| Transportation News |
 Cool Commutes is a friendly competition between our members and other Bay Area employers, public and private, to see which can encourage the greatest number of their employees to use such commute alternatives as transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, walking and teleworking, rather than driving solo to work. |
By 2017, approximately 160,000 more cars will be competing
for space on Silicon Valley’s roads-the equivalent of a lane of
cars, lined up bumper to bumper, from San Jose to San Diego.
And that’s just counting cars owned by Silicon Valley residents.
Thousands more will be pouring over the Pacheco and
Altamont passes, or chugging up Hwy 101 from the Monterey
Bay Area, to jobs in Silicon Valley.
That increase demonstrates the challenge Silicon Valley-and
indeed all of the high tech regions in the nation-face. As our
population, the ratio of car ownership, and commute distances
increase, congestion on our roadways is rising. All of the
nation’s top high tech regions currently endure “undesirable”
highway congestion levels, according to the U.S. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. These conditions erode our quality
of life. But the situation poses another less visible, but grave,
threat. The more we drive, the more greenhouse gases we generate-
emissions that are dramatically and rapidly changing the
climate of our planet.
| CA Global Warming Emissions by Sector |
 |
Transportation & Greenhouse Gases
Scientists generally agree that the Earth’s temperature is rising
and human activities are accelerating that trend. Human-generated
greenhouse gases-pollutants such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide that trap the Earth’s heat, are
increasing at a faster rate than any period over the last several
thousand years.
The earth has been getting markedly warmer since the late
19th century, evidenced by, among other things, melting glaciers,
decreased snow pack in the Sierra Nevada and other
mountain ranges, and increasing drought in the American
Southwest. But the most rapid changes have occurred within
the last two decades. According to the California Climate
Action Team, that trend is expected to escalate in the 21st
century due in large part to as yet unrealized warming from
climate change pollutants already in the atmosphere-pollutants
generated by burning coal, oil, and natural gas and clearcutting
forests to make way for agriculture and other human
activities.
While there is some disagreement about the speed at which
the earth is warming and the specific changes it will trigger,
there is wide concurrence that if we continue on our current
trajectory there will be severe consequences. According to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), California will likely
experience more weather extremes (stronger and more frequent
storms, flooding and heat waves), reduced water supply
due to snowpack melt, extensive coastal damage due to rising
sea levels, more forest fires and more respiratory illness.
| Trans. Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions |
 |
Recognizing the threat, in 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger
established ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
for California. Those reductions are being pursued
through a variety of means; including replanting forests,
increasing the energy efficiency of appliances and utilizing
biogas digesters to reduce methane emissions from farms and
landfills. But transportation offers the opportunity for the
biggest reductions.
Reducing Vehicle Emissions
Passenger vehicles, freight, rail and aviation account for more
than 40% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. Passenger
vehicle emissions comprise two-thirds of that total. What is
more, vehicle emissions are one of the fastest growing sources
of greenhouse gas emissions. Those statistics spurred
California to adopt strict emission standards for new passenger
vehicles in 2004-the first in the nation.
The regulations issued by CARB require automakers to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles sold in the state by 30
percent by 2016, starting with the 2009 model year. Since
then, 10 other states have followed California’s lead, including
three states that are home to high tech regions–Massachusetts,
Washington and Oregon.
The nation’s major automakers sued to overturn the regulation
arguing that the standard is so severe it would drive up prices
and cripple new-car sales. The regulation is in limbo until the
suit is resolved. But record high gas prices have created a
demand for more fuel efficient vehicles -which also have lower
emissions.
In 2005, Californians purchased one-quarter of the hybrids on
the market. Currently 1.2% of total vehicle sales in the nation
are hybrids. National sales of hybrids have generally doubled
every year since 2000. Other alternatives, such as biodiesel,
ethanol and hydrogen are gaining ground, but still represent
only a tiny fraction of our fuel portfolio. Hydrogen fuel cells
are still prohibitively expensive and we don’t yet have the ability
to produce and distribute large quantities of ethanol and
biodiesel. Improved battery performances are giving a boost to
plug-in hybrids, which can operate for 20 miles solely on electricity.
The technology relies on an existing distribution system-
the electrical grid-but must overcome concerns about
power plant emissions. At least two auto manufacturers,
Toyota and Honda, have said they plan to offer flexible-fuel
plug-in hybrids soon.
Two-Pronged Approach: Reduce Emissions
and Increase Commute Alternatives
If CARB’s greenhouse gas reduction rule is upheld, the state
would be able to stabilize its greenhouse gas emissions by
2010. That would be a significant achievement. But if
California is to avoid the devastating impacts of global warming,
we will need to reduce our emissions even further. Plus,
swapping petroleum-guzzling cars to alternative fuel vehicles
will do nothing to address our very real congestion problems,
particularly in job centers such as Silicon Valley.
We need a two-pronged approach: we need to reduce our
tailpipe emissions and decrease the number of miles we drive,
particularly solo. We need to increase our use of transit, carpooling,
telecommuting, walking and biking.
Reducing the number of cars on our roads by 1 percent would
decrease traffic congestion by 5 percent. But making that shift
would be a major cultural change. Silicon Valley has one of the
highest rates of solo commute driving compared to the
nation’s other high tech centers, according to the 2000 US
Census. Only Raleigh-Durham, NC and Austin, Texas exceed
the Valley’s 76% solo driving record.
Nevertheless, high fuel prices are providing a real incentive for
many to use commute alternatives. In 2006, ridership on
VTA’s light rail line, Caltrain and on BART, met or exceeded
2000 levels. Caltrain’s decision to increase its baby bullet
(express) service and VTA’s light rail extension to Milpitas and
Campbell made those systems more convenient to commuters.
And transit agencies are using technology to try to make transit
more attractive: providing real-time transit information;
offering wi-fi connections, and enabling transit users to find,
reserve and pay for limited parking via cell phone, the internet
and on board navigation systems. We also need to build
more homes and jobs in walking distance to transit, and make
our neighborhoods more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. But
all of this takes money which, despite an upturn in the state’s
economy, is still in short supply.
Building a Sustainable
Transportation System
Ironically, the extent to which we succeed in reducing our fuel
consumption, we diminish California’s primary sources of
transportation funding: the gas tax and the sales tax on gasoline.
Yet, the need to maintain, improve and operate our roads,
highways, and transit systems continues to grow. The state is
still digging its way out of a decade-long, multi-billion transportation
infrastructure shortfall that will only be partly
assuaged by the passage of a $20 billion transportation bond
on the November 2006 ballot. To reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and address California’s sizeable infrastructure
needs, California will need to restructure the way it finances
transportation. For instance, California could:
- Substantially Increase the Gas Tax, which was last raised in
1990 and has lost 1/3 of its value to inflation since then.
This would also discourage solo driving. But it would not
resolve the conflict between greater fuel efficiency and
shrinking revenues.
- Adopt Distance-Based Fees based on vehicle fuel efficiency
and distance traveled. Europe has applied such fees to
freight trucks with enormous success, significantly reducing
emissions and miles driven without reducing the volume
of goods transported.
- Institute Congestion Pricing or User Fees, varying the fee
in relation to demand. For example, tolls priced higher
during peak commute hours can encourage those who can
to shift their time of travel to non-peak hours. This distributes
demand across other time periods when there is more
roadway capacity. The rate can be set so that it is revenue
neutral or generates excess funds.
- Adopt Feebates—a combination of fees and rebates—to
encourage the manufacture and purchase of cleaner, more
fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers purchase the vehicle of
their choice, but receive a rebate or pay a surcharge if their
selection is above or below a certain standard of performance.
The program can be designed so that it is revenue
neutral or generates a positive cash flow.
“Lifeline” rates could be established for low-income motorists
for all of these policies to ensure equity.
Magnifying the Impact
California’s emissions policies alone cannot curb global warming.
Its real power is that other states are following California’s
lead, magnifying its impact.
Yet as bold as it is, California’s vehicle emissions policy is only
a first step. We will need to pursue a variety of policies—better
integrate transportation and land use, provide more and
better transportation alternative for commuters, and transition
our entire economy off of carbon-based fuels-to avoid the
more severe consequences of global warming. Our task now is
to adopt the right combination of economic incentives, fiscal
policies and regulatory standards that will spur the type of
technological innovation and institutional change necessary to
more radically reduce our emissions. If it does, Silicon Valley
is well positioned to serve as the locus of that innovation.
