
 
Why is it so hard for government to make things right?  Of course this law needs to be fine-tuned, getting rid of the 50% rule regarding ownership.  Doing so will take away a property tax excemption, provide more taxes to government coffers, and regain the spirit of the law. 
 
For details on the report, follow the link.California Tax Reform Association Report on Prop 13

How Much Government?

On the Back Page feature of Parade Magazine, May 9, 2010, David Gergen has an article about government spending.  Here are some scary facts from that article:

• Public spending by federal, state, and local government was 24% of the GDP in 1950, 35% before the Great Depression, and could hit 44% this year. 
• The European Union has agreed that it is dangerous for a country to allow its publicly held debt to exceed 60% of its GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office says that the U.S. could hit 60% by the end of this year, and on it's current course could hit 100% by 2020.

 While inflation certainly plays a part in increased budgets, it should also play an equal part in the collection of taxes, as the value of property and goods purchased rises.  That seems like common sense, right?  So there must be another explanation as to why spending and debt have increased so much, and yet services, such as infrastructure maintenance, police and fire, parks and recreation, has declined markedly.  See my next post for one reason.

'(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction,' 45 Years Later

ABCNEWS ended their newscast tonight with a tribute to the anniversary of the greatest rock n roll song of all time, born 45 years ago.  Nice tribute, ABCNEWS.  After 45 years of hearing it over and over, it's still one of my favorite songs of alltime.  ABCNEWS Story on Satisfaction

Cheap Energy Addiction Leads to Human and Environmental Disaster

The recent tragic deaths of coal miners offshore oil rig workers and the growing environmental disaster have everyone from Credo Mobile/Working Assets to the President talking about knee-jerk reactions. 

Let me present an alternative view. We demand cheap energy, and then go nuts when this produces death and destruction in the production of that cheap energy. Suppose that when the cost of gasoline was so high a couple of years ago, the federal and state policy makers had enacted new tax policy, something along the lines of gasoline will never sell for less than $3.90 per gallon, with the federal tax floating up and down to keep the gas at that price. Extra taxes would have been collected to help pay for our deficits, safety features in mines and oil rigs, damage repair for energy disasters like the one in the Gulf, mine disasters, etc. At the very same time, we would have reduced our demand, as happened when the price was so high. The high price helps incorporate the true cost of energy, and makes alternative energy forms more competitive price-wise. It also reduces the pressure to build new oil rigs, dig out more coal, and build new nuclear power plants.


Of course, higher costs of energy and the resulting reduction in demand will also decrease the need for war abroad.

Our problem is an addiction to cheap energy, pure and simple. When the true cost of energy is built into the price, we will all make better judgements, from demand to increasing supply of then cost-effective alternative energy. This is the message that we need to shout from the rooftops, continuously, instead of knee-jerk reactions to once-in-25-year catastrophic events.

That's my observation, what's yours?