V.

TRANSPORTATION1
Most of the 297,839,9472 people living in the United States rely heavily on transportation for everyday needs and even for survival. This is mostly due to the transportation revolution of the 20th century, which experienced economic and environment consequences resulting from the widespread use of automobiles and airplanes.3 Now, in the 21st century, our transportation system is posing numerous challenges in regard to energy consumption, dependence, and efficiency, not to mention the serious environmental consequences.

A. MODERN HISTORY OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE UNITED STATES Transportation through the mid-1800s Before the invention of the steam boat in 1817 and the expansive construction of canals, like the Erie Canal, throughout the Eastern half of the American continent, transporting good posed a significant financial challenge, severely stunting trade and interaction between markets. Overall, inadequate and costly transportation in the 18th and early 19th centuries promoted economic inefficiency because of prohibitively high transportation cost, slow speed detrimental to perishable items, and seasonal weather conditions.4 Transportation Costs circa 18155 Transportation Mode Cost per Ton-Mile (cents) Road >30.00 River Boat Upstream 6.00 Boat Downstream 1.30 Ocean <1.00

These inefficiencies and economic constraints within the continent meant farmers could not transport corn more than 40 miles, leaving many people dependant on themselves and not on the transportation of goods. In addition to high costs, traveling from the Northeast to Louisiana in the 1800s took five weeks, compared to the mere hours it takes today.6 Finally, ships and animals were much more subject to weather condition than modern mechanic modes of transportation.

Modern transportation technology In the mid-1800s steam engine locomotives provided a more reliable, cost effective, and fast mode of transportation. The first public train services was offered in 1830 connecting Liverpool and Manchester, possibly foreshadowing the superior and widespread use of public transit in Europe today. By the late 1800s, most of the United States had an extensive railroad network offering freight and public transportation.7 Even by the mid 19th century, canals, improved roads, and steamboats offered significantly cheaper transportation. Transportation Mode Road River Cost per ton per mile (cents) 15 0.37-1.2

Later, with the onset of Henry Fords ability to mass produce automobiles, and the built infrastructure of roads for those automobiles, auto popularity skyrocketed. By 1927, there was one car for every 5.3 US residents. Quick growth was enabled because

car owners and manufacturers, and others involved in the industry convinced the government to offer hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for road construction. The system became so expansive that 30 years later 45 cities no longer used electric rail systems for mass transit. American public transit fell by 2/3 from its peak in 1945 within twenty years. Additionally, the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, in an effort to support national defense, authorized $25 billion dollars for 38,000 miles of divided roads; by comparison, the entire national budget in1956 was $71 billion. 8 This immense funding overtook and almost destroyed the passenger rail system. By the 1950s, passenger jets began servicing flights, but because of the high costs most travelers relied on other means of long distance transportation, via automobiles, buses, trains, and ships. However, lower prices led to flying as the standard mode of long-distance travel, which is actually only more efficient when traveling over two hundred miles. The correlation between price and popularity, as well as the evident government subsidies for road construction will play a crucial role in determining policy for the future. It is important to note, when looking back on the development of transportation technology, that the most convenient, cheap, and quick transportation often wins out as most widely used. Additionally, government funding can play a crucial role in the types widely used transportation with fiscal policy.

B. CURRENT OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION & RELATED POLICY To begin to understand current transportation data, trends, and policy, the commission has examined many aspects of the transportation sector in regard to energy use, infrastructure, and policy. In 2003 in the United States, approximately one-third of Americas 107 million households had one vehicle, over one-third owned two vehicles, and approximately one quarter owned three or more vehicles. Only 8% of U.S. households own no automobiles. That means that 92% of households in the U.S. owned at least one car (see fig. 1).9 In 1960, only 20% of the population owned two or more cars, but by 1990, 16% owned three or more cars, possibly due to the higher population of double income households.10 In 2001 87% of trips were made by personal vehicles, less than 10% of trips were made by walking or biking, and just a mere 2% of trips were made by transit or school bus.11

Figure 1 - U.S. Households by Number of Vehicles: 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

Comparing these statistics to some other countries in Europe and North America, we see that the United States has a much higher percentage of car ownership. In Scotland, for example, 65 percent, almost two-thirds, of households had one or more cars. Only 45 percent of people seventeen and over drove everyday in 2002. Their commuter statistics also differ significantly from ours. 68% of people in Scotland take a car or van to work everyday, 13% walk, 12% take the bus, 3% take the train, 1% bike, and 2% did not fit these categories. Scotlands 65% of households owning one or more cars is little compared to the U.S.s 92% car ownership rate.12 The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) provides another comparison of car ownership per thousand citizens in European and North American countries. According to their tables, Albania has the lowest rate, at just twenty-nine cars per thousand citizens in 2001. The highest rate came, of course, from the U.S. at 765 cars per thousand citizens in 2002. France had 476, Canada had 559, the United Kingdom had 437, and Iceland had 563, all in 2002.13 As of 2004, about 27% of energy in the United States was consumed for moving people and goods. Since 2001, there were three vehicles for every four people in the United States, with 217 million vehicles and 286 million people. Using buses, trucks, automobiles, and motorcycles these people traveled 2.7 trillion miles in just one year, which corresponds to 13,440 round trips to the sun.14 With this information, it is also important to note what types of vehicles traveled most of those 2.7 million miles, as this foretells where the most of future research needs to be focus. Automobiles accounted for 37% of the distance, or 999 billion miles. The rest of that covered distance was 25% light rail trucks, 18% other trucks, 9% aircraft, 4% water, 4% construction and

agriculture, 3% pipelines, and 3% buses and trains.15 This indicates two important ideas. First, future funding and emphasis should be place on making automobiles and light trucks more efficient, as well as on encouraging more widespread use of buses and trains. Within those types of vehicles, cars, motorcycles and light trucks mostly use gasoline. Various technologies, such as hybrid and electric cars, are changing the way these vehicles use energy, but that will be discussed later in the paper. Diesel is used for bigger vehicles, for trucks, buses, and trains. The breakdown of fuels used for transportation is as follows:

16

Most of our energy consumption comes from petroleum. This poses considerable problems in the near future. Aside from rising prices, and an increase in demand from China and India, petroleum resources are limited. While today world oil production is about 60 billion barrels per day, in less than 50 years that number will be cut in half, while demand is only rising higher. This only leaves the United States one option, which is to quickly being investing in R&D for finding and developing the technology to use other energy resources, and use what is left more efficiently.

Given the history of the past 56 years, with enough effort we should be able to head in that direction. While energy consumption for transportation in the United States during 2004 was almost four times as much as in 1949, the sources of the energy has moved away from coal, and has even added a small amount of renewable energy usage. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption17
Trillion BTU Coal Fossil Fuels Natural Gas Petroleum Renewables Total

2001 2004

<.5 <.5

658 705

25,226 27,004

147 209

26,216 27,709

C. TECHNOLOGY, MASS TRANSIT AND THE FUTURE

Automobile Travel Traveling by car is an American way of life. It is unrealistic to suggest getting rid of automobiles as a main form of transportation for Americans to prevent an energy crisis. Still, something must be done to alleviate the pressure on our limited amount of fossil fuels caused by American use of automobiles. Good driving habits and keeping cars well-maintained by drivers can increase fuel economies of every car already in use. Needing several trips to the same location, when better planning would have resulted in only one trip, doubles the energy use of the trip because of all of the cold starts and the energy used warming up the engine. Gas is also wasted by aggressive driving, such as speeding, rapid acceleration and braking. Good driving habits can lower gas mileage by as much as 33 percent at highway speeds and by as much as 5 percent in urban use.

Repairing a car that is out of tune or has failed an emissions test can improve its gas mileage by an average of 4 percent. As much as 40 percent of gas mileage of a car can be increased by fixing serious maintenance problems such as a faulty oxygen sensor.18 However, the greatest achievements in fuel efficiency lie with the vast potential held in technology. Technology must be used to transform automobiles to use far less fossil fuels. Today, auto designers are at work creating designs that use hybrid engine technology, electric engine technology, and hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Hybrids Of the potentially feasible near-term technology technologies, the one that has the most promise for really making a difference in diminishing fossil-fuel consumption is hybrid engine technology. United States hybrid car registrations reached 43,435 cars according to an R.L. Polk survey of 2003 model cars, a 25.8% increase from 2002 numbers. Toyota has sold 306,862 hybrids between 1997 and November of 2004, while Honda has sold a total of 81,867 hybrids between 1999 and November of 2004.19 Toyota Motor Corp. wants hybrids to total 25 percent of its U.S. sales in the next decade. Toyota is considering adding the technology to its entire lineup, even trucks.20 Americans do not even have to sacrifice their love affair with SUV vehicles to switch to hybrid vehicles. 2006 saw hybrid SUV models including the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Lexus RX 400h, the Mazda Tribute Hybrid, the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and the Toyota Highlander Hybrid come off the assembly lines and into car dealership lots.21 Hybrid cars are becoming a very fast growing industry.

The gasoline-electric hybrid car is a mix between a gasoline-powered car and an electric car. Hybrid vehicles have a generator powered by an internal combustion engine or other heat engine converts these fuels. The Hybrid Electric Motor (HEM) is energized by a battery that gets its power from the chemical reactions in the internal combustion engine and is continuously recharged by the generator. In the parallel design, an energy conversion unit and an electric propulsion system are connected directly to the wheels of the vehicle. The primary gas engine is used for highway driving and the electric motor provides extra power when climbing hills or in need of acceleration. In the series design, the primary engine is connected to a generator, and electricity charges the battery that drives the electric motor.22 The technology is not only used in cars. Hybrid electric vehicle drive trains are used successfully in heavy-duty trucks, buses, and military vehicles.23 There are many reasons why hybrid cars are so fuel efficient compared to common automobiles. A hybrid car can have a gasoline engine that is much smaller and more efficient than the one in a conventional car. The engine in a hybrid car is powerful enough to move the car along on a freeway, but when it needs to accelerate quickly or go up a steep hill the electric motor and battery provide the necessary extra power. The gas engine on a conventional car is sized for the peak power requirement, when the car is pushed to its maximum speed. Most drivers use the peak power of their engines less than one percent of the time. The hybrid car uses a much smaller engine that is sized closer to the average power requirement instead of the peak power. Another technique car manufacturers use to improve efficiency is regenerative braking. As a car moves faster it has greater kinetic energy and when a car stops the brakes remove that energy and

dissipate it in the form of heat. A hybrid car captures some of that energy and stores it in the battery. Another efficiency of the hybrid is the electric motor and batteries provide an alternative power source for the hybrid car. It does not need to rely on the gasoline engine all of the time. The hybrid car can turn off the gasoline engine, like when it is stopped at a red light.24 At the same time, key components of the car, such as the airconditioning unit, can run off the battery. The U.S. government can see the potential in hybrids to help prevent a huge future energy crisis in the fact that: the Honda Insight achieves 56 mpg, the Toyota Prius achieves 55 mpg, the Honda Civic Hybrid achieves 48 mpg, and the Ford Escape Hybrid achieves 34 mpg. This is incredible fuel efficiency considering most standard sized cars have fuel efficiency in the 20s mpg and most SUVs are in the teens mpg. The best hybrids have made fuel economy gains of 30-80 percent while maintaining, and even possibly increasing, horsepower with no decline in weight or size.25 Newer designs for hybrids have more conventional appearances. They can often appear and perform identically to their non-hybrid counterparts while still delivering 50% better fuel efficiency. The Honda Civic Hybrid appears identical to the non-hybrid version, but it has a fuel efficiency of about 50 mpg.26 Such results can be translated to larger cars as well. The hybrid-electric version of the Daimler-Chryslers Dodge Ram pickup boasts 15 percent better fuel efficiency, lower emissions and better performance than the comparably-powered conventional Ram. New models are becoming close to the quality of conventional cars without sacrificing its focus of energy efficiency and emissions reductions. The redesigned 2004 Toyota Prius has improved passenger room, cargo area, and power output, while

increasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions. The Prius was even honored as the 2004 North American Car of the Year showing that these hybrid cars are quality vehicles.27 Even though it is currently more expensive than normal cars, rising fuel costs and better designs are making hybrids more competitive. Hybrids can save between $300 and $500 in fuel costs every year which will add up to thousands of dollars of savings in each hybrid cars life time use. Currently their incremental cost of purchase more than the standard equivalent car ranges from about $2,000-$3,000 depending on the level of its hybridization.28 The two hybrid cars most widely owned in the United States are the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius. The Honda Insight starts around $19,570 and the Toyota Prius starts around $20,510.29 To help make hybrids competitive the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides tax credit of up to $3,400 for owners of hybrid vehicles.30

Electric Cars Though it does not appear to be catching on like the hybrid technology, electric cars are a possible alternative in American markets that could help alleviate the pressure put on oil supplies. An electric car is propelled by an electric motor which obtains its energy from any number of sources- a direct connection to a generation plant, chemical energy stored in the vehicle, nuclear energy, or several varieties of renewable resources. Chemical energy is currently the most common method, usually diesel or petroleum. This is the same format used for the electric engines of hybrid cars31 Alternatively, electro-chemical conversion may involve fuel cells and batteries (instead of the internal combustion engine) in autos known as Battery Electric Vehicles

(BEVs). Some problems with this technology, however, are that the fuel cells are fragile, sensitive to contamination, and require external sources such as hydrogen. The batteries require unstable chemicals and must be carefully recycled.32 In addition, the cost and weight of the batteries and the limited driving range of electric cars are issues that recent research has sought to overcome. One solution has been the plug-in V2G, or vehicleto-grid technology. This is a reversal of the standard plug-in so that the vehicle can provide power in case of an outage. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory believes that companies would pay significant sums of money to their commuter employees for keeping their electric cars plugged in all day at the office as a source of backup power. Considering that the average commuter drives 40 miles per day, and the latest electric vehicles have driving ranges of 80 to 120 miles, the concerns about running out of power are becoming less of an issue anyway.33 Electric vehicles have many other advantages. They have a regenerative breaking system like hybrid vehicles.34 Electric vehicles are also 90% cleaner than gasolinepowered cars, cost an average of three cents per mile (versus at least 12 cents per mile for standards), and eliminate the need for services such as smog checks, oil changes, and tune-ups, as well as parts such as gears, gear boxes, torque converters, and differentials. Electric vehicles also boast a 90 percent conversion efficiency. They can travel up to 80 mph. The electric motor can provide up to 1 million miles of service. Current and recent Electric vehicle manufactures include the Solectria Force, the GM EV1, the Toyota RAV4-EV, Chrysler Epic, Honda EV Plus, Nissan Altra, Corbin Sparrow, Commuter Cars Tango, Ford Ranger, AC Propulsion tZero, and GEM.35

Hydrogen Fuel Cells The idea of a car that runs on the universes most abundant element and only excretes water byproducts is almost a dream come true to policy makers. Here lies the appeal of the hydrogen fuel cell engine when used in automobiles. The basic function of fuel cells is to take hydrogen and oxygen atoms and convert them into water, heat, and electricity. This is a chemical and not a combustion process so it spares many of the pollutants that are created in the standard internal combustion engines we use in automobiles today. The most developed type and the one most often used in conjunction with the transportation sector is the Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cell. The main parts of the PEM fuel cells are an electrolyte membrane between an anode catalyst and a cathode catalyst, surrounded by flow plates. The hydrogen is fed into the anode, which is the electrode where oxidation, or loss of electrons, takes place, and the oxygen is fed into the cathode, the electrode where reduction, or the increase of electrons, takes place. The anode separates the electrons from the protons, allowing the protons to pass through the electrolyte to the cathode and channeling the electrons to form an electrical current through the flow plates before reaching the cathode. The cathode combines the electrons that have circulated with oxygen and either protons to form water or water to form hydroxide ions. The end results are water, heat, and the current produced by the splitting of the electrons. One fuel cell alone does not produce very much energy, so generally they are placed together in stacks of about one hundred. The amount of power generated depends on the type, the size, the temperature at which processes occur, and the pressure of the gases. Such cells can provide as little energy as it takes to power a laptop

computer or as much as a spacecraft, and therefore they provide a great variety in their use. In the transportation sector, they can provide both propulsion and auxiliary power.36 As far as safety concerns go, opinions vary about the questions about how secure hydrogen fuel cells are, especially for the transportation sector. According to the National Hydrogen Association, hydrogen is neither more nor less inherently hazardous than gasoline, propane, or methane. Their website claims that for over fifty years hydrogen has been used industrially to create energy safely and that those practices may be applied to passenger vehicles. Other sources have claimed that in comparison to the numerous explosions and dangers seen in gasoline-powered cars, hydrogen has shown hardly any explosions or safety hazards.37 This assertion is probably based solely on the fact that hydrogen is used hardly ever in comparison to gasoline, so of course incidents of any problem would be higher for gas-powered cars. According to the Air Liquide report, hydrogen poses hazards if respired or ingested; it is a highly condensed gas that is extremely flammable and it may violently react with oxidants.38 The primary benefit in the safety sector that gives hydrogen an advantage over traditional fossil-fuel-based engines is the reduction in pollutants. It is non-toxic and does not produce fumes or groundwater pollution, and using hydrogen in conjunction with internal combustion engines would make them more efficient and reduce emissions.39 The Department of Energy does not mention safety hazards in its list of technology challenges, but includes cost; durability; size; air, thermal, and water management; and improved heat recovery systems.40

Long Distance Travel There are four main options to long distance transportation in the United States: automobiles, buses, trains, and airplanes. Out of the four, trains have the potential to be the make the most impact in creating more fuel-efficient travel if the train cars were fully loaded. A fully loaded rail car is 15 times more energy efficient than the average automobile. Based on a measure of the amount of energy required to move one passenger one kilometer in the United States a commercial airplane uses three times that amount of energy and an automobile with a single occupant uses six times that amount of energy.41 However, the U.S. government doesnt seem to recognize this potential in fuel saving. From 1921-1971, Federal subsidies for highways totaled $71 billion, but for railroads it was only $65 million. Adding to the appeal of traveling by train is the fact that short flights are very fuel inefficient. A 100-mile flight consumes 2.5 times more fuel per passenger-mile than a 1,000-mile flight.42 Intercity buses are the most energyefficient mode of transportation when looking at statistics, with over 125 pass-mi/gallon. However, the reason for this energy-efficiency is mainly due to the fact that intercity buses, such as Greyhound buses, receive no subsidies. This situation forces intercity bus companies to maintain high passenger loads in order to survive, which results in high energy-efficiency.43 Because intercity buses maintain high passenger loads already there is not much improvement to be created by recommending use of buses for long distance travel. Increase in use of train travel for long distance trips is the option that has the potential to really help make long distance travel more energy efficient.

Mass Transit National data shows that almost all of our travel in urban areas, about 98%, is done by car.44 The number of cars on the roads is increasing will increases congestion and the amount of time people must wait in traffic. That results in even more gas being used up while cars are just standing idle in traffic. Here is a look buses, subways, light rail, and other forms of public transportation that can be a viable option in helping decrease the amount of cars on the roads and in effect the amount of demand of oil our country needs each day. One of the most heavily used forms of mass transit is what most Americans refer to as a subway. The underground, subway or metro are common names around the world for this form of mass transit system. It uses small trains that have at least a portion of the rails placed in tunnels dug beneath the surface of a city.45 Subway use is a very fuel efficient method of transportation around urban areas. A subway car without standees is 4 times more fuel efficient than a diesel bus without standees. Assuming an average load of 200 travelers per car, a reasonable estimate during rush hour, the energy use is less than one tenth that of the some of the most efficient cars with one occupant. Though getting to work in a cramped subway car sounds like an uncomfortable method of traveling to work it is something that should be encouraged in all cities that have subways that are not reaching close to maximum loads during rush hour.46 Light rail transit (LRT) is a passenger railway that is comparatively less massive than other rail systems. Light rail includes streetcars and trolleys.47 A trolley is an electric streetcar. It draws power from a live suspended electric wire.48 Though not widely used in this country there are signs of an increase in interest to develop more light

rail systems in urban areas. In 1998, the state legislature in Minnesota approved a commitment of $40 million towards a light rail project in Minneapolis.49 A trolleybus is a bus powered by two overhead electric wires. The bus draws electricity using two trolley poles. Trolleybuses are more effective in hilly cities partially because the trolleybuss rubber tires have better roadway adhesion than streetcars' steel wheels on steel rails. Trolleybuses are often seen as more environmentally friendly than buses powered by diesel. The power for these trolleybuses is produced at centralized power plants, which is a more efficient energy source than individual vehicles with their own separate power generations. It is also not bound to a specific fuel source. Trolleybuses can perform regenerative breaking in the same way as hybrid cars. The problem with trolley buses is that they have difficulty competing with the efficiencies of light rail on the one hand and the flexibility and low start-up costs of conventional buses on the other.50 There are three types of buses in wide use in United States cities for the purposes of providing mass transit: diesel buses, compressed natural gas buses, and hybrid buses. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages. Cities try to play with numbers, costs, and public opinion to see how many of each they use in their mass transit infrastructures. Diesel buses pollute the most out of the three but they are the cheapest to purchase. Compressed natural gas buses are well liked by the public because they are the cleanest of the three as far as emitting greenhouse gases. However, they are more expensive than diesel buses. Compressed natural gas buses are also considerably more dangerous to the public should the bus be involved in an accident. The explosion created from such an accident would be much more intense than an explosion from an accident involving a

diesel or hybrid bus. Hybrid buses, though more expensive, are seen as the future in some day completely replacing diesel buses. That prediction in itself makes them appealing to city planners. As infrastructure changes to accommodate more hybrid buses being built, city planners know the price of buying them will go down and those cities can save a lot of money on fuel costs.51 Ballard Power Systems of Vancouver has developed and demonstrated the world's first hydrogen fuel cell powered city transit bus. The range for the commercial prototype bus now under that is now under development is more than 400 km. It is expected that the fuel cell bus will soon match the 550 km operating range of a diesel bus. At present, the cost of the hydrogen fuel cell transit bus is higher than the cost of a conventional diesel bus. However, Ballard Power Systems has established a comprehensive technical plan which will reduce costs significantly.52 Mass-transit users typically spend $200 to $2,000 per year for travel. That figure is considerably less than what car owners spend. When well utilized, mass-transit systems consume much less energy per passenger mile than do automobiles. A single automobile uses over 5,000 BTUs per passenger mile, a train car carrying 19 people uses about 2,300 and a bus carrying the same number only about 1,000. The problem is the construction of mass-transit systems requires a large energy investment, and the U.S., where the development or maintenance of mass transit is not well encouraged, will find it increasingly difficult to make such investments to change how things work in this country in regards to transportation.53

Future of Long-Distance Travel The future and new technology holds a lot of promise for revolutionizing trains. A magnetic levitation train, or maglev, is a train suspended in the air above a single track. It is propelled using the repulsive and attractive forces of magnetism, which causes little friction while traveling. Maglev trains can potentially travel at very high speeds with reasonable energy consumption and noise levels. Maglev trains tend be very expensive both to build and operate with building costs about triple the level of normal high-speed trains. The Shanghai maglev at 20,000 passengers a day at $6 per passenger it will take around 30 years to pay off just the capital costs, not accounting for track maintenance, salaries and electricity. Regardless, one of the biggest options being studied in the U.S. is high-speed maglev lines between major cities of southern California and Las Vegas. There is also a theory of creating maglev lines through vacuum-filled tunnels, where the absence of air resistance would allow extremely high speeds. Theoretically, these tunnels could be built deep enough to pass under oceans or to use gravity to assist the trains' acceleration, though at a very extremely high price. It is also possible to create elevated concrete tubes with partial vacuums have been proposed to reduce these costs. If the train topped out at around 5000 mph, the trip between London and New York would take only 54 minutes, faster than by plane.54 Even with an encouragement for more use and funding of trains airplanes will remain an important form of transportation in the future. Many travel destinations simply are not accessible by train. However, just because airplanes will remain a mainstay in American travel does not mean funding cannot be put into making at least slight improvements in fuel efficiency. Options for making planes more fuel efficient include

reducing cruise speeds, increasing cruise altitudes, and changing ground operations. Each of these strategies offers savings of 1-3%. Encouraging travel of less than 200 miles to not be done by plane can make a dent in the fuel shortage problem as well. Diverting half the flights less than 200 miles to buses or trains could save about 6% of airplane fleet fuel use.55

D. POLICY RECOMMENDATION AND COMMISSIONS PROPOSAL There are many proposals in the transportation sector to be made to help meet our nations energy fuel needs in the coming decades as different forms of energy grow scarce. These proposals would greatly increase the United States fuel efficiency and allow us to use our limited resources to fuel the nation for a long time period. This prolonged time period will give scientists and engineers more time to continually invent more creative solutions to the impending shortages of fossil fuels. Automobiles are the most used form of transportation in the country, and must therefore be addresses. In the automobile sector, the greatest potential of making serious headway in reducing fuel consumption is through hybrid car advancement. Hybrid technology has the potential to double the fuel efficiency of the nations yearly fleet of sold cars. Hybrids are already in the process of becoming the new standard car design. Automobile companies, especially Toyota, are already in the process of building the infrastructure to one day make the switch to hybrid production. Though fuel cell car and electric car technology holds a lot of promise the idea of them becoming a staple of the auto industry is presently not a feasible option. They are far off from having plans to seriously change our nations infrastructure to accommodate them. Government

subsidies should be focused on helping the auto industry speed up the transition to the hybrid vehicles, while at the same time continuing to fund research and development in hydrogen fuel cell technology and electric vehicle technology. With more automobiles on the road causing continually increasing congestion and traffic during rush hour in urban areas, mass transit needs to become a more viable alternative to urban travelers in trying to get to work. Each city is different in which form of mass transit is more effective for use to move its residents from place to place within its urban region, so there is no specific mass transit that can really be encouraged above the rest. Possible options for encouraging more use of mass transit include tax breaks for companies that pay for their employees to take mass transit to work and funding for advertisements to encourage travelers that mass transit is a good alternative for getting to work. Generally speaking, the gap between 80-90% of funding the government offers for highway and the roughly 50% offered to mass transit must be closed. Changing Americans attitudes in their method of choice for long distance travel can help make a dent in our nations energy needs as well. Taxing air travel of a distance less than 200 miles, while subsidizing and making fares cheaper for intercity buses and especially the underused train system in the country could make promising headway. Providing more funding for the train industry in general could help it make needed changes to be more appealing to travelers. Funding for research and development of maglev train technology could have a huge impact on revolutionizing the transportation industry, even if the idea of such a revolution is far into the future. Finally, the United States currently faces the problem that most travel is in fact essential transit between work and home, where often the alternative public transportation

is undersupplied or deficient. Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institute suggest,
that a half-century of government policies have fueled and subsidized the growth of sprawling, haphazard metropolitan communities and have dramatically increased the amount of "essential travel" required for people to live their daily lives. Driving may not be the best option, but it is often the only option for Americans to get around.56

We must provide viable alternatives via increased funding for mass transit and fuel efficient vehicles, with higher taxes and less funding for short flights and fuel inefficient vehicles. More education, more conscious city planning, and more serious government legislationin regard to CAFE standards, funding polities, and research and developmentare the keys to creating a more energy efficient and environment friendly transportation system.

ENDNOTES
1 2

Written and researched by Elan Mosbacher and Max Etin. Research contributions from Laura Brewer. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html (15:39 GMT Dec 09, 2005) 3 Richard Heinberg. The Partys Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New Society Publishers. 2003. Page 64. 4 Jeremy Atack and Perter Passell. A New Economic View of American History. W. W. Norton and Company. 2nd edition. 1994. Page 143. 5 George Roger Talor. The Transportation Revoluion. Holt, Rinehart. 1962. Appendix A, Table 2. 6 Jeremy Atack and Perter Passell. A New Economic View of American History. W. W. Norton and Company. 2nd edition. 1994. Page 152. 7 Vaclav Smil. Energies. The MIT Press. 1999. Page 175-177. 8 Richard Heinberg. The Partys Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New Society Publishers. 2003. Page 65-67. 9 http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/ 10 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n12_v18/ai_18894247 11 http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/ 12 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00316-00.asp 13 http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/Sources/145_Number%20of%20passenger%20cars%20(per%201 000%20pop).pdf 14 Ending The Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet Americas Energy Challenges. The National Commission On Energy Policy. Washington D.C., 2004. 15 http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/uses/transportation.html 16 http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/uses/transportation.html 17 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0201e.html 18 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ 19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle#Mild_hybrid 20 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8813226/ 21 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ 22 http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/hev/ 23 http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/hev/ 24 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm 25 Ending The Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet Americas Energy Challenges. The National Commission On Energy Policy. Washington D.C., 2004. 26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle#Mild_hybrid 27 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm 28 Ending The Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet Americas Energy Challenges. The National Commission On Energy Policy. Washington D.C., 2004. 29 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle#Mild_hybrid 31 http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/hev/ 32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_cars 33 http://www.eaaev.org/ 34 http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/hev/ 35 http://www.eaaev.org/ 36 http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/ 37 http://fuelcells.org/info/HydrogenandtheLaw.pdf 38 http://www.hydrogensafety.info/resources/mdss/AirLiquideH2-MSDS.pdf 39 http://www.hydrogenus.com/safety/ 40 http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/current_technology.html 41 https://energy.navy.mil/awareness/tools/tools_7.html

42 43

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7232476 http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-1.html 44 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/planning/planpubs/mplsplan/oldversions/v4/chapter8.html 45 http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground 46 http://www.vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/debate/issues/efficiency.html 47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail 48 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley 49 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/planning/planpubs/mplsplan/oldversions/v4/chapter8.html 50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley 51 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7955-2005Apr21?language=printer 52 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Publications/infosource/Pub/ici/caddet/english/Do35.cfm?text=N&printview=N 53 Richard Heinberg. The Partys Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New Society Publishers. 2003. Page 191. 54 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_train 55 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7232476 56 http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/20051010_puentes.htm