The global shift to electric vehicles is in high gear, but it remains uncertain whether the US will reap the benefits of being a global leader in this transition. Putting the brakes on progress now would put hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs across the US at risk, and it would allow foreign manufacturers to gain a competitive edge over the US auto industry. Scaling back deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) would also undermine efforts to limit climate change.

Our recent research demonstrates that the US EV market has not quite reached a self-sustaining level, where EV adoption accelerates without government policies and incentives, thereby replacing the market for internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). For EVs to reach such mass market adoption, the proportion of on-road vehicles (not new sales, a common misconception) must reach about 16%. We are currently at about 2%. In order for the US to reach this important threshold in a timely manner, policy matters.

Reaching Mass Market Adoption

The automobile, cell phone, digital camera, and computer were all once new technologies that many expected to fail in replacing their incumbents. Initially, each faced significant deficiencies–often called “early market issues”–and individuals and companies were skeptical that they could ever displace the dominant technologies of the time. However, all of them eventually reached a critical mass where their adoption became self-sustaining. They not only replaced incumbent technologies but became so widespread that their early struggles are often forgotten.

In 1903, Henry Ford’s lawyer was famously advised, “The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad,” and discouraged him from investing in the Ford Motor Company. Just 11 years later, 50% of vehicle sales were automobiles, and within another decade, nearly 100% of passenger vehicle sales were automobiles. This rate of adoption is comparable to the growth of EVs in many regions. For example, California may go from 1% of new vehicle sales to 50% in approximately 16 years, while Norway achieved the same milestone in just 8 years. Despite this rapid growth, skepticism about the future of EVs persists.

This skepticism may stem from EVs being in a similar place to where those past technologies once were. First, they are experiencing early market issues, including some that ITS-Davis researchers have identified and are exploring solutions to, such as unreliable charging stations and consumers switching from EVs back to ICEVs. Second, many automakers do not see EVs as profitable yet. Also, since they haven’t yet become the social norm for personal transportation, the population that owns an EV is limited, and prospective EV buyers may not know other owners they could talk to about EVs. Finally, true demand may be hard to detect in an early market.

As with other new technologies, however, there are signs that EVs are on the right track to achieve a self-sustaining level of adoption. Despite early-market skepticism, there are indicators that the EV market in the US and globally is growing and will continue to grow. Network effects are driving adoption in some local clusters; Norway and Iceland may have already reached a self-sustaining EV market; and sales continue to grow in most leading EV markets. The replacement of ICEVs by EVs appears inevitable; it is no longer a question of if, but, rather, when. Billions of dollars have been invested in EVs globally, their sales ratios are high in other markets (53% in China, 20% in the EU), and the sales of ICEVs peaked a few years ago, in the US and around the globe, while EV sales continue to grow.

Policy Matters

Thus far, policy has been essential to EV market growth, including consumer incentives and regulations on vehicle supply. And EV adoption will eventually reach a self-sustaining point, where consumers choose EVs over ICEVs without these policy interventions. But there is a societal incentive to kick EV adoption into overdrive. Unlike some past innovations, EVs are not merely a technological advancement. We need them, along with other changes such as grid decarbonization, to mitigate climate change. Also, there is an economic necessity to spur adoption: because so many other markets and companies are pursuing EVs, the US needs to continue investing in EV production and improvements to remain globally competitive. Indeed, several automakers recently published a letter asking the incoming Trump administration to maintain current tax incentives so that they can compete with other countries and regions that are prioritizing EV innovation.

Without supportive policies, US EV market growth would likely slow, climate change targets would become harder to meet, and some automakers would fall behind their international competitors and risk the same fate as Kodak, Blockbuster, and the over 10,000 companies that were involved in the production of horse drawn carriages.

Continuing or expanding current state and federal regulations and policies will help the US stay competitive and reap the climate and economic benefits of EVs. Specifically, we need to:

• maintain foundational federal greenhouse gas emissions standards and the historic federal allowance for states to implement their own EV sales regulations;
• continue providing incentives, especially the federal EV tax credit to encourage consumers to purchase EVs and support automakers in selling them.
• continue support of the growing EV industry in the US, through measures such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act that support EV and battery manufacturing;
• continue the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program and federal tax incentives that supports the roll-out of EV charging

The foundations of the long-term success of EVs and their eventual, full displacement of ICE vehicles globally are already in place. California remains committed to its EV goals and has pledged to do as much as possible to replace any reduction in federal support for EVs. Other states and nations are likely to stay the course as well. At this critical time, it is crucial for the US, as the world’s second leading automobile manufacturer, to continue supportive federal policies that protect current EV jobs, prevent the loss of EV and battery investments, limit climate change, and help develop a globally competitive auto industry.

—

Scott Hardman is an associate research faculty and assistant director of the Electric Vehicle Research Center at ITS-Davis.

Roland Hwang is policy director at ITS-Davis.

Note: this article was updated on Oct 1 after the Governor signed/vetoed all bills.

One notable addition to this article: SB961 was vetoed by the Governor, and would require all vehicles to have a speeding warning system, alerting drivers if they speed over 10 mph over limits. The senate is moving this bill back for a second reconsideration vote. If they get a ⅔ vote in not only the Senate, but both houses, this bill would have a life beyond the Governor’s decision. The Governor’s veto message applauds the intent of this bill, but suggests this type of action is outside of the purview of the state, and vehicle requirements should be made at the federal level.

—

The state of California is having a lean year, with severe budget cuts resulting in fewer notable sustainable transportation bills than in previous years. Despite this unfortunate budget cycle, a number of transportation and climate policies have moved through the legislature, with some already signed by the governor, and less than a dozen nailbiter bills on the governor’s desk awaiting his approval or veto this week before the governor’s September 30 deadline.

State budget takeaways: Roads and transit funded, bikes and clean air funds cut

While the state’s budget did have a significant deficit, which necessitated billions of dollars in cuts, many of the state’s core transportation expenditures were secured. Many of these expenditures are tied to revenues from specific taxes and fees—vehicle registration fees or gas taxes, for example—rather than to the fluctuating General Fund revenue which can swing with the state’s more unpredictable economic indicators like personal income taxes, sales taxes and corporate gains. The connection to a more stable funding source makes core spending, such as road maintenance, and core public transit funding relatively secure this year. However, ensuring the stability of these transportation revenues long-term will require a transition from petroleum-economy sources, like gas taxes, towards more stable carbon neutral strategies like mileage based fees.

Though this is not the year the legislature makes this transition, the state’s budget will include more electric vehicle (EV) incentives for low-income households. The budget does not include more spending on bikeways and pedestrian access. Bike-ped lost out because these investments are connected to a more vulnerable funding source, the Active Transportation Fund, which has historically been underfunded during lean years; this year’s Fund was $400 million less than last year. This comes at a time when the California Transportation Commision reported large social benefits from the Active Transportation Program based on a benefit calculator tool developed by Dillon Fitch-Polse and Matt Favetti. These cuts may inhibit California’s progress on climate goals. Broader climate efforts are also more vulnerable to budget cuts, and the Air Pollution Fund also saw a $300 million cut, which may further undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Electric vehicles (EVs): Hot topic of 2024 is EV charging reliability and deployment

There will be other winners and losers this session. Charging stations did not get a funding boost this year as AB 2815 failed to make it out of the legislature. The bill would have advanced the state’s plan to expand access to reliable chargers by establishing a Clean Transportation Program to facilitate repair or replacement of non-operational electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. A recent report led by Tisura D. Gamage shows that among DC chargers tested, consumers could charge an average of 77%–83% of the time, with some networks online only 13% of the time. Researchers point to improving reliability of EV chargers as a necessary step to encourage EV driver confidence, which underscores the importance of several EV bills that did advance to the governor’s desk.

For example, AB 2453 was already signed by the governor, and will exempt certain electric vehicle chargers from certain re-testing requirements after receiving maintenance. AB 2037 (update: signed)  will grant counties more control over testing EV chargers and more leeway to issue fines for broken chargers. Charger standardization has been a state priority, and the legislature also passed AB 2697 (update: signed), which will create a caveat for small chargers, requiring that only major EV network providers have to meet network roaming standards adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This slate of EV charger bills charging forward in the state’s legislature largely aligns with findings from UC Davis researchers. UC Davis researchers continue to explore these topics and are currently testing the network reliability and user experience of the public EV Charging ecosystem.

Getting the dirtiest cars off the road: No updates this year

The governor vetoed an effort to retool the Clean Cars 4 All Program, which gives incentives to Californians to replace old and polluting vehicles with cleaner transportation options. AB 2401 would have seen some programmatic reforms aimed at improving equity and effectiveness of the program. Research from UC Davis, led by Debapriya Chakraborty suggests that programs like Clean Cars 4 All can encourage  EV adoption. While this veto does not get rid of the Clean Cars 4 All program, the Greenlining Institute, one of the bill’s sponsors, pointed to the need for reforms to effectively remove the dirtiest cars from the road and ensure that the state prioritizes “supporting communities of color and low-income communities to transition to cleaner transportation.” This topic may be revisited more broadly in coming years, and UC Davis researchers are exploring the role of other state incentives programs, specifically the role of auto dealerships in the implementation of these programs.

Hydrogen

SB 1420 (update: signed) is intended to support hydrogen’s growth by making certain types of renewable hydrogen production eligible for exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that were previously reserved for renewable electricity projects. A recent UC Berkeley and UC Davis research project, led by Berkeley Professor Tim Lipman, recommends that regulators “include biomass/biogas pathways in legislative and policy definitions of ‘green’ or low-carbon intensity hydrogen where they can be clearly shown to have low or negative [carbon intensity].” This new law will heed this research recommendation by fast tracking hydrogen facilities that do not use fossil fuel feedstock. Research shows that hydrogen will likely be a critical tool in the effort to decarbonize our electricity and industrial sectors, and California recently received $1.2 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a hydrogen hub in California. SB 1420 will help support this effort by speeding the development of low-carbon hydrogen production, including gasification of biomass or electrolysis using renewable electricity.

Public transit: Regional bills aim to move forward Sacramento, LA, and Bay Area transit

Several bills address regional public transit issues. AB 1924 and AB 2634, both of which have already been signed into law, allow Sacramento Regional Transit District to expand its service area and offer senior fare discounts. Research from UC Davis shows that income-based fare discounts can be beneficial in some settings, but other factors like improved transit governance are also key in improving service outcomes for riders. This research on transportation governance is relevant to another regional transit bill. SB 1098 (update: signed) will aim to improve management of the Los Angeles–San Luis Obispo–San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor through required reporting and a new stakeholder working group.

Planning bills to advance pedestrian safety, transit and complete streets

SB 960 (update: signed), referred to as the “Complete Streets Bill,” aims to improve roadway design and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users through Caltrans requirements. According to Streetsblog the bill was amended in committee to provide Caltrans more flexibility in its implementation while still advancing the goals of improving multimodality on California’s roads. The need for complete streets is well-supported in the literature. In addition, researchers at Georgia Tech and UC Davis, led by April Gadsby, recently developed a complete streets roadmap, to inform not only development but maintenance of a complete street, suggesting strategies for asset management that ensure longer term multimodal network connectivity. Turning to bigger picture planning efforts, AB 2086 (update: signed) will require the California Transportation Plan (CTP) to be “fiscally constrained.” This would make the Plan more useful and would include financial analysis that clarifies the cost of the Plan’s implementation. The new law will also require Caltrans to report, through an online dashboard, how annual project investments advance the Plan. This move aligns with research from UC Berkeley and UC Davis, led by Betty Deakin, that showed that the CTP was limited in affecting change because it did not mention projects, only policies and strategies, and this omission limits how regions can interpret the state’s guidance and choose between projects. Fiscally constraining the CTP may move the state in the direction of making the CTP more practical and implementable.

Automated vehicles: Amid more regulatory activity, lawmakers also call for more data and more traffic tickets

State regulators have recently issued several draft rules on the topics of automated vehicles (AV) operation and data sharing and are currently taking open public comments on these rules (Proposed decision of the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC], Proposed rules of the Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV]). But California elected lawmakers also want to get in on this AV policymaking action and are proposing a few slightly different sets of requirements, with some overlap. For example, DMV is proposing that AVs include an external microphone and speakers and a visual indicator to show law enforcement whether the car is in autonomy mode or not. AB 1777 (update: signed) passed with a more than a ⅔ majority in the senate and a strong showing in the assembly as well, so this may have been a veto-proof bill. The new law will require a phone line in AVs equipped with “two-way voice communication,” to ensure emergency responders can interact with staff members representing the vehicle fleet. AB 1777 also calls for companies to be able to respond to a “geofencing message” that might restrict their movement into or out of an emergency zone, or otherwise restricted area. UC Davis research led by Mollie D’Agostino reports that cities are looking for strategies to improve interactions between first responders and fully driverless vehicle operators, so both the proposed regulations and the new law may speak to these goals.

Both regulators and elected officials are also weighing in on how to better capture automated vehicle data. A recent UC Davis white paper underscores the importance of data collection to advance sufficient oversight of autonomous vehicle operators. The proposed decision from the CPUC proposes to expand quarterly reporting requirements on crashes and incidents, as well as expanding reporting on what they refer to as “vehicle immobilizations” or stopped vehicles. The legislature also passed AB 3061 (update: vetoed). This bill would have addressed many similar topics covered in both the CPUC and DMV proposed rules. For example AB 3061 would have called for a  faster incident reporting timeline, which is somewhat similar to what DMV is proposing for accident reporting, but also requiring companies to more quickly report on other incidents of traffic or safety violations. Since AB 1777 is now law, but AB 3061 is not, regulators will have to defer to the legislature and update regulatory requirements to align with AB 1777.

Autonomous Trucks: Bill could stop recent regulatory go-ahead

The aforementioned DMV proposed automated vehicle rule also includes a plan to lift the historic ban on the operation of driverless heavy-duty freight vehicles, weighing more than 10,000 lbs, and to develop a testing-to-deployment phasing strategy. Yet AB 2286 (update:vetoed)  would have blocked elements of this regulatory action and required safety drivers to be present in all heavy-duty automated vehicles operating in the state all the time. This would have blocked a pathway for full deployment of automated trucks in California. At several DMV workshops on the topic of automated trucking, many drivers and union organizers conveyed that they are fearful of workforce impacts of automated trucking. However, research led by UC Davis professor Miguel Jaller evaluated the impacts of automation on freight jobs, finding that due to long timelines for adoption and other considerations, automation is not likely to result in immediate or severe workforce effects. Jaller found that policy interventions may still be necessary to help ensure workers are not impacted. Other research points to where there may be workforce growth in the AV sector. UC Davis and UCLA researchers are investigating policy and safety considerations for two key human roles in an automated vehicle fleet, the safety driver and remote operator. The new DMV proposed rule does expand on the definitions of the remote roles, and suggests more explicit training and licensure requirements.

Bikes

A Class III bikeway is where bike riders and car drivers share space, often marked by sharrows showing the preferred bicyclist lane position. SB 1216 (update: signed) will prohibit some agencies from installing a Class III bikeway on a road where the speed limit is greater than 30 miles per hour and prevent the use of Active Transportation Program funds for Class III bikeways. Dillon Fitch-Polse led an ITS research report that supports the idea that high speed roads should not have unprotected bike traffic. Another bike lane bill sailed through the legislature and has already been signed by the governor, SB 689 will ease the requirements for coastal cities to convert motorized vehicle lanes into dedicated bicycle lanes. Meanwhile a similar bill dubbed the Quicker and Better Bikeways Bill, AB 2290 failed to make it out of committee and would have authorized a “quick build” pilot program within Caltrans to more efficiently implement capital improvement projects, and would also prohibit Class III bike lanes from seeking Active Transportation Program funding.

E-bikes: Bill bonanza

UC Davis research led by Dillon Fitch-Polse shows that electric bikes (e-bikes) are a good strategy for reducing car dependence. And as e-bikes proliferate, so have California bills addressing their safety and local usage restrictions. At least four e-bike bills made it to the governor’s desk  (and several others died in the legislature). AB 1774, dubbed the E-Bike Modification Bill by the CalBike Coalition, was passed and signed by the governor. The law will prohibit someone from tampering with a product to make it exceed the defined speed capability of an e-bike. SB 1271 (update: signed)  the E-Bike Battery Safety Bill, will now prohibit a person from selling, leasing, or renting an e-bike unless the battery has been tested by an accredited laboratory for safety compliance. Finally, several locally-focused bills seek to limit ages for e-bike usage. AB 1778 (update: signed) will  authorize Marin County to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit a person under 16 from operating a class 2 electric bicycle or require a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a bicycle helmet. (Class 2 e-bikes have throttles to power the bike even when the rider is not pedaling, and they are limited to 20 miles per hour.) AB 2234 (update: signed) is now law and will enable San Diego to limit riders to 12 and older.

—

Mollie Cohen D’Agostino is Executive Director of the Mobility Science, Automation and Inclusion Center at the ITS-Davis

Simone Hudson is a law student at the UC Davis School of Law

Sara Schremmer is Policy Director at the National Center for Sustainable Transportation at ITS-Davis

Juan Carlos Garcia Sanchez is EV Policy and Equity Manager at the EV Research Center at ITS-Davis

Colin Murphy is co-Director of the Low Carbon Fuel Policy Research Initiative at ITS-Davis

Widespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) is a key strategy to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses and pollutants. To help implement this strategy, US federal and state agencies, utilities, and private companies are investing billions of dollars in public PEV charging infrastructure. This effort is intended to not only provide charging support for current PEV owners, but also promote PEV sales to potential future buyers.  However, when we tested the assumption that the mere presence of more charging stations can encourage people to buy or lease PEVs, we found it to be faulty.

In part, the expectation that building public charging prompts PEV sales is based on the observation that areas with more public chargers have higher PEV sales than areas with fewer chargers. However, this association does not necessarily prove that more public charging causes more PEV sales. It could be that the reverse is true—that increased PEV sales causes more public charging to be installed. Concluding that the presence of more chargers causes more sales relies on an untested assumption that people who do not own PEVs take note of public chargers around them. However, as cognitive studies have shown, we tend to notice only those things in our environment that we are attuned to or that have significance for us. 

In a recent study, we tested the assumption that people even notice public chargers, and we examined the possible relationships between public charger density, whether people see chargers around them, and whether those people are considering a PEV purchase or have already acquired a PEV. We surveyed nearly 3000 car-owning households in urban, suburban, and rural California and matched respondents’ residential and workplace ZIP codes to the density of public charging locations and PEV registrations in those areas. 

We found no relationship between the density of public PEV charging locations in respondents’ residential ZIP codes and whether they report seeing PEV charging locations or have considered purchasing a PEV. Nor did we find a relationship between public charging density and participants’ assessments of their access to PEV charging. 

Rather, regardless of the number of charging stations, the respondents who were more likely to report seeing them were those with a prior interest in PEVs. Those with no prior interest in PEVs were less likely to report seeing them. Prior interest, or engagement, with PEVs was defined as awareness (“Have you heard…”), knowledge (“Do you know…”), and assessment (“What do you think…”) of PEVs. For those who commute to a workplace outside their residential ZIP code, the results were the same, even if charging density in their workplace ZIP code was considered. 

We found no evidence to support the assertion that seeing public PEV charging leads directly to PEV purchase consideration. Rather, seeing more public charging was associated with having a more positive assessment of whether there are enough PEV charging locations and that PEVs are ready for a “mass market.” In turn, both these assessments were associated with consideration of buying or leasing a PEV. 

Our findings align with research from cognitive and experimental psychology on what people do and don’t see in their environment. For people with little or no interest in PEVs, public PEV charging may be of little importance, so they may not even notice charging infrastructure. Compared to someone with a prior interest in PEVs, they are unlikely to have ever actively searched for charging or to perceive cues to its presence or absence. 

These results show that it is not enough for public charging to simply exist; people must perceive its existence for it to prompt or influence PEV purchase consideration. In order to perceive public PEV charging, people must first be interested in doing so.

Engaging many more people with PEVs—through promotion, education, and outreach—appears to be a necessary step for investments in PEV charging infrastructure to have their hoped for effect on PEV sales. Thus, we recommend a greater focus on and more investment in education and promotional programs that engage people with PEVs. Investments into public charging infrastructure, though necessary, are unlikely on their own to increase engagement with and sales of PEVs among the broader population.

___

Kelly Hoogland is a Graduate Student Researcher with the EV Research Center

Kenneth Kurani is Associate Researcher, Consumer Research Emphasis, at the EV Research Center

Scott Harman is Associate Research Faculty and Assistant Director of the Electric Vehicle Research Center

Widespread adoption of electric vehicles—combined with a shift in travel modes towards more walking, cycling, and transit use—can help ease the climate crisis, improve quality of life, and save Americans money. A key to shifting travel modes to less automobile use is making biking, walking, and transit safer and more convenient by redirecting infrastructure investments and making urban areas more compact. When compared to the trajectory we are currently on, faster vehicle electrification and a shift in travel modes could save the US economy a cumulative $13 trillion, save the average urban resident $2,000 per year, reduce transportation inequities, and make cities more livable.

A recent study, from ITS-Davis and the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, explores four scenarios and identifies steps that can move us in the direction of cost savings and lower emissions of greenhouse gasses and pollutants:  

• In the Business as Usual scenario, vehicle electrification and a shift in travel modes occur gradually, according to current trends and policies.  
• In the Electrification scenario, the transition to electric vehicles is faster – as fast as experts consider possible.  
• In the Mode Shift scenario, people use non-automobile travel modes at a “maximum feasible” level as these modes become more feasible and appealing. 
• In the fourth Electrification + Shift scenario, these last two scenarios are combined.  

Electrification 

The Electrification scenario has sales of new light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks) reaching 60% electric nationwide by 2030 and 100% by 2050. The US reached about a 7.6% electric (and plug-in hybrid) vehicle market share in 2023, which is a good start, but there is a ways to go.

Achieving the Electrification scenario will probably require that eventually: 1) electric vehicles provide significant ownership savings compared to gasoline vehicles; 2) electric vehicle ranges are sufficient to meet all driving situation needs, and 3) public charging becomes widely available at or close to most homes and in public roadside locations convenient for long trips. If these conditions can be met, then the main challenge will be a marketing one: convincing Americans that EVs are desirable and meet their needs.

Mode Shift

Getting Americans to reduce their dependence on cars and use other modes of transportation may seem harder than going electric, though the changes envisioned in our Mode Shift scenario are not massive. In this and the combined Electrification + Shift scenario, urban car, SUV, and personal pick-up truck (light-duty vehicle) travel in 2050 would be about 25% less than in the Business as Usual scenario. This reduction goes along with much better infrastructure to increase travel by transit, biking, and walking. And even with the increases in infrastructure and operations for these modes, the shift will save governments and individuals considerable funds and provide an important range of health benefits, which are described in the report.

But what changes are needed to make such a mode shift possible? It will require increasing density and mixed-use development in cities and suburbs, coupled with more sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and safer streets with slower traffic. All of this will encourage people to choose to walk or ride a traditional or electric bike or an e-scooter. Electric bikes could play a growing role for trips under 5 miles if roadways are designed to make this safe. On the transit side, there is a critical need for more frequent service, which could be made possible by increased population density and would make using transit more appealing and logical. People will need to consider these modes convenient and safe and at least give them a try. Having the right infrastructure and shorter trips is a prerequisite. 

American cities are already getting denser, but the trend is gradual. The average neighborhood has about 12,500 people per square mile today, and we’re on track to increase to 13,500 by 2050. But achieving the Mode Shift and combined scenario will require reaching an average density of nearly 17,000 people per square mile by 2050. This doesn’t mean that everywhere will look like New York City—it just means that the average American city will look more like Los Angeles than Atlanta, the average neighborhood more like Arlington, Virginia than Arlington, Texas.  

Small and large cities will have a density and layout more resembling a walkable town than spread out areas of housing, miles from shopping plazas. Such moderate densities can be achieved through public policy that is already being adopted in some states. Examples include “missing middle” policies to legalize multi-family housing up to six or eight units on all lots and removal of requirements for a minimum of off-street parking. The densified cities in the mode shift scenarios will not require anyone to leave or redevelop their home against their wishes—it will only create a supply of walkable neighborhoods that are currently in high demand. 

The expansion of public transit and protected bike and pedestrian ways will require investment, but the funds required are less than what is currently spent on building and maintaining road infrastructure. The estimated cumulative savings for national, state, and local governments between 2024 and 2050 would be $2 trillion. Similarly, much of the annual savings of $2000 for urban residents would come from the reduction in car ownership.  

Action Plan

The most important point is that we need citizens and governments committed to making this happen, voting for it, and re-allocating sufficient funds. The report on our study provides a list of policy strategies at federal, state, and local levels that would enable these changes. Some examples include:  

• Modestly increase the tax on internal combustion engine cars to help fund incentives to lower the costs of electric vehicles and to fund transit and infrastructure for cycling and walking. 
• Support equitable placement of public charging points and charging in multi-unit dwellings. 
• Reallocate federal and state transportation budgets and road space to walking, cycling, and public transport. 
• Entirely stop building new roads or expanding existing ones. Use the funding to maintain and improve the capacity of existing roads by reallocating space to more efficient modes, like cycling and public transport. 
• Along major roads, build a connected, integrated network of bus rapid transit lines—buses that operate like light rail: have a dedicated center-running lane, take priority at intersections, and are boarded from stations. 
• Redirect existing subsidies for fossil fuels to the expansion and decarbonization of the nation’s electricity system to support clean transportation and other uses. 

This transformation is possible. Cities around the country have already proven that it can be done. In only two years, Seattle transformed its bus network such that 64% of residents live near a bus line with ten-minute service or better, up from only 25% before the change, leading to increased ridership. Arlington, Virginia demonstrated the importance of rapid transit: by routing a Metro line through commercial neighborhoods and building density around the stations. Arlington was able to dramatically increase population and tax revenue without any increase in traffic. In the future, cities around the country could replicate this success using affordable bus rapid transit instead of rail. The state of Minnesota is debating an act that could remove parking minimums all across the state, cutting required parking lot construction, and thus making additional space available for housing, shops, and walking.  

In 30 years, our cities could be greener, more walkable, more efficient, less congested, quieter, and more affordable. We could save money for the public and private sectors. We could reduce air pollution, social segregation, and the cost of living. All that’s needed is the collective willingness to act.  

——————– 

Lewis Fulton is Director of the Energy Futures Program at ITS-Davis.