Steffenson: Electric rail better than more roads

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Mr. Craig Thompson, Executive Director
WI Transportation Development Association (www.tdawisconsin.org)

Dear Mr. Thompson:

I agree with much that you wrote in today's [July 2] WI State Journal column, and I agree that Wisconsin needs a dialogue on its whole transportation system and how it is funded, as well as how to increase alternative public transit so that we become less dependent on cars, trucks and aviation -- all of which are prime sources of toxic pollution and green house gas emissions.

One strategy, of course, is to reduce that impact with plug-in hybrid cars and trucks, electrification of our railroads, expansion of passenger rail (both long-distance and commuter), efficient diesel, bio-fuels, etc. But we must also substantially reduce the use of oil-based (or even coal oil) fuels for our transportation needs and stop the paving of prime landscape.

However, the fuel tax is an efficient way to make users pay the cost of the infrastructure from which they mainly benefit. (Is there a similar tax on aviation fuel? I hope so.) The problem is that most of that tax is used not only to maintain the current highway network, but to expand it. Thus, we get caught in the vicious spiral of expanding highways or building new major arteries because they are currently clogged, so that people are encouraged to drive more and extend urban sprawl, which only makes matters worse in the longer run. I'd like to see perhaps 40% of the gas and aviation fuel tax go for alternatives for the next decade or so such as what I propose below.

In looking over your coalition membership, I appreciate it that you include all modes of transportation, but your membership seems heavily skewed to highway and aviation interests. For the next decade, I would like to see your organization, and all concerned governmental units, focus on building an electrical rail infrastructure in Wisconsin comparable to the current highway network while doing mainly maintenance on the highway network rather than expansion.

Some elements of an expanded Wisconsin rail network I'd recommend are:

1. Extension and expansion of the commuter rail lines from Chicago to Milwaukee, onward to Madison and north to the Fox Valley and Green Bay, and achieve more separation between passenger and freight rail (and improve freight rail).
2. Support commuter rail (e.g. Madison) and city or inter-city light rail where appropriate; improve and expand local buses.
3. Support the Midwest High Speed Rail network (electrified) plan, especially the Chicago-Minneapolis leg; and perhaps an additional route from Chicago, western suburbs, Rockford, Madison, and then on to Minneapolis.
4. Support increased bus feeder routes (using fossil-free fueled buses) to that network and between other cities around the state.
5. Support strong regional planning, with taxing power, to develop these public modes so that they inter-connect seamlessly.

Whether all this might be financed by a wider mix of revenue rather than an efficient fuel tax certainly needs to be discussed. The principle that I think must be maintained is that the dominant highway and aviation sectors must be reduced by a green tax shift from fuel taxes or other sources to finance the rail and other new alternatives for a time. We who drive, fly, and get our goods by truck, as well as those who profit from the current subsidy distortion in our system, must help pay for these shifts, diversification, and reduction of those modes! If this becomes the priority for a decade, then all sectors could enjoy and thrive from a more diversified and balanced system in the future. Growth alone does not bring prosperity nor does it solve all the threats and problems we are now experiencing.

Other revenue sources might include putting auto and truck registrations on a sliding-fee scale giving incentives for increased efficiency and causing inefficient or heavy-destructive modes pay a whole lot more.

I hope we can have the wider discussion, without any pre-conceived limitations or biases, which I understand you are advocating for in your column. Thank you for your suggestions in today's column.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dave Steffenson, Ph. D. (specialist in ecological ethics)
Acting Director and Education Coordinator
Wisconsin Interfaith Climate & Energy Campaign, Inc. (WICEC)
PO Box 260066, Madison, WI 53726-0066
www.wicec.org, dsteffe@charter.net

P. S. In all of the above e-letter, I am speaking only for myself as the WICEC Board has not considered the transportation sector, but I draw on some general principles we do support as an organization. But these are only my views at this point.