See our Sustainable Transportation Tour page for details about Rich’s 654-mile journey around Illinois by public transportation and a recumbent bicycle.

Why I Am “Pedaling the Talk”:

The Fight for Sustainable Transportation is Critical

by Rich Whitney, Green Party candidate for Governor

Next week, I am going to be embarking on a sustainable transportation tour around our state, covering over 654 miles by bicycle and public transit, visiting 19 Illinois cities and traversing numerous towns and villages in 9 days, without using an automobile.

Why? To make a point about the need to embrace sustainable transportation and to dramatize our need for a Green Capital Bill – a Marshall Plan-scale program to phase out our reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power and build a clean, modern energy and transportation infrastructure.

By “sustainable transportation,” I mean transportation that minimizes or eliminates the use of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases.

I realize that, when it comes to state government, most Illinoisans today are primarily concerned about the budget crisis and the unemployment crisis. I have had plenty to say about the budget crisis. Unlike the other two candidates in the race, I actually have a sound plan to address it, which puts me ahead on that issue. And it is a plan geared to improve our economy as well.

As for the unemployment crisis, a Green Capital Bill is at the center of my plan for building a full employment economy in Illinois. And building a sustainable transportation infrastructure is a key component of that plan.

Why Sustainable Transportation?

We need sustainable transportation to combat both the disaster in progress known as global warming, and the further economic crisis, also gradually unfolding before our eyes, known as peak oil – or the end of the era of cheap oil.

As if soaring gas prices, the terrible human, social and economic costs of wars in the Middle East, and the equally terrible human and environmental impacts of global warming were not enough, the outrageous tragedy of the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill should cause all of us to redouble our efforts to end our dependency on oil and other fossil fuels.

The Problem: Over-reliance on gas-fueled automobiles as our means of transportation.

At the heart of the problem is our society’s over-reliance on the automobile – or at least the petroleum-fueled automobile – as the principal means of transportation. This carries with it all kinds of hidden social costs.

There are over 4,000,000 car crashes recorded a year, with about 40,000 fatalities, including 5,000 pedestrians. Thousands more are paralyzed and brain damaged. On average, two children a week are killed by their own parents backing over them.  From birth to age 44, the number one cause of death in this country is the automobile.  After age 44, it’s heart disease – no doubt partly caused by spending most of the first 44 years of riding in cars instead of walking or exercising. Pollution from automobiles also kills about 30,000 people a year from respiratory illnesses.

Urban and suburban planning are now under the dominion of the automobile, with plans designed to accommodate traffic, not human beings, and with living spaces separated from schools, workplaces and places of commerce. Between 1982 and 1997, the U.S. population grew 17 percent, but the amount of land area that became “urbanized” grew 47 percent. In the U.S. today, there are over 38.4 million acres that are now paved over with roads and parking lots, more land devoted to cars than to our homes. That’s more land covered in asphalt than the size of some entire nations. We are losing 1.5 million acres of arable land a year to roads and sprawl. Every day, the United States loses 3,000 acres of productive farmland to sprawling development – the equivalent of Delaware every year. In Illinois, we have lost 44,000 acres or more of farmland to sprawling development every year since 1995.

Little wonder that more and more of Americans’ precious time is being swallowed up commuting to and from work. In 1983, the average family drove 22,802 miles per year. In 1995, that figure skyrocketed to 34,459 miles a year (enough to circumnavigate the Earth about one and a third times). Today, there are over 200 million cars in America, and Americans spend 8 billion hours per year stuck in traffic. In 1982, the average rush-hour commuter spent 16 hours per year stuck in traffic. In 2000, the average rush-hour commuter spent 62 hours per year stuck in traffic. In short, the auto-based transportation system leads to more human isolation and alienation, more lost time – and more loss of human community.

Besides the adverse impacts on health and community, our over-reliance on the automobile has direct economic costs. The average U.S. family spends 19% of its household budget on transportation, and the costs keep climbing. Parking spaces alone add more than $600 to the cost of a home and $1,200 to an apartment. Government subsidies for highways and parking amount to 8 to 10 percent of our gross national product. Add in the costs of pollution clean-up, related medical costs and about $300 billion a year in direct and indirect subsidies to the trucking industry – and if these costs were borne directly by motorists at the pump, they would be paying much more for a gallon of gas than they are now. Back in 1998, the International Center for Technology Assessment determined that, counting subsidies, costs involved in oil shipment and motor vehicle services, the environmental, health and social costs of gas usage and other externalities, added to the retail price of gasoline, would result in a price of anywhere from $5.60 to $15.14 per gallon. Obviously, the range would be much higher today.

Automobiles account for about one-half of all air pollution emissions in the United States and are the biggest producers of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, emitting about one-quarter of the total. Other threats to our environment caused by the auto-based transportation include toxic runoff, oil spills and loss of rainwater retention due to paved areas not absorbing water the way forested or grass areas do.

The Solution: Electric cars? Sure! But we really need alternatives: A major emphasis on public mass transit and smart urban planning, to accommodate pedestrians and bikers.

While hybrid and all-electric cars present one way of addressing the social and environmental costs of automobile use, that alone won’t solve all of the problems described here. We need alternatives to the automobile – viable, energy-efficient, time-efficient, less polluting or zero polluting, and cheaper alternatives. These alternatives already exist. We just need the political will, the political leadership, needed to invest in and promote those alternatives. They include:

● Human Power – With proper urban design (discussed below), human-powered transportation – walking & biking – supplemented by sensibly planned systems of extensive mass transit, can play a tremendous role in supplanting the automobile. The benefits to human health and the environment are obvious. Walking is non-polluting and bicycles obviously use relatively little energy and resources to produce. New forms of human-powered vehicles, using better designs (recumbents, velocipedes, row-bikes, etc.) show that there is still untapped potential in this form of transportation and that, with continued innovation, it may be able to play a larger role in our transportation future than mainstream American can presently envision.

Yes, it may seem unrealistic to expect auto-addicted Americans to suddenly embrace walking and biking. And obviously, walking and biking can’t meet all needs and circumstances. Yet in Japan and Europe, the combination of higher gas prices and better systems of mass transit, have led to bicycles playing a major role in transportation. Walter Hook of the Institute for Transportation and Development, an international think tank, has argued that bicycling has made Japan more competitive. The Japanese walk and bike more, and pay three times our gas tax. We (as a nation) don’t walk and bike so much, and subsidize the car. The Japanese pay about 9 percent of their gross national product on transportation; we pay 15 to 18 percent. This makes for a healthier economy as well as a healthier people. After all, the money saved on not maintaining an automobile is that much more disposable income to be spent on other areas of the economy.

The social, health and economic benefits of walking and bicycling are particularly valuable when it comes to our children. Having students walk and bike to school can help address the rising rates of childhood obesity, as well as decrease auto congestion and school transportation budgets. I support funding for Safe Routes to School (HB 4948) which would give Illinois residents an opportunity to support Safe Routes to School funding by making donations through their state tax return forms.

● Public Mass Transit, especially Rail

Let’s consider the advantages of railway transit over the automobile:

On average, the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, for rail transit per passenger, are 4.5 times lower than those of a car and 7.5 times lower than those of an airplane. More importantly, there is greater potential for using renewable energy systems to run electric-powered rail than there is to run individual automobiles. Electric locomotives powered via 3rd rail or catenary wires will require no modification to be able to use power from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro or biomass.

Fuel-powered vehicle engines, all of which use some type of petroleum, primarily emit three types of harmful gases: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide CO), and nitrous oxides (NOx). Rail transit produces far fewer of each of the emissions than cars, and less of VOC and CO than airplanes. With respect to freight, railroads transport more than 40% of our country’s intercity freight “ton-miles” (one ton hauled one mile), but account for just 9% of NO2 freight emissions. That’s because a typical truck emits about three times more NO2 than a typical locomotive per ton mile.

Rail travel is more energy efficient than air travel and reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign sources of oil. Even with its fleet of old, energy-intensive engines and cars, Amtrak is up to 45 percent more energy-efficient than domestic commercial airline service. Modern high-speed rail would be far more energy-efficient. Per ton-mile, various studies have shown that a freight train uses between one-third and one-ninth as much fuel as trucks.

As to cost: Upgraded track is 6-7 times cheaper to build than highways. New track is almost 4 times cheaper. In Northeastern Illinois in 2002, adding one lane of new highway to an existing road cost $7.3 million per mile. Building a new railroad track on land already owned by the freight railroads cost between $1 million-$2 million. Upgrading existing track and signaling to handle 110 mph service ran about $1 million per mile.

As to land use: Rail requires 10% the amount of land as Interstate highways.

Rail reduces airport and highway congestion and the associated pollution. Expansion of high speed rail in particular would reduce costs associated with highway and airport expansion as well as productivity lost in travel time. For distances of 500 miles or less, rail travel can be as fast or faster than other modes of transportation when all factors are considered (highway congestion, parking, airport security, travel to air hubs, etc.) Of course, this advantage will be heightened if we make the commitment to high-speed rail. Rail travel is often more tolerant of severe weather conditions than air or highway travel.

Passenger rail provides a transportation alternative to older and disabled people, who either cannot or do not want to be forced to drive or fly. Rail travel is also more accommodating than air travel by virtue of it’s larger seats, wider aisles and relaxed pace. Rail travel permits travel time to be productive time or resting time, without the need to devote full attention to dodging trucks, trying to avoid traffic, finding a rest stop, etc. Rail security is generally less intrusive than airline security. Mile for mile, it is far safer than travel by car.

Efficient public transit, including rail, is of course critical for low-income and unemployed working people, who simply can’t afford to buy, maintain, insure and fuel a motor vehicle and have to have alternative means for traveling to work or to look for work.

To be successful, a rapid transit system needs to be comprehensive. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) takes buses out of traffic by giving them a designated lane where only they can travel.  By using existing automobile infrastructure like wide roads and freeways, BRT can often be established more quickly and at lower cost. Because buses offer more flexibility than fixed rail, BRT can play a vital role in reducing congestion and better integrating existing suburban neighborhoods into metropolitan public transit systems. We should also help modernize bus fleets by replacing or converting buses, using clean fuel technologies: hybrids, compressed natural gas and/or hydrogen fuel cells.”

Some critics say that we should only support public transportation on lines or routes where the ridership allows the system to make money. This is backwards. The whole reason why public rail was taken over by the public sector in the first place was because it became too capital-intensive to operate profitably by the private sector. It is a public good that requires public support in order to operate efficiently, just as auto transportation also depends on massive public subsidies. But “if you build it, they will ride.” That is, if you invest in the system enough to make it fast, efficient and frequent, ridership support will grow far more than the cost of the investment. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, new high performance trains took 25 minutes off the Portland-Seattle trip, and, along some modest track improvements and more frequent runs, this resulted in a 521% increase in ridership between 1993 and 2002. 68 percent of the people taking the train would have driven their cars had the train not been available.

With respect to job creation, a billion dollars spent on mass transit creates about 7,000 more jobs than the same amount spent on road construction. That’s actually a dated statistic; the figure is probably higher now, due to soaring costs for road materials.

● Better Urban Design

Urban planners and urban renewal plans need to re-encourage close proximity between work, school, commercial and residential neighborhoods (and, where practical, combined work/residential buildings or complexes – mixed use, such as retail store on bottom, apartment on top). They should also encourage pedestrian and bicycle transportation via pedestrian-friendly designs (e.g., grids, not suburban-style disconnected street networks) and pathways dedicated to non-motorists (safe bike pathways and pedestrian ways). Studies have shown, not surprisingly, that when the design encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic, more people walk and use bicycles for transit.

In short, our public resources should be encouraging smart urban infill, mixed with open space and public parks, as in older urban designs of America’s great cities – and not encouraging more sprawl, and more planned dependency on auto transit.

The Capital Bill signed by Gov. Quinn last year was in some ways an improvement over prior capital bills but it still reflected some of the same misplaced priorities, the same thinking that equates “public works” as almost a synonym for “more roads.” It devoted $14.3 billion for roads and bridges versus less than $4 billion for public transit, including rail. We need to shift those priorities around. If we do so, we will spend less on transportation, have more disposable income, a healthier economy with more jobs,  a cleaner environment, spend less time traveling and more time being where we want to be, and live healthier lives.

Let’s invest in a better future for ourselves and our children.  Please join with me in waging the fight for a Green Capital Bill – and help me get into office so that I can get it enacted.