Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Releases Report CONGRESS CONDUCTS INITIAL HEARING

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission has released its long-awaited report, Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The report includes detailed recommendations for sustaining funding for the nation's transportation system.

Congress created the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in 2005 under Section 1909 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy for Users. Many in Washington see the report as a starting point in the upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard testimony from commissioners on the report's key findings.

Congress and President Bush appointed the Commission's 12 members. They represented federal, state, and local governments; metropolitan planning organizations; transportation-related industries; and public-interest organizations. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who chaired the commission, and Mary Cino, a former Bush administration deputy secretary of transportation, were the only two invited witnesses who did not appear before the committee. Both Peters and Cino broke with the majority and issued a separate minority report.

In their extensive report, the commission recommended restructuring federal transportation resources to place an emphasis on public transportation, investment in metropolitan areas, upkeep of existing infrastructure, and intercity rail.

Although the commission proposed a series of new funding mechanisms for transportation initiatives, one item of particular interest on Capitol Hill was the panel's recommendation for a 25- to 40-cent increase in the federal gasoline tax, which would be implemented over the next five to eight years. The commission envisioned the gas tax increase as only a short-term fix, recommending that lawmakers move as quickly as possible to a system that taxes consumers based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Commissioner Jack Schenendorf spoke on behalf of the majority stating, "We believe that our recommendations, if enacted as a package, will give the American people the transportation system they need and deserve. We cannot just reform our way out of the transportation crisis; nor can we get the job done by sending lots more money coursing through a broken project delivery system. We need both reform AND increased investment."

The Commission's key recommendations included:

Better community planning and more compact development help people live within walking or bicycling distance of some of the destinations they need to get to every day—work, shops, schools, and parks, as well as transit stops. If they choose to use a car, trips are short. Rather than building single-use subdivisions or office parks, communities can plan mixed-use developments that put housing within reach of these other destinations. The street network can be designed to interconnect, rather than end in culs-de-sac and funnel traffic onto overused arterial roads. Individual streets can be designed to be “complete,” with safe and convenient places to walk, bicycle, and wait for the bus.

Finally, by building more homes as condominiums, townhouses, or detached houses on smaller lots, and by building offices, stores and other destinations “up” rather than “out,” communities can shorten distances between destinations. This makes neighborhood stores more economically viable, allows more frequent and convenient transit service, and helps shorten car trips. This type of development has seen a resurgence in recent years, and goes by many names, including “walkable communities,” “new urbanist neighborhoods,” and “transit-oriented developments” (TODs). “Infill” and “brownfield” developments put unused lots in urban areas to new uses, taking advantage of existing nearby destinations and infrastructure. Some “lifestyle centers” are now replacing single-use shopping malls with open-air shopping on connected streets with housing and office space as part of the new development. And many communities have rediscovered and revitalized their traditional town centers and downtowns, often adding more housing to the mix. These varied development types are collectively referred to in this publication as “compact development” or “smart growth.”

A Climate-Sparing Strategy with Multiple Payoffs

Addressing climate change through smart growth is an attractive strategy because, in addition to being in line with market demand, compact development provides many other benefits and will cost the economy little or nothing. Research has documented that compact development helps preserve farmland and open space, protect water quality, and improve health by providing more opportunities for physical activity. Studies also have confirmed that compact development saves taxpayers money, particularly by reducing the costs of infrastructure such as roads and water and sewer lines. For example, the Envision Utah scenario planning process resulted in the selection of a compact growth plan that will save the region about $4.5 billion in infrastructure spending over a continuation of sprawling development. Finally, unlike hydrogen-fueled vehicles and cellulosic ethanol, which get a lot of attention in the climate-change debate, the “technology” of compact, walkable communities exists today, as it has in one form or another for thousands of years. We can begin using this technology in the service of a cooler planet right now.

Policy Recommendations

In most metropolitan areas, compact development faces an uneven playing field. Local land development codes encourage auto-oriented development. Public spending supports development at the metropolitan fringe more than in already developed areas. Transportation policies remain focused on accommodating the automobile rather than alternatives. The key to substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions is to get all policies, funding, incentives, practices, rules, codes, and regulations pointing in the same direction to create the right conditions for smart growth. Innovative policies often are in direct conflict with the conventional paradigm that produces sprawl and automobile dependence.

John McCain -  www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues Go to issues, Environment “I have proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies.  It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits. By reducing its emissions, a utility or industrial plant can generate credits it may trade on the open market for a profit, offering a powerful incentive to drive the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies; for automakers to develop new ways to lower pollution and increase mileage; for utilities to generate cleaner electricity and capture carbon; for appliance manufacturers to make more efficient products, and for the nation to use energy with maximum efficiency - building conservation into the economy in a manner that produces financial and environmental benefits. As it always does, the profit motive will attract the transformational power of venture capital, and unleash the market to move clean alternative fuels and advanced energy technologies from the margins into the mainstream.” Hillary Clinton -  www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/ Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America 's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs. Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America 's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis. Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.   Barack Obama - www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/ "The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." -Barack Obama Speech in Chicago , 4/3/06

 John Edwards - johnedwards.com/issues/ Global warming is a crisis that could fundamentally change our planet, creating hundreds of millions of deaths and starvation. Edwards will restore our energy independence by asking Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and building a new energy economy based on clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Ruth E. Helfeld

Landscape Architecture Section Head

Mass. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

251 Causeway Street, Suite 600

Boston, MA  02114