|
12.07
- 01.08
Balancing
Wants and Needs in Transportation Policy-Making:
The Energy/Environmental Dilemma
By Patrick E. Meyer
Historically, American transportation systems
have been plagued with problems of
congestion, pollution and safety. The
improvements that have been made (e.g., new
roadways, efficiency improvements and cleaner
vehicles) rarely have a substantial effect
on solving the problems inherent in the system
we have built (Tester et al., 2005). The transportation sector's
most pressing issues
today are the energy fuel-cycle (i.e.,
where we get our energy and how is it
processed, delivered and consumed), and
emissions of criteria pollutants from
transportation. Unfortunately, it is widely
recognized that “progress in reducing
hydrocarbon emissions per vehicle has been
offset by increases in vehicle-miles traveled [VMT]
and emissions while idling in traffic jams”
(Tester et al., 2005, p. 728). From 1990
to 2001, households with two or more drivers
substantially increased VMT in both urban and
rural settings (Davis & Diegel, 2007, pp. 8-9;
Table 8.7). Yet, we don’t really need statistics
to convince readers that congestion has
increased — it's evident every time you enter a roadway.
Should transportation
systems give people what they want or what they
need? Any discussion of wants and needs — in the
transportation sector or elsewhere — must
consider energy dilemmas. In October 2007, oil
prices reached a record high, crossing
the $90 per barrel threshold (BBC, 2007).
Furthermore, consider that from 1995 to 2005, U.S.
car registrations increased 0.3 percent,
whereas registrations in China and India
increased 7.9 percent and 7.1 percent,
respectively (Davis & Diegel, 2007, pp. 3-2;
Table 3.1). The combination of high oil prices
and new booming automobile markets is creating
unprecedented transportation-energy dilemmas.
So, what do we want and need
from transportation? Consider that most
Americans want to own a car, to be able
to easily get from point A to B, to travel long
distances quickly and without danger, to have
low levels of congestion, and to have fewer
accidents. In the energy realm, most people want
cheap fuel and some people want to reduce air
pollution (Buick, 2007). However, only some of
these wants overlap with needs. Most Americans
need to go where they want to go, when
they want to, via an inexpensive, fast
and safe method that reduces passenger
congestion, while having enough capacity for
carrying freight and goods (Buick, 2007).
Perhaps most important in a world that pollutes
ever-greater quantities while relying on an
ever-decreasing conventional energy supply,
people need a fuel source that is not on
the verge of exhaustion, and they need a
fuel source which lends itself to environmental
sustainability (instead of the current path of
environmental catastrophe). The challenge for
transportation policy makers is to convince the
populace that energy and environmental issues
must be part of every person’s portfolio of
needs.
Outside of the
energy/environmental realm, whether
transportation should give people what they want
or what they need is not really a matter of
debate. That is, transportation should give
people what they want and what they need.
Thus, the real issue for debate is how to
properly balance wants and needs of the public
to provide a system which will mostly
satisfy all people.
Edwards (1999) explains that
transportation planners “must elicit from both
stakeholders and the general public their
opinion on goals and objectives, their
perspective on the transportation needs of
various groups across a spectrum from
neighborhood to region, and their views on
competing alternative investment strategies” (p.
402). The continual integration of the
public in the transportation planning process is
absolutely essential to a successful system. However,
public involvement tends to complicate matters —
it begs the question: what exactly are the
transportation needs of various groups?
To determine wants or
needs, transportation planners have a number
of tools at their disposal. They can discover
wants and needs through “targeted surveys,”
“taking the plan to the community,” and/or
communication through the internet (Edwards,
1999, p. 402). Such methods allow transportation planners
to reach out directly to
the public and determine what exactly it is that
they desire from the transportation system.
Yet there remains another
problem: what happens when the wants or needs of
a certain group conflict with those of another?
A transportation system “must be viewed in terms
of the important roles it plays in the
community, from the neighborhood scale to the
region and beyond. Through providing for the
mobility of persons and goods, the
transportation system supports the regional
economy, both internally and in its ability to
participate in and, perhaps, compete in the
national and global market” (Edwards, 1999, p.
399). This statement identifies numerous
stakeholders — community members, neighborhood
dweller, local and remote peoples, citizens and
businessmen, goods transporters, economists and
entrepreneurs, the nation and the world — all of
whom have competing wants and needs.
Thus, “the goals and objectives
that drive a long-range plan must properly arise
from the community itself” (Edwards, 1999, p.
400). The community — whether a
small-scale community or the national
economy — will properly decide its wants
and needs. In other words, needs will be produced
through well-designed transportation planning
due to their demand from the public. Wants will
also be produced, but on a smaller scale for
only those people who demand such services.
Because of this, wants will typically cost more.
For example, due to the decentralized nature of
the American transportation system, almost all
non-city dwellers need a personal
vehicle. To satisfy this need, vehicles are made at affordable
prices and transportation plans account for the
existence of these vehicles, and enhance the
experiences of people driving them.
Yet, some people want a Ferrari or a
Hummer. These high-end, luxury vehicles are made at higher prices,
and transportation plans rarely account for
their existence (i.e., transportation plans do
not permit a Ferrari to legally drive at its top
speed, and transportation-energy plans are
failing because large
vehicles are consuming more energy than was
projected).
Transportation plans may include
aims to achieve personal and freight mobility,
safety and security, system integrity and
preservation, economic growth or viability, land
use and urban structure, environmental
protection, and social equity (Edwards, 1999, p.
407). However, if transportation-energy
dilemmas aren't addressed adequately, the aforementioned factors
become non-factors. Freight mobility is already feeling
the negative economic impacts of $90 barrels of
oil (Mouawad & Maynard, 2005); security is
compromised when the nation's motorist are
dependent upon
temperamental, unpredictable sources of foreign
energy (Downs, 2006); and system integrity and
preservation are on the verge of crumbling when
the U.S. transportation sector is over 95 percent
dependent on petroleum.
However, there may be
light at the end of the tunnel. Statistics show
that demand for
alternative fuel vehicles has grown considerably in recent years. As
mentioned earlier, total vehicle
registrations in the United States have increased at about
0.3 percent per year from 1994 to 2005.
Meanwhile, registrations of compressed natural gas
vehicles increased at about 12 percent per year
over the same period. Registrations of liquid
natural gas vehicles more than 20 percent; registrations of
E85 (excluding flex-fuel vehicles) 66 percent; and electric vehicles 13 percent (Davis & Diegel, 2007, pp.
6-3; Table 6.1). In other words, the market for
alternative fuel vehicles is growing at a faster
rate than the overall automobile market.
Technology diffusion scholars
likely would argue that alternative fuel
vehicles are still in the “early adoption” stage
of mainstream diffusion. At this stage, the
“tipping point” has not yet been reached and
people are adopting the technology only due to
minor advertisement campaigns, word-of-mouth,
and desire to personally or corporately advocate
the technology (Sterman, 2000). At this early stage of technology diffusion,
adopters of alternative fuel vehicles are doing
so mostly out of their their desire — or want
— to be
“green.” Unfortunately, not everyone wants or is
financially able to be “green.”
The challenge for transportation
policy makers is to determine the wants and
needs of the populace, determine where there is
conflict and overlap, determine
which wants or needs should take priority, and
then implement a plan which satisfies as many
wants and needs as possible. Transportation plans must consider the wants and needs of the
community-at-large. Of the countless diverse and
threatening issues facing communities in the
21st century, energy and environmental issues
take center stage.
Regardless of political
affiliation, income bracket or celebrity status,
American drivers must ask themselves: Do I
really need
a gasoline-guzzling, 8,600-lb.
beast to drive to and from work, or to drop the
kids off at school? What people need are
vehicles that satisfy their transportation needs
and benefit the community as a whole.
Achieving this benefit requires a paradigm shift
from the reigning conventional fuels market to
one based on an alternative, environmentally
safe, domestic and affordable energy portfolio.
Although adopting alternatives to gasoline will
not solve congestion issues, it will solve many of the most
pressing security, equity, economic and
environmental issues.
References
-
Davis, S., & Diegel, S.
(2007). Transportation Energy Data Book:
Edition 26. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
-
Deffeyes, K. (2007). Beyond
Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak; Current
Events: "Join us as we watch the crisis
unfolding". Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University. Retrieved 24 October, 2007, from
www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
-
Tester, J., Drake, E.,
Driscoll, M., Golay, M., & Peters, W.
(2005). Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among
Options. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
Patrick E. Meyer is IEEE-USA
Today's Engineer Students' Voice Editor, and a
doctoral student at the University of Delaware.
Comments may
be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org. Opinions expressed are the
author's.
|
E-mail
this page to a friend
