Bioeconomy & transportation advisory group
Additional Benefits and Costs
Download 359.93 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Feasibility Issues
- Policy Design
Additional Benefits and CostsEquity Impacts Proponents, including Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute argue that PAYD improves equity and fairness: “Current vehicle insurance pricing significantly overcharges motorists who drive their vehicles less than average each year, and undercharges those who drive more than average within each price class. Since lower-income motorists drive their vehicles significantly less on average than higher-income motorists, this is regressive. Distance-based insurance is fairer than current pricing because prices more accurately reflect insurance costs…Distance-based pricing benefits lower-income drivers who otherwise might be unable to afford vehicle insurance, and who place a high value on the opportunity to save money by reducing vehicle mileage. It benefits lower-income communities that currently have high, unaffordable insurance rates…. Distance based insurance would provide significant savings to workers during periods of unemployment, when they no longer need to commute.” Other equity issues may be addressed through policy design. Feasibility IssuesNone cited. Status of Group ApprovalTBD Level of Group SupportTBD Barriers to ConsensusBT-2.2: Expand travel choices Policy DescriptionOne way to reduce GHG emissions from transportation is to provide people with access to transportation modes with low carbon intensity. This policy addresses four such modes: intercity passenger rail, local transit, walking, and bicycling. Policy DesignGoal: Increase transit ridership per capita 2% annually from 2010 to 2025. Passenger rail In the late 1990s, and continuing through 2004, nine state departments of transportation joined forces to envision a hub-and-spoke rail network serving the Midwest, with Chicago at its hub. The states were Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The $7.7 billion plan (in 2002 dollars) is called the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), and is based on two critical assumptions:
Midwestern state DOTs today are awaiting the opportunity to compete for new federal funding made available by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Depending on their success, ARRA may provide a sizable down payment on building the system. Critics of the MWRRI plan correctly note that 110 mph service is nowhere near the maximum speeds of intercity trains around the world. MWRRI, however, tries to balance the need for improved rail transportation—in particular, beating the automobile—with costs. Federal Railroad Administration requirements state that for speeds higher than 110 mph, such major improvements would be required in existing rights of way as to essentially mandate the construction of all new track. This would result in a price tag much higher than the $7.7 billion estimated for MWRRI. The recently released MGA “Surface Transportation Recommendations” includes a commitment to passenger rail in the region, focusing largely on targeting federal funds.1 The states should go further and commit to implementing the MWRRI, cooperatively applying for and pooling federal funding, and providing a pool of state support as well if necessary. Local transit Cities large and small around the country have expanded rail transit or built new systems from scratch in the last 20 years. Nationally, transit ridership in 2008 was at a 52-year high. The Midwest, however, has fallen behind, leaving billions of dollars in federal construction aid for rail transit on the table, and relying on an increasingly outmoded car-bound transportation system that is vulnerable to fuel price spikes and cannot meet the needs of an aging cohort of baby boomers. Even existing bus service is under pressure and subject to route cuts. In the handful of Midwestern places to embrace rail, such as Cleveland and Minneapolis, it has been successful. Minneapolis’s Metropolitan Council reports that the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit line provided 9.1 million rides in 2006, reaching levels not predicted for the system until 2020. Even better, transit oriented development has taken place along the line, with 7,700 housing units built along it as of March 2007, with another 8,000+ estimated to be built there by 2010. Now many areas have plans for rail transit, including:
Buses will remain an important backbone of transit systems with or without rail. Unfortunately, even with increased ridership in recent years, bus systems in the Midwest are straining under inadequate budgets and governance structures, often forced to cut service. New diesel-electric hybrid buses, built in the Midwest, offer long-term savings and manufacturing jobs for the region, but require upfront investments that often aren’t available. In some states, local transit authorities have limited ability to work across municipal lines and must compete every year for property tax revenues. Such arrangements make it nearly impossible to attract federal construction aid, since they cannot demonstrate ongoing support for operations, and they result in second-rate systems. More generally, transit needs more state and federal support, especially for operating costs. Some states have counterproductive constitutional bans on using gas tax revenues for transit, even where transit would save money by reducing road infrastructure costs; these bans should be revisited. The MGA’s Surface Transportation Recommendations express support for transit,2 but a more pointed policy is needed. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Most transit trips require a walk or bike ride at the beginning or end, so the success of transit is heavily dependent on people’s ability to use these modes. Even where transit is not used, walking and biking can reduce the need for car trips, saving money and reducing emissions. Yet even though walking and biking facilities cost a small fraction of car facilities, this essential link is often overlooked. Federal Surface Transportation Program funding may be used for bike and ped facilities, but typically states and local governments only use the small portion set aside for “Enhancements” for that work. Consequently, much of the Midwest’s road and street network is inhospitable to walking and biking. A few places have made a concerted effort to provide ped-bike facilities, and these have paid off. In Minneapolis, 10 percent of commuters get to work by walking or biking; in Madison, 14 percent. Non-work bike and walking trips are more difficult to measure but anecdotally are substantial in these cities as well. One way to permit better access to walking and biking is to enact “complete streets” policies. These policies require state and local governments to ensure that streets are suitably designed for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and for transit where appropriate. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that 48% of all trips Americans take are less than three miles – a 15 minute bike ride in good conditions – while 24% are less than one mile – a 15 minute walk in good conditions. Meanwhile, the report says federal appropriations provided only $453 million annually in 2005-07 for bicycle and pedestrian systems. Compare the $453 million nationwide to Chicago’s recent Dan Ryan Expressway reconstruction project, which cost $1 billion. The MGA’s Surface Transportation Recommendations acknowledge the importance of complete streets.3 Illinois’ Public Act 095-0665, enacted in 2008, is a model for the region. However, it should be broadened to explicitly include local projects funded with state aid. Even with complete streets, walking and cycling may remain impractical. If distances between destinations are great, these modes will be too time-consuming. BT 2.3 provides policy guidance in the area of transportation infrastructure and planning. Timing: Policy reforms should begin as soon as possible. Progress will be incremental, as the task is large, but measures of access to these modes should improve annually as should mode shares. Parties Involved: State DOTs, legislatures, members of Congress, local transit providers, local transportation engineers. Other: Download 359.93 Kb. Share with your friends:
|