Climate 411

Transit cuts from coast to coast.

Today Transportation for America (T4) released an updated map of widespread transit cuts, layoffs, fare increases and service cuts across the U.S.

At Way2Go, we’ve written frequently about this transit funding crisis, as it is harming our mobility at a time when getting to work cleanly, reliably and inexpensively is very important. We’ve focused on how these cuts have affected communities throughout the country—rural, suburban, urban neighborhoods—and who it affects–students, less affluent citizens, and seniors.

And Americans do not want to see these cuts. T4’s most recent poll numbers, which we blogged about a few weeks ago, show that Americans want improved and better public transportation, and those polled would be willing to almost double current federal spending for public transportation, which is now at 18 cents to every dollar, to 37 cents to every dollar.

T4’s map is extensive, but needs your input. With public transportation ridership at record highs from coast to coast, these funding cuts are felt by many. Check out T4’s map to see if your town or city has been properly accounted for, so that T4 can articulate the true extent of this funding crisis.

The dangerous link between transportation and public health.

It is well-documented that traffic-related air pollution can lead to increased respiratory problems such as asthma. Several recent studies have also shown that emissions from cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles can damage health in other ways, too. These include decreased brain function, increased heart attack risk, higher premature death rates, increased childhood allergies [PDF] — and now, higher miscarriage rates.

Specifically, nonsmokers and African American women living near busy roads are statistically more likely to miscarry within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to a new study, “Residential Exposure to Traffic and Spontaneous Abortion,” published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The study was produced by a team of scientists at the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Public Health, and the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

The authors examined data collected from women in California and found that pregnant African-American women who lived within 50 meters of heavy traffic were three times more likely to miscarry than African-American women who live in low-traffic areas. Nonsmokers living near busy roads were about 50 percent more likely to miscarry.

Though further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the findings, this study contributes to the mounting evidence on the harmful effects of traffic-related air pollution. It provides one more among a list of reasons to create a transportation system that pollutes much less than today’s system. Federal, state and local transportation policy needs to provide incentives to clean up dirty diesel engines, reduce traffic congestion, offer cleaner transportation choices, and generally create a more efficient and less polluting transportation system for people and freight.

A recent dinner guest revealed that he drives eight blocks to work each day, rain or shine. That’s eight short blocks. The guy is a healthy 20-something. Some days it takes him more time to drive than it would take him to walk.

How can we avoid the meter and be greener?

So why does he drive no matter what? He loves free parking.

See, at work his employer pays for his parking. If he kept his car at home during the day, he’d have to pay $100 a month to park in the lot linked to his apartment, or even more to park at another lot. Instead, every evening he drives back home, parks near his apartment complex after city street parking restrictions have expired, and wakes up the next morning to drive eight blocks to park for free at work.

Except that it isn’t really free. The rest of us pick up part of the costs of his parking habit–costs like health–threatening air pollution, earth-damaging greenhouse gas emissions, and road wear and tear.

That’s just a short list of parking costs. UCLA Professor Don Shoup has brilliantly established that parking costs everyone and that parking costs are hidden in nearly everything, from land values to groceries. He has also established that there are smart solutions, and most revolve around revealing the real costs of parking and pricing parking so as not to make everyone else pay for one driver’s decision to drive and park.

One of those solutions is parking cash-out. The idea is that an employer who wants to provide a perk to employees would provide a choice, instead of giving everyone a parking space. The choice would be between the parking spot or the cash. Employees could then use the cash to leave the car at home and spend the money on transit, a new bike helmet, or really comfortable walking shoes. The cash-out is counted as income, but there are some federal tax deductions for cash-out spent on transit or vanpools, and in some cases certain state tax deductions, too.

Parking cash-out programs work where they’re offered. Statistics range, depending on the location’s alternate transportation options, from a few percent to nearly 40 percent of employees who opt for the cash when it’s offered. As a result, the employer gets happier employees and reduces the number of parking spaces needed in the lease. Everyone gets a bit cleaner air and less traffic.

Cash-out isn’t offered as much as common sense would suggest this win-win might be. In the rare case where cash-out is required, it hasn’t always been enforced. Earlier this year, Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council co-sponsored successful legislation in California that gave certain local governments the option of enforcing the state’s parking cash-out law.

There’s no need to wait for a law to come to your community. Many employers around the country have voluntarily initiated their own parking cash-out programs. If yours hasn’t, ask about it.

Cash-out programs move us all closer to one important goal: giving commuters more choice even as they reduce their environmental impact.

Flickr phot by: Helen Taylor

As we’ve reported here, here, and here, EPA has designed and released for public comment two options for new information labels one of which will go on new cars in 2012.  Both labels have a slick new look as well as helpful information comparing fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, tail pipe emissions between vehicles, and annual fueling costs.  Label Option 1 contains additional information, a letter grade that reflects fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions and fuel savings over a five year period based on average use.

Letter grades make car buying easier.

1. It’s simple: Focus groups and market experts alike emphasized the need for a simple, easy-to-understand label format.  The letter grades achieve this by providing a central focus to the label that gives information on the performance not just of that vehicle but relative to other vehicles. 

2. It’s familiar: Letter grades for new vehicles, like health and safety grades for restaurants, provide you with a single piece of data that is instantly familiar and thus meaningful to you.

3. It’s informative: The label with a letter grade contains more information not less than the alternative.  The letter grade simply provides an easy-to-remember representation of the more detailed information contained in the rest of the label and the website.  This doesn’t mean you haven’t checked the numbers for yourself; it means you now have a single representation of all those details.

4. It’s Easy to Remember: Imagine this scenario.  You’re discussing the front runners in your search for a new car with your partner.  This is a big purchase so you’ve done some background research on all the candidates but you have a lot of numbers swimming in your head.  Would it be easier to have one fuel efficiency letter grade to refer to that represents multiple numbers which you remember easily?  Or do you want to pore over a spread sheet with city mpg, highway mpg, not to mention miles/kwh etc. for electric vehicles?

New labels will help consumers and the environment.

5. First national environmental metric for vehicles:  EPA focus groups show that nine percent of consumers currently consider environmental impacts in their car buying decision.  With the information clearly displayed right on the sticker, maybe it will be easier now to factor the environment in without having to research the issue extensively.

6. Easy comparison between vehicles: EPA focus groups also show that consumers don’t tend to limit themselves to one class or type of vehicle when shopping.  Most vehicle manufacturers wanted comparisons made only within a class of vehicle.  EPA’s new labels give you what you need and set fuel efficiency, environmental performance and fuel costs in context among all vehicles.

Let EPA know what you think about the new labels here.

EPA Label Option 1

This week, U.S. EPA proposed something that could change the way consumers spend car-buying dollars—labels that make sense.

For 30 years, the federal government has required new cars and light trucks on sales lots to carry labels that show consumers the miles-per-gallon performance of that particular car or truck model. These labels have been somewhat helpful, but they don’t provide as much information as this consumer, at least, would like.

Now the agency is preparing to improve the label performance. It has unveiled two proposed approaches. Both of the new labels would tell consumers how the vehicle stacks up against others for greenhouse gas emissions and other tailpipe pollution. Both of the proposed labels also report how much it costs to fuel the vehicle each year. Only one of the labels—dubbed Label Option 1 by EPA—provides two other very important pieces of information: It also tells how much a consumer will save in fuel costs over five years, and it provides a letter grade that reflects how the vehicle performs on tailpipe emissions and efficiency.

Think about how this grading system could affect you. You could shop for a car without bringing along back issues of Consumer Reports or reams of computer printouts about auto efficiency comparisons. You could quickly scan the field and go for the A and B cars and avoid the D vehicles that spew more pollution and will cost more to fuel.  If you do happen to want a bit more information than is available on the label, EPA has taken care of that too.  Each label contains a QR code that allows many smart phones to access a web page where buyers can compare cars and personalize estimates based on their own driving habits. Department of Energy also provides some really helpful information on its fuel economy website, fueleconomy.gov.

Great idea? We think so. But the auto industry is already complaining about the grading system, trying to compare it to childhood memories of failing or passing.

EPA Label Option 2

We think of this system as being more comparable to the grading system health departments have used for restaurants for years. You’ve probably noticed the placards. They protect diners from unhealthy food preparation practices and encourage high performing restaurateurs to keep up the good work.

Grades mean something. They’re easy to read and understand. They can steer you quickly toward a smarter car purchase. They are, in short, consumer friendly.

Some states already require cars and light trucks to carry information about pollution levels on their sales labels. EPA’s proposal significantly improves on that model.

You have a chance to weigh in on all of this. EPA is inviting everyone—not just policy wonks and auto industry representatives—to voice an opinion about the labels. The agency needs to hear from consumers who care about good value and a clean environment. The agency will be taking comments for 60 days, which means you need to submit your thoughts by the end of October.

The final version of the new label will be adopted by the end of the year, and the new label will appear on new cars and light trucks beginning in the 2012 model year.