What does parking have to do with our addiction to oil? Quite a bit, it seems, once you dig into the issue. 

Americans are said to love their cars, and along with that is a love, or really, an expectation of parking – whether that’s free or cheap parking – it’s a lot of parking.  And so we have policies in place that encourage parking. Take for example current federal tax policy allows commuters to deduct $240 a month from pre-tax income to pay for parking for your commute, but only $120 per month for using transit.
 
The parking issue is hot in Seattle where Mayor Mike McGinn proposed to let developers who are building housing within 1300 feet of transit decide how much parking to provide for residents. The Seattle Times was appalled – calling it “utopian” to think residents will drop the car.  Streetsblog notes that “[m]inimum parking requirements are, essentially, a tax on development meant to encourage driving.”

Parking is a frequent issue among Sierra Club transportation activists, most recently in our own debate over the New York Times invitation to readers to respond to a letter posted by Randy Salzman on the need to change our car culture.

It so happens that Sierra Club’s San Diego Chapter transportation chair Mike Bullock is a parking expert, so I asked him a few questions about how changing parking policies can help reduce driving and our addiction to oil.

How does so called “free” parking feed our addiction to oil?
Well, of course it’s never free. It’s very expensive to provide parking. And we pay those costs, as employees, as residents, and as consumers. The “addiction feeding” comes from hiding those costs and making them essentially mandatory. If we had the free choice to not drive, once in a while, and save some of the money we are losing because of “free” parking, we would in fact drive less.

We often think of parking spaces – surrounding big box stores, in our downtowns, or near housing – as free.  How much does it cost to build a parking spot?
In many locations, it comes down to the cost of land. An acre of land only parks around 120 cars. So, where an acre is worth $1.2 million, the cost of the land is $10,000 per space. Parking garages would seem to be a smart choice where land is expensive, because the cars are being stacked. However the construction is expensive and the higher up you go, the larger the steel members have to be.

Construction costs are typically between$20,000 and $40,000 per space. Of course the prettiest parking is underground, because it is invisible to the urban landscape. However this is the most expensive parking. Developers have told me that this parking is around $100,000 per space. So the simple answer is that parking costs a lot.

What are some ways parking could be addressed to help cut our addiction to oil?
Except where parking is being operated to provide a legitimate profit for investors, the best way would be to unbundle the cost of the parking. This means that the cost is made visible and optional. There are several ways to do this. I have written a paper that described one way and it is a way that would always work. Using this method, any bundled cost could be unbundled. To those that are losing money due to the parking, the system would feel like getting paid to not drive.

Are there some examples where pricing parking has cut driving?
My paper on parking has a table with 10 cases of locations where parking became priced. These cases are put into three groups: those having poor transit, those having fair transit, and those having good transit. The overall average decrease in driving was 23%. The smallest change was 15%. Obviously, I wish we had more data.

If you want to learn more about parking and unbundling its costs, you can download Mike’s short paper here (PDF).

These days, thankfully not all progress on moving America beyond oil and improving our nation’s transportation system rely on the whims of the House of Representatives.  I saw that today as we delivered more than 15,000 comments from Americans representing every state plus Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam voicing their support for smart, common sense guidelines on how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) selects which public transportation projects receive funding.

Gas prices are rising and a well-planned transit systems not only provide a way for us to get to work, but they also make it more likely that we’ll utilize them (or walking and biking) for the rest of our daily and weekly errands – from grabbing dinner to going to the doctor – instead of getting into a car and emptying our wallets at the pump.

FTA’s proposed guideline changes will make it even easier to account for how well a transit system can reduce the need to use cars. The FTA proposed standard will also support consideration of  how much affordable housing is near local public transit systems.  We support this step, as well as how broadening the environmental benefits new and expanded transit can bring in the form of clean air, and reducing oil consumption and carbon pollution.

We are also urging FTA to look at high gas prices when evaluating projects because a project may look very different when a gallon of gas is $3.50 a gallon than when it’s at $4 or$ 5 per gallon and demand and need for transit increases.  According to the American Public Transportation Association, households that are likely to use public transportation on a given day save over $8,400 every year.

So, we’re thrilled so many Americans want better transit systems so they can avoid the gas station and instead walk, bike, or take public transportation where they need to go. Here’s what some of our commenters to the FTA had to say:

I use public transportation to commute 30+ miles, each way, to work every day.  It saves time, gas, wear on my car, the quality of air, and it relieves traffic congestion in Boston, and is just downright relaxing instead of rush hour traffic.
—
One of the most important changes we can make to support our ‘Energy Future’ and Security is to change the way we transport our people! Not only will this ease traffic congestion but it will create jobs AND reduce pollution. What part of public transit across our nation does NOT make sense? Let’s be leaders of the world instead of victims of Big Oil.
–
I commute by bicycle, and am in favor of more public transit and bicycle friendly venues.
—
I am writing this as the Port Authority in Pittsburgh has seen fit to reduce bus service to my community.  It would be unbelievable (except that it is true) that sufficient public transportation would be denied to those who rely on it for getting to work, doctor’s appointments – and yes, even entertainment!
—-
We will all benefit from cleaner air and a healthier climate and the jobs this program will create! It is the right thing to do!
———————–
Vastly improved public transportation is an essential component of any program toward green energy.   It is also essential toward any program toward reviving the U.S. economy.
———–
We simply need more and better public transport if we are going to decrease our dependence on oil, clean up our environment and live in healthier communities. In addition we need to make the necessary changes to promote and provide safe biking and walking.  We therefore support the FTA proposal to update the New Starts program.  We are glad the need for affordable housing near such transport is recognized as well.

We had shout-outs for more rail and transportation choices from coast to coast!

As the FTA makes progress on getting more transit to more Americans, the House of Representatives has just five days to act on passing a new transportation policy for America or put millions of Americans who are building and fixing our transportation system out of work.

The House cannot choose to yet again dig in its heels on trying to move what has been panned as the worst transportation bill ever, HR 7. They must pass what is now HR 14, the bipartisan bill that emerged from the Senate, and get our transportation system moving in a new direction.

The President weighed in over the weekend, noting that:

Once again, we’re waiting on Congress. In a matter of days, funding will stop for all sorts of transportation projects. Construction sites will go idle. Workers will have to go home. And our economy will take a hit. This Congress cannot let that happen. The Senate did their part. They passed a bipartisan transportation bill. It had the support of 52 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Now it’s up to the House to follow suit; to put aside partisan posturing, end the gridlock, and do what’s right for the American people.”

The FTA is acting and we will have more and better transportation choices – that’s good news.

Gas prices are rising and so is pain at the pump.  But as Congress took a week off from Washington, it seems that Republicans are thrilled with rising gas prices – touting them as a political winner, even as high prices drain dollars from their constituents’ pocketbooks.

In fact, in a speech to students at the University of Miami, President Obama called out a headline that read: “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.”

We’ve already heard from Republicans clamoring to grant Big Oil’s wish list – drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts – all things that won’t affect the price at the pump, while endangering our national treasures. However, President Obama has put in place clean vehicle standards that promise to double the average fuel economy of new vehicles between now and 2025. These are standards that promise to deliver real relief for consumers at the pump and to significantly decrease our dependence on oil.

Just before the President spoke last week, Rep. Allen West from Florida complained bitterly about how much it costs him to fill the tank of his ultimate gas guzzler – an HR 3 Hummer.  In city driving, his gas hog will get perhaps 13 miles to the gallon. So, we thought we’d offer some useful tips to Rep. West and the offer some tips that all of us can use.

First, some pointers for Rep. West: We note he has two offices in his Congressional District –

Fort Lauderdale
6300 NE 1st Avenue – Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

and

West Palm Beach
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 308
West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

We suggest that Representative West could use Tri-Rail to go between his two district offices in Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach for only $5.65, avoiding a 36 mile drive on I-95 that would use well over two gallons of gas if his Hummer gets 16.5 mpg.

Stuck in traffic the H3 might guzzle its way through $21.20 of gas. A Google search shows the West Palm Beach Tri-Rail station is 2.4 miles from his office.  For such a short hop, we suggest looking for a bus that runs from the Intermodal Transit Center to his office, but we suppose catching a cab could be an option.

The Ft. Lauderdale Cypress Creek Tri-Rail station is even more convenient, as it’s only 0.4 miles from his office, a nice eight minute walk. One of the benefits of leaving the Hummer at home is getting some exercise along the way.  If a trip to Miami is in the plans, the train will take you there.

We estimate that the trip will take a little over an hour vs. the best case time of 36 minutes in the Hummer on I-95 (but much longer during morning and afternoon rush hours).  But, aside from getting some exercise along with the commute, a ride on TriRail offers a chance to read and perhaps more important, time to  speak with constituents who are using the TriRail system to beat the high price of gas that so vexes the Congressman who might otherwise be stuck in traffic in the H3.

The fact is that 50% of Americans have access to transit as an option for avoiding pain at the pump.  Rep. West is luckier than most Floridians, who don’t currently enjoy the option of light rail that has long served the people of Florida’s 22nd District.

We agree with the President that this is one problem we cannot drill our way out of– but we can take smart and practical steps to reduce pain at the pump:

1.    Leave your car at home – take transit if you can.
2.    Bike to work or to the store.  We have some handy resources for first time bikers.
3.    In the market for a new car? Buy a hybrid or the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets your needs.
4.    Check your tire pressure frequently and keep your tires fully inflated. Full tires can improve your fuel economy up to 10%.
5.    Use a GPS – studies show that using a navigational device can reduce miles traveled up to 16%
6.    Ask your boss if you can telecommute one or two days per week.

Check out our web page for more ways to avoid pain at the pump (scroll down on the page).

Share with us your best strategy for keeping for avoiding the pump as gas prices rise!  You don’t have experience pain at the pump alone – join our Transportation Activist network and find out how you can get involved in your local area to increase transportation choices.

House Speaker John Boehner finally got the message– it is time to drop what has been broadly panned as the worst transportation bill ever.   Hoping the Presidents Day Recess would give him time to build support for his terrible bill, Boehner realized just yesterday that he couldn’t muster the votes to win.

It is amusing (maybe appalling) that Boehner sought to blame the Democrats for failure:

“Given Senate Democrats’ unwillingness to pursue a longer-term infrastructure and energy plan, House Republican leaders are considering a revamped approach that would retain the speaker’s vision of linking infrastructure to expanded American energy production, and allow Republicans to stay on offense on energy and jobs,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an email.

First, the Senate bill is a bipartisan effort and second, while it still needs improvement, the overall Senate package is, at the moment, a step in the right direction for transportation policy.  Boehner should recognize that even with the gimmick used to split a terrible bill into three pieces as a strategy to bypass defeat, the terrible bill was destined to fail.

So, the word is that the House bill will be “re-vamped.”  Really, the re-vamp must be a complete do-over.  While much attention has been focused on the maneuver to end transit funding — a deal brokered by President Ronald Reagan directing a portion of gas tax revenue towards public transit – the flaws of HR 7 run deep.

The bill eliminates dedicated funding for options like walking, biking, and programs like Safe Routes to Schools that helps kids bike and walk to school safely. It also takes an ax to Amtrak funding – all while gas prices are rising and Americans are looking for other transportation options instead of fewer and less safe options.

Additionally, the bill allows states to ram through projects without environmental review or public input.  Finally, the bill dumps road-widening to put more cars on the roads into a program meant to reduce congestion and clean the air.

The Republicans should learn some lessons from this failed effort.  From coast to coast, Americans want more not less transit; they want more options to walk and bike that are safe; and they like programs to help kids get to school on foot or 2-wheels.

Even Virginia’s Republican Governor announced his support when he awarded $5.9 million in Safe Routes to Schools funds to make bicycling and walking to school safer and more appealing for students at 28 elementary and middle schools in his state.

Governor McConnell’s statement includes:

“The Safe Routes to School program’s primary goal is to support communities that want to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and convenient option for children,” said Governor McDonnell.  “By providing these funds, as well as technical assistance to Virginia communities, we are helping to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote other transportation choices. We also are encouraging healthy habits that we hope will transform into healthy lifestyles as these children grow.” 

Actually, we couldn’t have said it better ourselves! 

We need action by March 31. Just fixing one piece of HR 7, like restoring transit funding, is not enough to fix this bill.  HR 7 needs major repair. Until then, please make sure you tell your Representatives to vote no on HR 7.

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, House Republicans are rushing ahead with a “transportation” bill only Big Oil could love.

Once upon a time the Bridge to Nowhere came to represent the most wasteful spending and earmarks in transportation.  While earmarks targeting federal dollars for specific projects are gone, the House republicans have bested the bridge to nowhere with a so-called transportation bill that is good for Big Oil.

The bill mixes terrible transportation policy with Big Oil’s wish list: opening fragile and protected areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic coast to drilling, as well as pushing through the tar sands pipeline President Obama has already rejected.

Big Oil gets the right to drill and bad transportation policy ensures Americans get less public transit, less biking and walking infrastructure, and fewer safe routes to school for our kids. In short, the bill is a five-year recipe for driving more and using more oil.

The opposition amassing to the House’s “American Energy and Infrastructure Act” (H.R. 7) is growing and comes from all directions.

Last week Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) had this say about just one portion of the bill:

“I’ve been in transportation 10 years in the Florida House and close to 20 here, and it was truly the worst bill I’ve ever seen. The piece that we (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) passed at 3 o’clock this morning out of the transportation committee is the worst bill I have seen in the 30 years I’ve been elected.”

Opposition crosses party lines, with Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), a longtime ally of House Speaker John Boehner, opposing the measure in its current form and saying, “It’s his bill.” House Republicans in urban areas don’t want to see critical transit funding cut.

The New York Times does a nice job of summing up “A Terrible Transportation Bill.” In short, by the time three House committees had done their work, HR 7:

• Pushes money to highways while gutting investment in transportation options.

• Jeopardizes future funding for public transportation by ending dedicating funding for transit out of the Highway Trust Fund where transit receives a portion of gas tax revenues (transit funding has been part of the Highway Trust Fund since President Reagan was in the White House);

• Uses Big Oil’s wish list as one of the ways to pay for transit and other programs (money the Congressional Budget Office says is not up to the task);

• Eliminates dedicated funding for options like walking, biking, and programs like Safe Routes to Schools that helps kids bike and walk to school safely, and takes an ax to Amtrak funding; and

• Allows states to ram through projects without environmental review or public input.

Sierra Club joined more than 600 groups from across the country to oppose the provision that ended dedicated funding for transit. Last Spring nearly 70,000 Americans sent a simple message to the House and Senate:

“America needs a transportation system that ends our dependence on oil, cuts pollution, and provides clean, efficient, and affordable transportation options while putting the country back to work.”

Join us in taking action to help kill this bill. Call your Representative today. Just dial:  877-573-7693. The message is simple: Oppose HR 7 and get back to work on a transportation bill that will help end our dependence on oil, cut pollution, and provide clean, efficient, and affordable transportation options while putting the country back to work.  If you can’t call, send an email!

Click here to watch Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune’s testimony supporting clean cars.

After a week of public hearings in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco, we can safely say that cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks are a popular commodity.

More than 500 people, including concerned citizens, public health officials, veterans, small business owners, environmentalists and consumer advocates, came out to testify in support of the Obama administration’s proposal to strengthen fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and light trucks.

Thanks to these standards from the U.S. EPA and National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), the average new car you’ll see on the lot in 2025 will get 54.5 mpg and spew 35% less carbon pollution than the models in 2016.  That’s a big deal – and a big win for American families.

So just how broad is public support for these proposed standards?  Very!  Poll after poll has shown that Americans overwhelmingly support better fuel efficiency.  But this support is more than just a checked box on a survey – it’s real stories from real people.

When I testified in Detroit last Tuesday, I was inspired by the near-unanimous support for 54.5 mpg cars from the more than 100 people who came out to give their reasons for supporting clean cars.  Nearly everyone from the United Auto Workers’ President and members to local citizens concerned about air pollution from smog and climate disruption voiced united support for the standards.

It was great to have the hearing kicked off by Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who praised the standards and said “I am pleased that EPA and NHTSA are joining together to reach out and listen to what the American people have to say.”  The Go60 mpg coalition, which the Sierra Club is a part of, was featured in the New York Times’ piece on the hearing.

In Philadelphia last Thursday, we saw record turnout for an EPA hearing with more than 150 people coming out to stand up for clean cars including Sierra Club President Robin Mann.  There were so many moving testimonies – including Retired Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, who spoke about his first hand experience with the dangers of depending on a fuel supply line in Iraq, and Colleen Kennedy, a local resident with serious health conditions that have been exacerbated by smog pollution from cars.

Finally on Tuesday of this week, EPA and NHTSA held their last public hearing in San Francisco where Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune testified and called these standards the “biggest single step we’ve ever taken to move beyond oil and tackle climate disruption.”  Check out the rest of his testimony here.

The lone voice of opposition at all three hearings:  the National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA).  Yet with several individual dealers coming out to testify in support of the standards, even the industry publication Automotive News knows that NADA needs to stop exaggerating the costs and underselling the benefits of the standards.

The Sierra Club live-tweeted each hearing from @SierraClubLive.  Here are some of the highlights:

• @SierraClubLive NADA rep claiming that car buyers don’t look at mpg. Yet 3/4’s of Americans support strong #cleancars standards: bit.ly/xpL2sT
• @SierraClubLive Chevy dealer Thiel: “We’re going to go on with this until 2025 and I’ll tell ya what, we’re ready for it!” #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive Big shout out to the Raging Grannies for telling us to clean up our cars in song at #Detroit hearing! #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive For a sense of the ratio of those supporting vs opposing #cleancars standards today, see the score from Brady vs Tebow last wkd
• @SierraClubLive Robin Mann: “The planet is screaming and the time has come for us to stop turning a deaf ear.” #cleancars #beyondoil
• @SierraClubLive Rabbi Waskow: “I call it global scorching. Warming is too pleasant.” #cleancars #CleanAir #Philly
• @SierraClubLive .@Sierra_Club volunteer Bryan Crenshaw shows a picture of his son. 54.5 mpg is about our kid’s future. #cleancars pic.twitter.com/2jeOt5C0
• @SierraClubLive Local City Council Pres. Jeanette MacNeille: “For me as an asthmatic, #cleancars mean less trips to the emergency rm”pic.twitter.com/XRlzhu86
• @SierraClubLive Wow, amazing defense of the role of @EPAgov & #cleancars from Colleen Kennedy who has a serious heart condition.pic.twitter.com/Su93ArSf
• @SierraClubLive #cleancars are incredibly popular! Support vs opposition at today’s #Philly hearing about 100 to 1. NADA took its toys & went home
• @SierraClubLive Brune: As a father of two young kids, I’m relieved to know that the cars they’ll drive in the years to come will use less oil. #cleancars

These hearings were not the only opportunity the public has to voice support for strong new clean cars standards.  You can send your comments until February13th.  Don’t wait — help us show how broad and deep support is for clean cars!

And, if you enjoyed reading these tweets from the clean cars hearings, follow @SierraClubLive and you can check out yesterday’s live updates from the DC Auto Show.  After years of saying they couldn’t make new cars or trucks that use less oil, it was clear from the showroom floor that the auto industry is in a race to do just that.

(Click image to enlarge)

With gas prices still hurting Americans at the pump and threatening to climb higher, it’s time to start building better, more efficient cars that guzzle less gas.

Just weeks ago, President Obama proposed strengthening fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by 2025, building on the standards that he has already put in place for cars sold this year through 2016.  These means the average American family buying a car in 2025 will save $4,400 on gas over the car’s lifetime, even after paying for fuel-saving technology.  I was pleased to celebrate this and the other benefits of the proposed standards in November and received many comments.

The graphic above shows the benefits of these standards – and we encourage you to share it with your friends and family.

Now it is time to share your comments with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation.  Hundreds of Americans will be testifying at EPA’s and DOT’s public hearings over the next two weeks in support of these proposed fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards that would mean significant savings at the pump, cleaner air, more jobs and better vehicle choices for American families.

The hearings are January 17th in Detroit, January 19th in Philadelphia, and January 24th in San Francisco. If you can be at any of them, RSVP here.

I will be at the hearing in Detroit to urge Obama administration officials to keep these proposed standards strong.  We recognize how vital they are to our freedom and security, because our current oil addiction puts our troops at risk around the world and our families’ health at risk at home.  We also know how important these standards are to curbing the pollution that is causing global warming.

These standards enjoy overwhelming support from three-quarters of all Americans and 13 major auto manufacturers, including Detroit’s “Big Three”, have signed letters of commitment supporting strong standards.

It’s not hard to see why fuel efficient cars are so popular.  Instead of draining our economy by sending nearly $1 billion a day overseas for oil we can keep money in Americans’ pockets, which will create 484,000 jobs economy-wide by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto industry.  On top of that, we’ll be using 1.5 million fewer barrels of oil per day in 2030, the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year.  That’s a big deal, and it would cut carbon pollution in 2030 by the amount equal to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.

These standards should not be partisan or controversial.  Saving the average American family thousands of dollars on gas, cutting pollution and revitalizing the American auto industry as an engine of economic growth should be benefits we can all get behind.

This is the biggest single step that any U.S. President has taken to break America’s addiction to oil.  President Obama should keep doing the right thing and finalize these strong standards this summer. Join us at one of the three public hearings this month, or send in your comment supporting these standards right now.

Last month we welcomed the significant step the Obama administration took to slash pollution and oil consumption by putting new cars on a path to higher efficiency and emitting less climate-altering carbon pollution. 

Ensuring today’s and tomorrow’s technologies are put to work to reduce how much oil it takes to travel a mile is critical, but we won’t move beyond oil if we continue to drive at a rate of nearly three trillion miles per year.  Even cleaner cars will get stuck in traffic, consume oil (unless they’re electric!), waste time, and pollute.

This week, Sierra Club’s Virginia Chapter released its visions for a 21st Century Green Transportation plan for Virginia (PDF). This vision tackles that other side of the equation – reducing how many miles Virginians drive no matter what they are driving. 

The chapter released its vision while Virginia Governor McDonnell is holding a transportation conference with the theme of “Gateway to the World.” The Chapter notes that the governor’s plan is to “spend billions in borrowed money building major, unneeded and destructive roadways. A better title might be ‘Highways to more Gridlock.’”

The chapter’s report lays out a vision for a smarter, cleaner transportation and more livable communities for the Commonwealth:

We envision Virginia’s residents enjoying a healthy, vibrant and prosperous quality of life, living in communities where they work, learn, shop and enjoy recreations and cultural amenities without depending on the automobile and the fossil fuel it burns. Be they urban, suburban, or rural, their communities will be attractive with open and green spaces. They will be pedestrian and bicycle friendly with internally connected streets. And they will be connected to other communities by transit systems, passenger and freight rail, bicycle paths, and uncongested roads.

The problem is that building more highways and making existing highways wider is driving Virginia’s transportation future. Using nicknames like “McDonnell’s Folly” (a new four lane highway), the “Zombie” Route 29 Western Bypass, A Can Opener to the Countryside and a new “Truckway,” the Sierra Club’s Virginia chapter highlights the Bad and Unnecessary projects being pushed now in McDonnell’s plan and suggests alternative to each of these projects that will increasing transportation choices.

According the chapter, the old transportation planning ways of building more roads and widening highways didn’t work: “It only led to more sprawl, and more congested roads and some of the worst traffic in the country.

“Virginia needs to focus more on moving people and goods, and less on moving more cars and more trucks,” said Roger Diedrich, Smart Growth and Transportation Chair. “We cannot simply drive our way out of congestion. We need to make smart investments in more public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities. In addition, transportation planning and community planning need to be closely coordinated.”

This is a vision every state can embrace! 

(Click image to enlarge)

Today, the Obama administration took a step that will result in significant savings at the pump for American families, reduce life-threatening carbon pollution, and provide Americans with better and more fuel efficient vehicle choices moving forward.

The administration officially proposed strengthening fuel efficiency and pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The newly proposed standards also reduce carbon emissions to 163 grams per mile in 2025.

Today’s announcement also builds on a historic step taken last year to raise vehicle efficiency to 35.5 mpg in 2016 and begin reducing tailpipe carbon pollution levels.

Together, these historic standards will:

• Save Americans more than $3,500 at the pump over the life of an average vehicle, even after paying for new technology.
• Reduce oil consumption by 1.5 million barrels per day in 2030 – the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined in 2010.
• Keep 280 million metric tons of carbon pollution out of the air in 2030, equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.
• Create 484,000 jobs economy-wide by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto industry.

You can download the graphic at the top with all this information right here.

We applaud these steps toward moving our nation beyond oil. These are great moves by the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act in order to protect public health as well.

Americans have spoken – they overwhelmingly support strong car standards. More than 74% of Americans support a fuel efficiency standard of at least 60 mpg by 2025 according to a poll conducted by the Mellman Group.  A majority of Americans are also willing to pay more up front for fuel saving technology that will save money over time.

The auto industry is on our side as well: thirteen major auto manufacturers have signed letters of commitment in support of the new standards. One major reason they support the standards is because it’s a fleet-wide average, not a one-size-fits-all number. The standards require vehicles to improve relative to their size, meaning automakers will be improving all vehicles and consumers will have a full range of choices from highly efficient cars to improved, but less efficient trucks.

And 108 House Representatives also support the new standards, having all signed a letter to the President saying as much:

The framework agreement brought together automotive manufacturers, labor, the environmental community, and government agencies.  Industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers praised the agreement as a ‘positive step.’  As a result, automakers will enjoy regulatory certainty, which will help them design and build the advanced technology vehicles of the future and compete in an increasingly global marketplace.  The agreement protects American jobs and consumers, and as such was a remarkable achievement.

Two important points, though, as we applaud these standards from the Obama administration:

1. Loopholes and Industry Giveaways Matter– The strength of the final standards will determine whether we get all of the benefits promised.  Loopholes, credits and flexibilities can undermine the stringency of vehicle standards. For example, we strongly support electric vehicles, but treating too many EVs as having no emissions (ignoring the carbon pollution from electricity) can erode pollution reductions. It is critical that these standards maintain their integrity in order to deliver consumer savings and cut our addiction to oil.

2. 54.5mpg Isn’t Actually What Consumers Will See On Dealer Lots in 2025– Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) use an arcane set of 1970’s test procedures to set standards and measure compliance.  These tests assume drivers will average 48 mph on the highway, drive in perfect 75 degree weather, and never turn on their A/C.  Therefore, the cars that consumers buy at the dealership in 2025 will actually average between 37-40 mpg, which is still nearly double today’s window sticker average of 22.5 mpg.

The Obama administration will finalize the standards next summer. In the meantime, we will push for strong final standards with no loopholes. Americans deserve better cars that go farther on a tank of gas and spew less pollution into the air. Let’s finalize standards that will save consumers money, create jobs, and move our nation beyond oil.

This past summer, many of our transportation activists sent editorials in to their local papers talking about their challenges in getting from here to there. Discussing problems with high gas prices, to low mile-per-gallon vehicles, to inadequate public transportation, these activists used their personal stories to demand better transportation options in the U.S.

Transportation consumes more than 70% of the 557 million gallons of oil used daily in the U.S. This of course is good for Big Oil, which “piled up $32.6 billion in profits over the third quarter of 2011, pushing their good fortunes for the year to over $101 billion,” but very bad for our national security, our climate and our pocketbooks.

In a new report entitled “Ensuring America’s Freedom of Movement,” the CNA Military Advisory Board that makes a compelling case for an overhaul of how we move us and our stuff. The report notes that 80% of our fuel is used for transportation.

An impressive list of retired military states that “[w]e are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies from this very cartel.”

While focused on alternative fuels the report recognizes that there are “many ways to get from here to there” and that “the nation needs to look at situations such as individuals commuting alone for 20 miles or more, and consider the multiple economic, social and environmental costs of such a trip.”

Further the report puts smart transportation policies in a national security perspective:

Our collective security can be strengthened by individual actions. We can carpool, combine trips, take public transportation, [we'd add walking and biking-- AM] reconsider whether some trips are necessary, examine how and where we work – each of these steps offers a chance to cut our oil use. These adjustments may seem, to many, like substantial lifestyle changes or difficult economic choices – we see them as steps that make America more secure.

The report also notes that federal policy can play a role in shaping the transportation decisions we make and have. The nation’s transportation program should play a central role in ensuring that the “many ways to get from here to there” are not increasingly oil-dependent ways, but rather increasingly by transit and rail, along with walking and biking and livable communities.

It is well past time for a new national transportation policy. The current broke and broken policy has been been extended 8 times (over 761 days).  Senator Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is set to take the first step in moving forward with a new transportation policy for the next two years.

While we wait to see this new proposal, here are our priorities for a transportation bill. The bill should:

• Set a national goal to reduce oil consumption from transportation.

• Reform transportation planning to consider impacts on oil consumption, air pollution, and local land use.

• Increase investment in transportation choices and encourage innovation.

Increasing funding for clean and efficient transportation modes and encouraging innovative strategies that can increase system efficiency are critical to delivering reductions in oil.

Americans need better transportation options and federal policy is a key to meeting that need. Investment in a 21st century transportation system that reduces our addiction to oil can save Americans money on their commutes, reduce our dependence on oil, creates jobs, and cut climate-disrupting pollution.  Let’s hope a new federal transportation policy delivers.