By: Josh Voorhees
Greenwire
June 11, 2008
Link to Original Article
Americans are starting to change their travel habits in the face of soaring fuel prices -- a trend some experts say foreshadows a permanent shift in U.S. transportation.
"The American attitude toward energy and transportation has fundamentally changed, and it's not going to change back," said Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.
"Seeing $4 a gallon for the first time has really shaken people," Hendricks said. "At the very least, people have begun to understand that their dependence on oil has made them personally very vulnerable."
The $4-a-gallon mark is the price point at which nearly three-quarters of U.S. drivers said they would change their driving habits to reduce expenses, according to a survey taken just before the national average pump price hit the magic number this week. Thirty-five percent said they had made changes when gas hit $3.
Automakers are scrambling to adjust to changing American attitudes, remaking fleets in a bid to woo consumers who are suddenly conscious of fuel economy. Ford is scaling back production of trucks and SUVs. Chevy is rushing to finalize the plug-in hybrid Volt. And General Motors Corp. has announced plans to sell off its hulking, gas-chugging Hummer brand.
"When you look at these decisions being made by automakers, you can see there is going to be a permanent shift in what type of cars are going to be offered," said Bruce Agnew, policy director at the Cascadia Project, a Seattle-based transportation think tank. "But it's just the beginning. It's a whole new world where transportation isn't siloed off apart from national security and the economy."
To be sure, not everyone is convinced that Americans are ready to trade their cars for seats on buses and trains. Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, argues that current mass transit ridership spikes are no more than a temporary adjustment by Americans to combat a spike in gasoline prices that eventually will fall.
O'Toole and others argue that the nation experienced a similar trend during the 1970s oil embargo, but people soon returned to their cars as fuel prices retreated. "If prices now were to go down to $3, as they might do in the next six months, you'll see everyone relax," O'Toole said.
While he dismissed the notion that a fundamental shift is occurring in the public's transportation habits, O'Toole did grant that the current trend will likely curb the United States' love affair with SUVs.
"Are people going to go back to their Suburbans and Hummers? Some of them will," O'Toole said. "But most will remain cautious about their fuel efficiency."
Push for transit funding
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, many lawmakers starting work on the next incarnation of the national surface transportation law -- the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users," or SAFETEA-LU -- are considering authorizing infrastructure projects beyond highways.
"There is increased pressure to re-examine the formula used to allocate funds for transit," said Hendricks, who was Vice President Al Gore's assistant during the Clinton administration. "We are seeing a series of proposals for new rail projects and mass transit."
The emphasis on changing transportation planning was clear in a report issued this year by a bipartisan commission of federal and regional transportation officials (Greenwire , Jan. 15).
While the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission made headlines for recommending a dramatic increase in the federal fuel tax, it also called for sweeping changes to surface transportation -- from instituting user fees on highways to building a more effective passenger rail system.
Agnew said the current trend of mass transit ridership spikes and the decline in vehicle miles traveled could be cemented by the new legislation.
"I really think the stars are aligning for some substantive changes," he said. "The reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU will be what pushes it over the edge."
Both Hendricks and Agnew pointed to railways as a prime example of transportation infrastructure that needs -- and will likely receive -- an injection of cash in the near future.
"Freight and passenger rail are overlooked," Agnew said. "That's where they can make a huge investment. America's rail system is the next interstate highway system."
Even O'Toole, who warns that such sweeping changes will be wasted when Americans return to their driving habits, admits that the future of national infrastructure planning is set to change.
"Right now, I see Washington leaning that way," O'Toole said. "It is clear that the Democrats are enamored with rail and other collective forms of transportation."
Infrastructure woes
The complexity of the nation's transportation debate is compounded by severe funding shortages.
The portion of the Highway Trust Fund that finances the bulk of the nation’s highway work is projected to close the next fiscal year several billion dollars in the red. Industry and federal officials fear that such a deficit could slow or even stop transportation projects as states grow uneasy about federal reimbursements.
The account, which relies heavily on federal taxes on gasoline and diesel, had nearly $11 billion at the end of fiscal 2004. But inflation and static fuel tax rates, coupled with increased fuel economy in automobiles, have hurt. Revenues have not kept pace with spending.
The American Society of Civil Engineers said a $1.6 trillion investment is needed for national infrastructure repair and maintenance. Of particular concern are bridges, half of which were built before 1964. According to the Department of Transportation, 1 in 8 bridges is structurally deficient.
"As we saw in Minnesota with the bridge collapse, there has been a chronic under-investment in infrastructure," Hendricks said. "Something has to change."
