No, seriously.

Some of you may remember this - as Jack Nicholson was a big time promoter.

On a CBC Marketplace airing in 1978, Jack Nicholson made news by advertising a potentially pollution-free fuel for cars. The fuel: hydrogen produced by solar power. The automobile: a standard Chevy with a standard engine. The emissions: steam (Jack suggests using the emissions for a steam bath). Pollutants are negligible and there's no risk of explosion. And, check it out - Jack made the car go in drive and reverse.

There are definitely other stories of oil-free cars out there. Anyone see the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?

Help us educate ourselves and share your fun and truth-telling links, by commenting to this blog.

A few months ago, I read a fascinating (and troubling) report from a panel of American transportation professionals who visited China in September 2007.   While there, they met with Chinese national, regional, and local officials and business leaders, and toured a number of ports and other facilities to see how goods are being transported (and exported) in the Chinese economy.  The report is available from the Transportation Research Board. 

Some of the American panel’s conclusions include: that China expects to continue growing rapidly; that China has a national strategy for the transportation, including freight; and that China’s highly centralized state power has made it easier for the nation to build projects rapidly, without getting derailed by such concerns as environmental impacts. 

Travel can broaden the mind; it can also reinforce what one was predisposed to believe.  In that regard, one of the panel’s most telling comments is this statement:

"There was a strong perception that the United States lacks the political will to invest in infrastructure and could not deliver needed investments in infrastructure in a timely manner even if desired. China is viewed as being very proactive with respect to infrastructure provision by building for the future and clearly stating in their strategic plans what will be built and when; the United States is perceived as being very reactive."

The panel report also offers some practical insights – the US has a strong advantage in our rail network; US port capacity, rather than foreign port capacity, is the key drag on volume of imports into the US; widening of the Panama Canal is likely to increase pressure on already strained East Coast ports. 

Largely overlooked by the panel is the enormous price China is paying – in ecological and human health and social instability – for prioritizing engagement in global markets above sustainability.  The report omits any discussion of the likely impacts of climate change regulation.  That’s a striking gap, since the massive increases in truck, rail, and shipping imagined by the panel aren’t reconcilable with the reality of massive carbon reductions.  It seems to us that there’s a strong argument for United States to adopt a coherent national freight transportation strategy – it will take a proactive strategy to keep the current level of goods moving at much lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions – but the vision of rapidly ever-expanding volumes of freight, with bigger cargo ships, busier ports, more diesel trucks, and many more roads, is nuts.

Last week, WakeUP Wake County (an affiliate of the NC Conservation Network) hosted a public forum on transit titled, Transit: Is Wake County Ready for It? The event was a huge success: 300 folks in attendance including many elected officials and top-level Raleigh city planners and tons of media coverage, both before and after the event.

The overall tone of the event was clear - Wake County is ready for transit. To see for yourself, click here to watch the entire event. But, there are some hang ups - specifically funding a large-scale transit project and getting the project up and running in a timely fashion (on average, it could take seven years from start to finish).

Charlotte passed a 1/2 cent sales tax in the late 1990's to begin its light-rail project (thanks to special authority granted to the city by the state legislature). Now that it's up and running, the only complaints Charlotte and Mecklenburg County officials are hearing are that individuals want more trains and more rail lines.

Meanwhile, Raleigh is waiting its turn for the state legislature to grant it special authority to pass a 1/2 cent sales tax for public transportation projects. However, the bill is on shaky ground and may not pass in the 2008 short session.

My concern is this: at the rate at which it is taking us to approve a comprehensive transit plan coupled with how fast the Triangle is expected to grow (an additional 1,000,000 people in the next 20-30 years) we could end up doing too little, too late.

So, what do you think? Is Wake County ready for transit? And, if so, how do we go about funding the project?

With the completion of I-540 westward, NC will likely get its first toll road, in large part due to the lobbying force of the NC Turnpike Authority – a division of the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT). It seems that the “good roads state” continues to be committed to building new roads, even in the face of skyrocketing construction (see #4 here) and fuel costs (over $4/gallon).

To get our first toll road, it will take an act of the NC Legislature (because toll roads, contrary to what you might assume, don’t pay for themselves). And, last week the NC House gave the green light for funding of the construction of a new six-lane toll road: the Triangle Expressway. In the face of a budget crunch, you might ask yourself ‘where are they going to get this money?’ In short, the House has proposed transferring $25 million from the General Fund to the NC Turnpike Authority, so it can quickly build the Triangle Expressway. In recent years, this $25 million has funded education, crime prevention, human services, and more. In the face of rising transportation and fuel costs, this appropriated money will still not cover the costs of building this toll road. Compile this fact with the new knowledge that data used to base cost estimates for the Triangle Expressway are out-of-date, and you inevitably create a black (pot) hole for taxpayer dollars.

While many have been frustrated by how I-540 dead-ends (including those of us who vow to stay inside the beltline), one has to wonder if it makes sense for the completion of this loop to be made into a toll road. And, does it make sense for NC to continue funneling money into new road projects, rather then maintaining the current infrastructure we have? Especially in light of the recurring problems and criticism the DOT has faced.

For all of the problems toll roads (and new roads in general) bring, it seems like a good idea for North Carolina leaders to take some time to think about how we can continue to travel sustainably, without wasting tax payer money and killing our small towns. 

Well, times are a-changing. I must be turning into the old-timer who always talks about "when she was a kid" how much less expensive things were. You know, postage, gas, gum. The essentials. I remember very vividly in highschool when my friend finally got her license, we would drive over the county line into Union County (we were living in Charlotte, NC), and fill up her tank for 89 cents a gallon.

89 CENTS A GALLON! Ok, adjust for inflation and all that, but STILL. This was only 13 years ago, after all.

If you're still looking for ways to use less gas, check out this article: 101 Ways to Use Less Gas by EcoTrekker. They've broken down the tips into categories to make them easy to sift through and pick the options that work best for you.

Also, if you haven't already, take action to support clean car legislation in North Carolina. Cleaner cars means fewer emissions, and saving money at the pump!

I gotta know. If you have an SUV, do you LUV it? Or are you just stuck with it, unable to sell it? Or do you feel you "need" it? CNN wants to know, too. They had readers send in comments on why they have SUV's. Lots of the folks said they can't sell it, lots said they needed the space, but there of course were some really off-the-wall responses as well. Anyway, I thought we could do our own little poll...so tell us: what's the deal with your SUV LUV?

May 12-16 is bike to work week in the Triangle. This year’s Bike to Work Week is part of the SmartCommute Challenge, a non-profit campaign that works towards cleaner air in the Triangle area. Anyone can participate in Bike to Work Week and there are no fees for any of the events going on around the Triangle.

On Friday, May 16th, the Capitol Ride is at 9 AM. Anyone can register for the event, which begins across from the Legislative Building in downtown Raleigh. Riders will ride 1.15 miles around the Capitol Building and down Fayetteville St. The ride will last about 15 minutes and the roads will be open to traffic during the ride. After the ride, riders can meet for Bike to Work Week Breakfast at the ride meet location.

We can all benefit from cleaner air!

Looking for a way to lower those greenhouse gasses?  How about biking, walking, or riding the bus?  I'm trying to take advantage of the nice weather and ride my bike to work a few times a week.

If you live in the Triangle, and need more motivation (and possibly prizes!), check out the SmartCommute Challenge, coordinated by the Triangle Transit Authority. From their website:

The SmartCommute Challenge is an annual non-profit public service campaign that works to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the Triangle.

From April 15 through May 30, any employee or college student who commutes to work or campus in Wake, Durham, or Orange County can participate. To enter the Challenge, make your online pledge that at least once before May 30 you will carpool, vanpool, bike or walk, ride the bus, or telework (work from home).

Everyone who takes the Challenge will be entered into a drawing to win one of several prizes, including a free vacation for two!

Join me, and 3,722 others, and take the pledge today!

Now that our Annual Retreat is over, I'm back to my regular blog posts! I wanted to let folks know about a new page on our website that focuses on transportation issues. The page includes a recap of the last major transportation reforms in North Carolina, information about our current situation, what's on the horizon for the remainder of 2008 and 2009, as well as links for more information. Also, learn more about NC TRAM and the five principles that we think should guide NC in building a new transportation future.

While you're there, send an email to your legislator in support of a new sustainable vision for transportation in North Carolina!

As I've been struggling through Ayn Rand's classic novel Atlas Shrugged (please don't ask me how much I have left or how many times I've renewed it from the library), I feel it is all too apropos to think about North Carolina's current rail system, and our need for some major upgrades. Rand's novel, written and set in the 1950s, deals in part with a transcontinental railroad whose productivity is being hampered by some rather thought-provoking legislation. Even though this is only a mere fraction of the rather complex story, I couldn't help but make a parallel to our current high-speed rail system (or lack thereof).

A recent editorial from the Charlotte Observer highlights North Carolina's current trajectory for rail growth; which is sorely needed in the Atlanta/Birmingham/Triangle region due to a booming population and soaring gas prices. While we still seem to be behind in the actual creation of the high-speed rail, the editorialist points out:

"North Carolina has wisely preserved the rail corridor where high-speed tracks one day will be laid to carry faster trains and give travelers in the southeast a high-speed option like those available in the nation's northeast corridor."

I guess maybe I just find it a bit interesting that here we are—50 years after Rand's novel was published, years after mass automobile production and the streamlining of huge commercial jets—once again rallying for rail.

I'll admit it: I like driving my car. I like blasting my music, I like feeling the wind whip by me, I like stopping at gas stations for candy and soda on long trips, and I like the freedom that having a car brings to my life.

But as I get older and my friends and family move further away, accounting for more long-distance traveling, I find myself focusing more on the things I don't like about driving. I don't like paying $30 to fill up the tank of my little sedan, I don't like trying to find a parking spot (Washington DC!!!), I don't like enlarging my carbon footprint, and I don't like sitting in traffic.

All of these thoughts were spurred on by a recent News and Observer editorial called "Talking trains." The article focuses on a Raleigh conference (hosted by The Women's Transportation Seminar) held this past Monday, which dealt with the issue of a possible new high-speed railway from Washington DC to Raleigh to Charlotte (and eventually to points further south). This project would cost approximately $3.5 billion--a huge chunk of change. However, once built, this railway would help keep our highways less clogged, save drivers money, and reduce the demand for gasoline. Not to mention that it would provide travelers with a speedy, yet relaxing way to travel. Just think: no more road-rage, no more traffic frustration, and the only thing you have to park is your butt in a seat.

Sounds appealing, even to me.

More on the congestion study released last week by the Texas Transportation Institute….

The Rocky Mountain News had a perceptive reaction, titled America’s Secret Love Affair with Congestion:

“[C]onsider congestion from the perspective of many commuters. They are encased in climate-controlled comfort and swaddled in heated, fully adjustable seats with a cooler close at hand in the center console. There are hundreds of stations on the satellite radio, unlimited music from the driver's personal library, elevating lectures by great professors, possibly a language to learn and perhaps a DVD player discreetly tucked below the dash….”

The punchline?

“Maybe many commuters subconsciously don't mind congestion, even at some level desire it.”

I’ve heard that before.  One of the hardest parts of getting folks to carpool or use transit is that their commute, long as it is, is the only time of day they have to themselves, without interruption from spouse, kids, or colleagues.  

Of course, burning extra fossil fuels and breathing polluted air is a socially-expensive way to get ‘alone time’ – kind of like running an extension cord into the yard and running dehumidifiers to water the lawn during the current drought, something I’ve joked about with friends just because it is so incredibly wasteful.  Still, the Rocky Mountain News has a good point.  

Perhaps we need a movement for ‘sustainable solitude’?

Today’s News & Observer includes a front-page article on traffic congestion, prompted by a national report released earlier this week by the Texas Transportation Institute.  So does the US Department of Transportation, which funded the TTI report, have a plan to address congestion?  Yes, it does; the plan is outlined in detail in the just-published July/August 2007 issue of the Federal Highway Administration’s magazine Public Roads.  Unfortunately, USDOT’s ‘Congestion Initiative’ is an object lesson in how not to solve congestion.

The purpose of the Initiative is “to reduce congestion in the short term and to build the foundation for successful longer term congestion reduction efforts”, and it is built around these six “areas of interest”: (1) relieving urban congestion in several model cities; (2) expanding private ownership of the transportation system; (3) using technology to manage the existing system more intricately; (4) building some big new corridor projects; (5) finding solutions (currently unknown) to ease freight bottlenecks, especially at our national borders; and (6) expanding airport capacity.

What’s wrong with these?  Approach #1, trying out solutions on model cities, is a good idea; unfortunately, the proposed solutions –

"congestion-pricing demonstration supported by enhanced transit services; increased use of telecommuting, flex scheduling, and other travel demand strategies; and deployment of advanced technologies"

– don’t (with the exception of transit services) address the underlying systematic causes of congestion, just the symptoms.  Poor land use planning will continue to create worse congestion, and these responses resolve it by reallocating quality of life away from current holders to whoever has the most money or time to spend to gain a higher level of service.  

Of the other approaches, #2, #4, and #6 are all variations of a single strategy: build more capacity.  But that’s what has gotten us into the mess we’re in: building capacity without an underlying plan for how we intend transportation and land use to shape each other.  #3 is a variant of the view that where we can’t build anymore, we can turn to technology to save us by eking out marginal efficiency gains from the existing hodge-podge system.  That’s surely true in some cases, but there’s a real trade off between efficiency and resilience.  You know this from your own life: if you plan really carefully, and have great communications tools, you can fit more meetings and decisions into a single day of work.  But – and you probably also know this from experience – once your day is super-full, if anything slips, it will throw the entire schedule out of whack.  Using technology to tightly couple parts of the transportation system in hopes of extracting greater efficiency has the same downside.  

‘Area of interest’ #5 is the most revealing, in that it isn’t a solution at all – it’s a recognition that a solution is needed, and FHwA doesn’t have it.  It’s revealing because our transportation system has two major goals (along with several less dominant goals): moving people (to and from work, school, shopping, entertainment); and moving goods.  There’s a giant disconnect between those goals and our national and local processes for planning, maintaining, and expanding our transportation system.  On the ‘moving people’ side, the real solution is better integration of comprehensive land use planning and transportation planning.  Instead, traditionalists (including, apparently FHwA) are focused on easing symptoms.  On the ‘moving goods’ side, the real solution has to do with the balance between distant supply chains and local production, and the progressive choice is less clear (though carbon regulations will bring this into much sharper focus over the next few years).  Because there isn’t (yet) a well articulated progressive vision for freight, it is still safe for traditionalists to admit that they don’t have an answer for freight.

What one policy change or action would you recommend USDOT take to help reduce traffic congestion?

While we have many different dreams for the future, most of us not already there hope to enjoy a happy old age, with a high quality of life and ready access to friends and family.  Unfortunately, for a growing number of North Carolinians, our sprawling patterns of land use are placing this vision of golden senior years out of reach.

North Carolina’s population of seniors will mushroom over the next decade.  This January, a legislative Study Commission on Aging reported to the NC General Assembly that between now and 2020, the number of residents over 65 will increase by 50%.  By 2030, seniors will account for over a quarter of the population in 28 counties – especially in the mountains and along the coast.  Indeed, many seniors and soon-to-be seniors are pouring into these counties today.

Most of these residents hope, as they grow older, to remain in their homes – to ‘age in place’.  But our dominant patterns of development – subdivisions of detached, single-family homes, with stores and churches reachable only by car – are poorly suited to seniors.  The average rate of car crashes per mile driven is higher for seniors than for any other age group, and rises with each year of age.  With long life expectancies, many of us will live years beyond the time we should stop driving.  Giving up driving can be hard for anyone, but for a person living in a car-centered suburb, this transition can be terribly isolating.  In contrast, dense, walkable communities keep seniors healthy longer.  It’s been well understood for over a decade – since a 1996 report by the US Surgeon General – that moderate levels of physical activity keep seniors healthy and mobile, reducing mortality rates by as much as 40%.  

Sprawl also hits seniors in their pocketbooks.  Studies show that residents living in sprawl spend more of their budgets on transportation expenses – and gas prices are certain to rise over the coming decade.   For seniors on a fixed income, that’s a problem.  These economic pressures hit older women hardest.  Because men have shorter life expectancy, women over 65 are twice as likely to be single, and are far more likely to be in poverty than men of the same age.  Moreover, many baby boomers have not saved for a long retirement.  While it may be too late to dramatically increase the accumulated savings of these boomers, it is not too late to plan for healthier, happier communities that won’t devour their savings.  

Lobbyists for developers often defend sprawl by arguing that it merely reflects consumer tastes.  If consumers had more options, that argument might be more convincing.  In fact, most developers take the shortest path to profit allowed by financing constraints and state and local growth policies.  Current state and local policies make car-centered subdivisions easier to build than mixed-use, walkable communities, so, with a few brilliant exceptions, sprawl is what we get.  

It doesn’t have to be this way.  Local governments can, through ordinances and tax policies, reward denser, pedestrian friendly development.  School siting policies can draw young families to walkable neighborhoods where retired residents are able to volunteer in the schools.  State government can invest in infrastructure that promotes compact, vibrant downtowns, rather than new, scattered suburbs or gated retirement communities in the boonies.  By changing the rules that encourage sprawl, we can have new growth that allows developers to make a handsome profit while lowering the cost of living for all residents, including seniors.  Now is the time to act.  In just a few years, as more and more of our population reaches retirement, we’ll be glad we did.

The Sierra Club recently posted an interesting blog entry regarding the 2007 release of the "Greenest Vehicles of 2007." If you have time, check out the comments to the blog post--lots of folks responded with questions and remarks about the list that you might find interesting.

In a nutshell, the report, released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, highlights the top 12 most "eco-friendly" vehicles. Topping the list are the Honda Civic GX (#1), Toyota Prius (#2), and the Honda Civic Hybrid (#3). Check out the full list and look for your car. Unless, of course, you drive a GM or a Ford...none of those made the cut. However, there are some Ford models on the Greener Choices 2007 list.

And just for kicks, check out the Meanest Vehicles for the Environment in 2007. I guess this means I should go ahead and trade in my Lamborghini Murciélago...

So, how did your cars fare?

As an Organizer for the NC Conservation Network I travel all over my home state fighting to protect our health and our environment. I meet and talk with lots of different people in my travels. Often I hear from folks that they have a hard time seeing the link between their daily life (and health) and the importance of protecting our environment. 

Making Connections, which aired this week on UNC-TV, does an excellent job of showing the links between our everyday life, our land, farms, forests, natural habitats, water usage, air quality, and tourism.

Our friends at Environmental Defense worked with the Director of NC Zoo, Dr. David Jones, to create this wonderful program.  Dr. Jones says “It is time to ask tough questions about polluted air, dirty water, and development…See why now is the time for making connections." He travels across our state exploring how our health and wealth are in danger.

Click here to watch this program online.

They have also created an informative website with lesson plans and activity guides for teachers as well as ways for folks like you to get involved.

Dr. Jones asks "What will our legacy be?" 

I have hope that our state will be a leader in the recycling industry, renewable energy field, eco-tourism and organic farming. I see these replacing the vanishing small town textile mills and farms with industry that creates jobs, saves our small towns and preserves our beautiful environment.

What about you? What do you think our legacy will be?

The EPA and Department of Energy have released their list of the most fuel efficient vehicles for the 2007 model year.  The fuel economy leaders are, no surpise, the hybrids - Toyota Prius (60 mpg), Honda Civic (49), Toyota Camry (40) and Ford Escape FWD SUV (36).  The Ford Escape hybrid SUV 4WD model barely made the top 10 (32 mpg) tied with the Mercury Mariner hybrid SUV.  In the middle are solid efficient non-hybrid cars like the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio.   

 If you’ve just got to have a station wagon or a pickup, you can also look up the best and worst in each class.   For instance don’t buy a 4WD Nissan Titan pickup (13 mpg) – opt instead for a manual 2WD Ford Ranger (24 mpg).   For general information see the EPA’s fuel economy website. 

The EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide is also a comprehensive source of information on how each vehicle ranks in terms of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you look at fuel ecomony when determining what car you are going to buy?

I saw this mentioned on TV this morning, and now it's been written up on Metafilter, my favorite community blog:

The Transportation Research Board released their 3rd edition of Commuting in America. Among their findings, a 50% increase in "extreme commuters", those with a one way commute of more than 60 minutes; 8% of Americans are now in this category. 25 years ago, 1 in 5 commeters carpooled. Today, only 1 in 10. And the dominant commuting pattern is now suburb to suburb or city to suburb. [via NPR]

What does your commute look like?

At interesting idea out of Union County (from the Charlotte Observer):

Developers now face more hurdles to build subdivisions in another of Charlotte's fast-growing suburbs.

Union County on Monday became the third county in the suburban Charlotte region to pass a slow-growth ordinance, called an adequate public facilities ordinance.

The new law, enacted by a 3-2 vote Monday night by the Union County Board of Commissioners, is designed to slow housing growth in areas where schools are crowded. The ordinance requires developers who want to build in crowded school districts to do one of two things: delay construction until more schools are built, or pay a maximum fee of $14,953 per home proposed.

Several other counties in NC have similar ordinances including Cabarrus, Stanly, Currituck, Franklin, and Orange counties.

Good idea?  Or not doing enough?