To make electric cars work - you need an infrastructure - and more capacity (4.00 / 3)

of electric charge stations - at least at major work places - rapid transit stations, hotels, etc.

And what's the timeframe before electric car range gets realistic for anything other than commuter trips?

---

by: tietack @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 15:46:31 PM UTC

Make it easier to ride a bike to work! (4.00 / 4)

Compared to things like high-speed rail or roads for cars, making it easier for people to ride bicycles to work is cheap.  Yet it, too, is a viable alternative to cars and leads to no carbon emissions.

---

by: ammasdarling @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 15:53:04 PM UTC

Yep (4.00 / 5)

As a bike commuter, one thing I'd like to see is a decent-sized, separate bike lane added alongside all new construction on major roads, including (or especially, really) highways.  For a lot of people, the two big barriers to bike commuting are safety and distance.

A divided bike lane with a barrier would go a long way to both ensure the safety of cyclists and make novice cyclists less fearful of riding in traffic.  Bike lanes added to major arteries could cut bike commutes several miles for many people because often major roads are either illegal ride on or simply too unsafe with the volume of traffic and lack of a shoulder.

It's a great opportunity for companies to add perks like showers and lockers, as well.  The company I work for has a pretty decent setup with a nice, prominent bike rack, showers, and a locker room, and we get a pretty decent turnout of people riding bikes to work in the (unfortunately short Vermont) warmer months.

---

by: L Boom @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:04:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd add universal, high-capacity open-access broadband (4.00 / 5)

as I explained in comments yesterday:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

Longer treatment of the subject can be found here:
http://www.benton.org/initiati...
and here:
http://www.pti.org/index.php/p...

And yesterday at TPMCafe, Yochai Benkler made similar arguments (some additional ones related to education) here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...

To large extent, I see universal, high capacity, affordable, open-access broadband as the nervous system for implementing the multi-faceted systemic change we need.

In a recent post Paul Rosenberg talked about Michael Pollan's perspective on "food" policy and its relationship to healthcare, energy and national security policies.
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

This is what real transformation is about: the relationships between things totally change, the ways they interconnect and interact--or don't--totally change to reflect a new understanding of the world, to solve old problems and create new possibilities...

There is tremendous potential in mobilizing the American people for a common purpose, and this is a shinning example of how that can be done.  The ideas are out there.  Not just Pollan's ideas on food.  In virtually every field you can imagine, there are people thining about how things connect together now, and how they could be reconnected in much better, much more empowering ways.

The issue is not "pragmatic" vs. "ideological".   It's tunnel vision vs. visionary.

I started my response to Paul's post with:

What I'd add to this (and may be implicit in it) is that the vision, strategy and their execution must have a systemic, wholistic perspective and scope, as the Pollan excerpts and your own comments suggest.

That's part of what I liked about Pollan's NYT piece.  He clearly "got" this, and had enough subject-matter expertise to describe the "systemic" problems and potential multi-pronged systemic approaches to solving them.

Perhaps its time to get systemic-thinking experts like Pollan from a wide range of fields (energy and transportation, healthcare, food, national security, broadband, education, labor policies, political and corporate reform, etc.) in the same room (sometimes virtually) on an ongoing basis and craft concrete proposals for SYSTEMIC change and strategies to implement them.  It obviously won't be easy, but the time seems right, the need is urgent, the technology to support this exists, and the risk of failure of piecemeal approaches is considerable.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:07:32 PM UTC

Now THAT Would Be Change We Could Believe In! (0.00 / 0)

And, as mitch's description should make quite clear, it's emminently doable.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:12:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Build the Cities (and inner 'burbs) (4.00 / 2)

Public transportation walkability happen in places of high population density.  The federal government needs to find a way to scrap local snob zoning in metro area which force people to build single-family homes with yards, parking spaces, etc.  Then ante up for more construction of quality public housing--but do it right this time.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:10:34 PM UTC

Atlanta BeltLine (4.00 / 1)

The Atlanta BeltLine project is a plan to buy up old railroad right of way to develop an inner loop of light rail and pedestrian-friendly development. It is a no-brainer as far as green infrastructure development goes, but with the current financial situtation they can't find buyers for the bonds to pay for it.

I heard that asshole goober in chief, Sonny Perdue is not even asking for any federal money for it. Instead he wants federal money for a giant bass pond that will bring fishing tourists. What a dick. It's clear he knows what color his constituency is.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 19:04:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two additional emphases (4.00 / 3)

1. Addressing points 1, 2, 3, I propose a green jobs program to reduce energy usage, including fossil fuel usage, through a program to offer 0-2% federal loans to owners and landlords to retrofit and renovate the nation's homes and commercial buildings for the highest possible efficiencies in energy usage.  Back it with a tax credit as well.  Weatherization, new windows, more efficient furnaces, etc.  I also support a new and significant tax credit for new construction that incorporates environmental design criteria.  Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute has demonstrated that efficiency/conservation measures will pay for themselves quickly, are already technically feasible, require no new infrastructure, and constitute a "new pool" of effective energy supply that is far more easily and cheaply attained than any new renewable supply source. We should invest every new dollar in conversation up to some optimal threshold before getting too heavily involved in new supply; without conservation any new supply will very quickly be overwhelmed by rising absolute demand. Without demand reduction and changes in our usage paradigm, any new supply will prove a chimera.  There is also the added advantage that retrofitting is very labor-intensive work.  True, such work requires skills but that to me suggests a federal training program.

2.  Right-sizing the military and implementing appropriate doctrinal changes.  The current Pentagon budget includes at least 10s of billions in spending unrelated to current or likely future threats but that continue as in the Cold War due to budget politics.  McCain's meat cleaver should be taken to the vast pork and waste in the Pentagon.  Relatedly, doctrinal changes should be implemented to orient our posture toward preventing both asymmetric threats as well as humanitarian crises rather than the heavy-handed, shoot first, ask questions later strategy we have long used.  Among the most important changes is scrapping all plans to weaponize space or deploy NMD or TMDs.  In addition to ending the Iraq War, these suggestions would free up 100s of billions of dollars needed for other purposes.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:11:44 PM UTC

Start with the power grid (4.00 / 3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Start by creating a more efficient electricity transport system.  That's foundational infrastructure that will reduce the need to bring new power plants on line, and keep supplemental oil-fired plants offline.

---

by: jackroyd @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:16:41 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

thanks for adding it.

---

by: tremayne @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:10:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

decentralize the power grid (4.00 / 1)

Build in redundancies to the big plants; set up solar/wind/renewable systems at the household or local/city level to reduce demand, reducing carbon consumption and environmental impact.  

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:12:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know, before we even talk about commuter rail (4.00 / 2)

How about we start moving as much long haul trucking as possible to rail?  It's the low-hangiest of low-hangy fruit.  Long haul trucks are hazardous to motorists, ridiculously damaging to the road, and are environmentally disastrous.  Train infrastructure exists and is cheap.  

The only roadblock I see is the teamsters.

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:35:03 PM UTC

interference with local traffic (4.00 / 1)

CN wants to buy EJ&E in my area, add more rail traffic to existing lines, which studies show would have a huge impact on road traffic around Chicago. In some cases, communities would see fewer trains, but in most cases, there would be more, causing idling cars and traffic backups.

Or so the argument goes...

Now if there were more bridges to be built to get around the railroad crossing issue, we'd be in business.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking From The Top US Port Complex... (0.00 / 0)

Rail is already being used at close to its peak capacity, given the complex of factors involved.  In fact, here in LA/Long Beach port complex and outlying areas reacing all the way to the "inland ports" in Riverside and San Bernadino counties, while rail reduces congestion close in, where I live and work, it adds to congestion further inland, due to the lack of grade separations.

So, it's damn hard making the existing train corridors really work efficiently for everyone.  Building more of them right, so that more truck routes could be replaced, is not nearly as easy as it might at first seem.

I'm not saying it can't be done.  Just saying it's not nearly so easy/simple as it might first appear.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:02:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed that adding capacity might be problematic (0.00 / 0)

but I would argue that the place we are at today is at least partially the result of fifty years of underinvesting in rail infrastructure and overinvesting in the interstate system.

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A new U.S. power grid (4.00 / 4)

Al Gore group urges Obama to create U.S. power grid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Nov 6, 2008 - Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection has some environmental advice for the incoming Obama administration: focus on energy efficiency and renewable resources, and create a unified U.S. power grid.

snip

The plan advocates immediate investment in energy efficiency, renewable power generation -- including public investment in wind, solar and geothermal technology -- and the creation of a unified national smart grid.

"Modernize transmission infrastructure so that clean electricity generated anywhere in America can power homes and businesses across the nation," the alliance said in a statement.

The alliance favors "national electricity 'interstates' that move power quickly and cheaply to where it needs to be (and) local smart grids that buy and sell power from households and support clean plug-in cars."

http://www.reuters.com/article...

---

by: Tom Wells @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 16:48:29 PM UTC

I like the better-grids idea a lot (4.00 / 1)

And Obama's commented positively on variations on the idea in the past.

---

by: mcc @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 20:42:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

smart arterial personal transportation (0.00 / 0)

For years I've envisioned transforming major auto arteries and interstates and vehicles into a smart transport system, where once you reach an entrance or onramp, a smart traffic feedback system will take you where you're going by controlling the rate of speed/braking of your vehicle.

Dreaming big here, but if we had smaller electric/alternative-power vehicles (hydrogen, etc.) the roadways could handle more volume, and by taking flawed human judgment and tendency to disobey traffic laws out of the equation, traffic jams would be a thing of the past. As well, improved efficiency means far less energy use, less vehicle wear and tear, and much lower accident/insurance rates.

Start with the interstates. Work with automakers to develop vehicles for such a system, along with the ability to retrofit existing vehicles, though set cascading limits on age/size of vehicles over time to streamline the system until it can reach an optimal state.

I'm sure engineers could take the concept and improve the hell out of it. I'm a Liberal Arts guy, but it seems to me a reasonable plan until we figure out how to transport matter a la Star Trek.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:24:14 PM UTC

alternatively, vis a vis electric rail (0.00 / 0)

Build cars that can join rail systems and use those and electric rail systems as our arterial transportation system.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:25:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: item #2 (0.00 / 0)

Developing alternative electric highway/rail should fall to the existing Big Three manufacturing base. Michael Moore's post at dKos Wednesday addressed how WWII transformed these car makers into other projects;

Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

the same could happen today to build a new, energy-sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation system.

Like I posted upthread, imagine an electric vehicle that you could drive up to the rail grid, queue up, and leave the driving to a data-packet-like vehicle moving system... and when you reach your destination, you regain control of your vehicle to use smaller existing roadways to reach a final destination.

Far out, but doable, I suspect...

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:34:55 PM UTC

re #4, obesity, health care, prevention (0.00 / 0)

I'd rather see health plans provide for and allow doctors to prescribe personal trainers and exercise instead of pills, when possible, as a first line against disease and obesity-related illness. Or, employers who offer an opt-in to employees for daily, regimented exercise programs to reduce their health care costs.

I was required to do P.E. through 12 years of school, and I miss having the time and resources alloted to exercise. If it were built into our day/system as a subsidized, benefical option, I'd jump on it.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 17:40:43 PM UTC

This was part of the original (0.00 / 0)

eight hour workday battle, in a sense!

"Eight for work, and eight for rest, and eight for what we will."

Among people I know anyway, the biggest obstacle to regular exercise is simply lack of leisure time. And you are right to tie this to healthcare costs, because sooner or later, we pay for this.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:48:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another thing I have been thinking about here (0.00 / 0)

why not make home ec a graduation requirement for everyone?  I see so many people my age or younger who really don't know how to eat healthfully.  There is just a fundamental lack of the basic cooking knowledge to really eat and prepare nutritious meals.  So people just end up buying 'healthy' mass produced crap.

There's no need to go back and reinforce gender roles, but why the hell shouldn't we be teaching high school students to cook and to do basic sewing?

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:50:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would add (0.00 / 0)

I would add that there are ways of integrating

1) The growing wave of Boomer retierees -- who may not have as secure a retirement as they thought -- both in terms of creating opportunities for encore careers, and in terms of establishing a solid health-care system asap.

2) Decentralizing the economy from a few large consolidated firms to a larger ecosystem of more dynamic entities. Stronger economic infrastructure (better trained workers, more entrepreneures, lower barriers via free health care, etc) drives this along with the rest.

3) Development of next-generation energy technology is not only needed here, but is one of the few concievable export industries that we could have in the 21st century.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:06:26 PM UTC

Buses (4.00 / 2)

For over a decade now, the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles has been fighting a protracted war on behalf of bus riders, who are disproportionately minorities and working poor, compared to train riders.  The subsidies for rail are much higher on a per/rider basis. In fact, for them to be equal, you'd have to pay people to ride buses, which probably wouldn't be a bad idea at all, from an ecological perspective.

I like the idea of rail-driven, high-density corridor development, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it's going to have multiple, complex economic impacts.  Meanwhile, treating the large majority of working-class Americans like shit is not just short-sighted, it's downright suicidal.  Bus transportation has tremendous positive externalities, and should be given high priority.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:10:10 PM UTC

Stop subsidizing obesity and global warming (0.00 / 0)

Kill or at least shift subsides away from the corn, sugar and beef industries. Subsides make unhealthy, obesity-causing food cheaper than healthy fruits and vegetables so low income families are encouraged to have terrible diets (think basically all junk-food). Getting rid of these subsides would make it easier for people to eat right. Perhaps the most important result is that getting rid of these subsides would make agriculture in the developing world, particularly Africa more viable providing people there with a way to make a living (you can't make money farming when American and European food is so cheap). In addition to helping the developing world this would cut down on carbon usage as more food would be grown locally. The beef industry is also a huge GHG emitter, the US government ought to stop subsidizing global warming.

Obviously one side effect would be more expensive food. However, you could use the money saved from eliminating the subsides to increase the food stamp program or subsidize healthier foods.

---

by: Jack @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:46:26 PM UTC

We can have cheap food (0.00 / 0)

or we can have high wages. I know which one I'd rather see.

For one thing, a high wage economy, with expensive food, means higher wages for farm workers, too. And it means family farmers have a shot at keeping their farms. It's a win-win-win, for everyone except Big Ag.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:51:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, maybe. (0.00 / 0)

I think the one other exception might be the poorest of the poor (which is why I would definitely prefer a stronger food stamp program and killing subsides to a simple shift in subsides from one set of industries to another).

---

by: Jack @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 19:11:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't understand this "stimulus" thing so well, but (0.00 / 0)

Does pumping money into schools "stimulate the economy"? Could we do some job creation in public schools?

---

by: mcc @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 20:43:16 PM UTC

You mean like, (4.00 / 1)

God forbid, hire teachers and reduce class sizes?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 23:19:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Watch Oberstar's forthcoming bill (0.00 / 0)

Jim Oberstar has nearly completed a bill in the House Transportation Committee which he chairs, that is intended to pump billions into infrastructure and he expects to have it passed and on the President's desk slightly after 12:01 on January 20th.  

He is looking at funding projects that have complete plans finished and approved, and that can be turning dirt within 120 days after passage.  Much of this will be fast tracking some light rail projects, replacing or starting major repairs on bridges and highways, work on flood control projects, and the like.  I don't think this includes the grid, as that is not within the jurisdiction of Oberstar's Committee -- but I understand a major grid bill is also in the works, as is a broadband fiber one.    

The key to Oberstar's bill is projects for which planning has been completed, because this is a jobs and stimulus bill, not necessarily a "new technology" bill.  It might be useful to review what Oberstar is including here, remembering that the intent is generation of jobs and economic stimulus.  The intent is to bring it to the floor early in January.  It is many billions of dollars.  

---

by: Sara @ Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:09:49 AM UTC

Electrification of STRACNET, ... (0.00 / 0)

... the Dept. of Defense designated Strategic Rail Corridor Network, and works to permits 110mph passenger and freight rail would run to $450b over a six year program. If financed by Treasury bonds, it could be funded by access fees.

We could get anywhere from 50% to 80% of current ton-miles of truck freight off the road onto rail, at an energy saving in excess of 80% per ton-mile ... the dramatic improvements in regional passenger rail transport would basically be extra gravy.

---

by: BruceMcF @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 19:07:49 PM UTC