|
Link to 1-page fact sheet: Efficient Mobility for America
Efficient Mobility for America (EMA) is a broad policy framework proposal for
SAFETEA-LU re-authorization. See the 1-page fact-sheet, "Efficient Mobility for America". The goal is to promote economic growth, improved quality of life, and energy
independence with ecological action. EMA merges optimistic, pro-transportation,
multi-modal, environmental objectives in a simple vision for the future. There
are 3 simple themes:
- Roadway Mobility
- Rail Mobility
- Freight Mobility
EMA would meet a 60% total reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 from all vehicles and transportation, while still growing mobility in all modes of travel.
Pragmatically, our roads and bridges are in need of repair and upgrade. Also,
rational forecasts of the future indicate we will have 4 trillion VMT in 2025. My models suggest that VMT from 2025-2075 may actually flatline at that 4 trillion mile level, based on trend analysis. Research here: Forecasting Vehicle Miles Traveled. This level of VMT is over 33% higher than existing travel and demonstrates (especially considering the congestion we already experience) that more road capacity is needed.
The EMA Proposal
Beyond the 1-page fact sheet there is a background explanation for many of the
concepts. Link below.
For example, EMA places buses in the "Roadway Mobility" category. In boiling transportation down to 3 simple objectives: road, rail, and freight it becomes natural to move buses over to roadways. I also place bikes and pedestrians under "roadway". This is purely a way to boil down objectives. EMA supports bike lanes, pedestrian safety, and wider/more bike paths within the framework of 3 simple categories.
EMA also promotes several "cross-cutting objectives" such as energy independence, results-based decisions, pricing, ITS, and finance innovation. One of the more notable cross-cutting objectives is "environmental enhancement". This, along with gains in vehicle efficiency, is why the EMA has, what I describe at the outset as "ecologoical action". Instead of essentially throwing away money on project delays and lawsuits, all of that money can be put to work more productively. We can take a portion of a project's funding, such as 5 to 7%, and apply it toward environmental enhancements-- things such as offsets for trees removed, clean-up of nearby streams, run-off remediation, and roads designed better for environmental considerations, including longer overpasses for waterways and more natural animal movements. Time and resources are spent building a better road that blends in with, and enhances, the environment.
Another key point, is finding money for rail. The Highway Trust Fund has it's own problems. We may be able to solve the highway funding situation, simply, by taking money paid by drivers and using it, all, for the roadway category. Rail can be funded through a mass-meeting of the minds, a Clay Commission for this era. Why hold back transit in a debate over how much highway funding it can get. Let's brainstorm how transit/rail can find a reliable revenue stream of its own. Do market prices need to be charged? Ie. do subway fees need to be raised to cover the cost of operations? Could we use general fund revenue because it is in the public interest? Could we take a lot of the funds from Infrastructure Bond proposals and use them for rail because the HTF problem is solved by using gas tax revenue solely for roadways? What about a carbon tax/auction? Shouldn't transportation get up to 30% of the revenues? And could that auction revenue be used for rail?
The EMA is a policy framework to help continue moving the discussion forward. Thank you for visiting.
For more information, contact: Marcus Bowman at mb@iacdctransportation.com or 202-223-7040.
|
