Proposals to ban internal combustion engines in California are a bad idea

Proposals to ban internal combustion engines in California are a bad idea

Friday rush hour traffic along the eastbound 91 exits to the northbound 71 on April 13, 2018. The $117 million makeover of the 71/91 interchange in west Corona might be finally built. (Photo by Cindy Yamanaka, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

By JON COUPAL |
PUBLISHED: May 5, 2018 at 7:48 pm | UPDATED: May 5, 2018 at 7:48 pm


The latest battle in Sacramento’s war on California’s middle class is the push to ban the internal combustion engine.

Luckily, the effort has stalled.

The legislation that would have imposed the ban, Assembly Bill 1745, died last month, but bad ideas in California have a way of recurring like nightmares. We will see this proposal again, either as legislation next year or perhaps even as a ballot initiative. A number of so-called progressive candidates on the ballot this year have publicly stated they embrace this foolish idea.

The bill that was stopped, AB1745, would have prohibited the Department of Motor Vehicles from registering a new vehicle unless it was a zero emissions vehicle, beginning on January 1, 2040. Under the proposed law, a new car with an internal combustion engine could not legally be driven in California after that date.

A ban on internal combustion engines would certainly limit mobility and transportation options for millions of California families and businesses. And it would arbitrarily limit the development and use of advanced and efficient vehicle technologies, the kind that have already achieved great success in squeezing extra miles out of a gallon of gas.

Today, despite the availability of ZEVs, a substantial publicly funded rebate program and access to HOV lanes, ZEVs accounted for only 1.9 percent of the over 2,000,000 new passenger vehicles sold in California in 2016. And many of these sales are repeat sales to the same households, according to the UC Davis Institute of Transportation, raising the question of whether plug-in vehicles are experiencing widespread consumer rejection, outside of a limited group of true believers.

A ban on internal combustion engines is an attempt to force consumers into buying vehicles that they have decided are not best suited to their needs.

The better alternative is leveraging all available vehicle technologies, including efficient internal combustion engines, so that California can reach its environmental goals without banning or discouraging any technological innovations.

California’s current regulatory mandates have resulted in the state having the highest gas prices in the nation. That has burdened average Californians with a higher cost of living, yet it has not been enough to overcome the significant obstacles to driving a zero-emission vehicle — including the purchase price, the limited range, and the inadequate number of charging stations.

The better option for most California drivers is an increase in the efficiency of internal combustion engines. But a ban on those engines in California would suffocate the market for these new technologies and stop innovation dead in its tracks.

Despite the increased use of renewable energy — mostly solar and wind power — fossil fuels will remain the dominant energy source in America well beyond the target date of California’s proposed ban. Even more than a quarter of a century from now, the Department of Energy forecasts that fossil fuels will still be the dominant energy source, providing 79 percent of our energy needs in 2050. Far from being “energy sources of the past,” fossil fuels will continue as the dominant energy source to power our vehicles, heat and light our homes, and fuel the growing economy.

The production of the batteries on which the majority of ZEVs rely is not free from severe environmental consequences. It’s a dirty secret of the high-tech world that lithium battery production involves heavy mining operations and that the cobalt required in those batteries is sometimes mined in Africa using child labor.

Closer to home, a ban on the registration of new cars with internal combustion engines would mean millions of Californians who can’t afford ZEVs will be unable to buy a new car and drive it legally in the state. While the wealthy may be able to get around the inconvenience of the ban, once again, average Californians will bear an unreasonable burden for the fashionable whims of Sacramento politicians.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The War on Cars

SF residents are the only casualties in ‘war on cars’

SF residents are the only casualties in ‘war on cars’

San Francisco wants people to get out of their own cars and into ones that are being driven for profit. (Jessica Christian/S.F. Examiner)
By Sally Stephens on July 2, 2017 1:00 am



San Francisco is a transit-first city. Those of us who live here are told we should use Muni to get around. Or ride a bike. Or walk. But above all else, we should not drive our cars.

To reinforce this, city policy makes it easy to remove existing parking spaces — turning curbside parking spots into parklets — and explicitly prevents new developments from providing a parking space for every unit built. Some have called this a “war on cars.”

If you look at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s Strategic Plan, however, it turns out that “transit first” includes prioritizing ride-hail vehicles. In essence, The City wants people to get out of their own cars and into other people’s.

There’s no war on cars in San Francisco if the cars are being driven for profit. Those are welcome here — even if the drivers don’t live here, don’t pay taxes here and, often, don’t even know how to get from one place to another in The City.

No, the war on cars is aimed at San Francisco residents.

A recent report released by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority showed that cars from ride-hail companies Uber and Lyft make more than 170,000 trips — driving more than half a million miles — within The City every weekday. Nearly 6,000 ride-hail cars clog the streets during peak commute hours.

Clearly, Uber and Lyft don’t reduce traffic congestion and, indeed, may actually make it worse. Especially considering the fact that thousands of ride-hail drivers live elsewhere and commute long distances into The City to drive because they can make more money here. Without the ride-hail industry, those cars would not be on our streets.

When they drop off a fare, most drivers simply circle the block until they get a new rider. Or they pull over and idle while checking their smartphones, exacerbating other drivers’ searches for empty parking spots. When you add in the time circling, idling and then driving to pick up new fares, ride-hail vehicles would seem to create more pollution than the car of someone who “simply” drives his or her own car from home to a parking garage near their destination, especially if the car is an environmentally friendly hybrid.

A number of studies indicate that ride-hail companies are taking riders away from mass transit agencies like Muni and BART, not taking people out of their own cars. For example, BART attributes a decrease in ridership to both the San Francisco and Oakland airports to former riders now using Uber and Lyft.

Ride-hail use in San Francisco is concentrated in the downtown and South of Market areas. That’s also where mass transit is concentrated, and thousands of ride-hail cars on the same streets can only make it even harder for buses to stay on schedule.

Plus, newer buses and trains have fewer seats. You can cram more people in during rush hour if they’re standing, not sitting. Standing on a bus is not a problem when you’re in your 20s or 30s, but for seniors or parents with young children, it is not always a good option.

In addition, it’s hard to carry several grocery bags — or a diaper bag, toys and a stroller — on Muni. It’s not always easy for seniors to walk several blocks uphill to the nearest bus stop. Discouraging personal car use makes The City less friendly and less accessible for many families and seniors.

For people with a lot of disposable income, or expense accounts they can charge, ride-hail companies may be a reasonable way to get around. But for seniors on fixed incomes or people who are less well-off, Uber and Lyft are simply too expensive for regular use.

At least taxis have to pay a permit fee to operate in The City, and they can’t change their pricing on a whim. Ride-hail vehicles pay nothing to San Francisco and, with surge pricing, can cost you a lot more than a cab.

San Francisco’s “war on cars” targets residents to give up their cars, while allowing — even encouraging — people from out of town to drive all over our city, as long as they’re doing it for money.

Sally Stephens is an animal, park and neighborhood activist who lives in the West of Twin Peaks area.

Anti-auto campaign falls flat

Dan Walters: Anti-auto campaign falls flat

State politicians want to reduce travel by auto


Yet the war on cars is failing

Driving is increasing as transit ridership fades



BY DAN WALTERS

dwalters@sacbee.com


California politicians want to lure – or force – the state’s 26 million licensed motorists to sharply reduce their driving.

Over the last decade, many legislative bills, numerous executive orders and a paper blizzard of plans and regulations from state agencies have declared war on petroleum-burning cars.

Adopted in the name of reducing climate-changing carbon emissions, strategies include spending billions on mass transit, goading local governments into fostering transit-oriented, high-density housing, raising driving costs, and allowing traffic congestion to worsen.

But, as with the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty and the war on drugs, so far it’s been a failure.

Californians are buying a near-record two-plus million new cars and trucks a year – and only a tiny fraction of them aren’t fueled by petroleum. Vehicular traffic is still climbing after a slight, one-year dip during the Great Recession, and transit use has been declining.

It’s not the first time that Gov. Jerry Brown has tried to curtail driving, nor the first time he’s hit stubborn resistance.

During his first governorship 40 years ago, Brown’s Department of Transportation suddenly restricted some lanes of the heavily traveled Santa Monica Freeway to carpools. The resulting traffic jams created an intense political backlash.

Initially, Brown defended the action, saying, “Obviously, the ethic of unlimited freeways that attempt to pour cement from one end of the state to the other is over, and it takes a while for people to adjust to that.”

As the furor escalated, however, Brown ended the experiment, claiming that “Diamond Lanes” were devised by predecessor Ronald Reagan’s administration, not his.

Since then, the state’s population has climbed by two-thirds, but vehicular traffic has more than doubled to 330 billion vehicle-miles a year. With very little expansion of roadway capacity, congestion has reached epic proportions.

A recent study of traffic congestion determined that Los Angeles County has 10 of the nation’s 20 worst corridors, including a No. 1 stretch of Highway 101.

The Brown administration’s newly published California Transportation Plan 2040 indicates that one strategy for moving Californians out of their cars is to let congestion worsen.

An earlier draft was quite explicit in that intent, saying the state should reject “road capacity enhancing strategies” and “avoid funding projects that add road capacity.”

Those words brought sharp criticism from highway advocates, including the California Transportation Commission, and were erased from last month’s final draft. But the plan’s intent is still implicit.

It offers multiple strategies it claims will reduce driving, but while acknowledging that “Californians continue to display their want to drive their cars …” it’s silent on adding capacity to meet demand.

Although state and local transportation officials continue to stifle roadway expansion as they spend billions on transit, the resistance among Californians is evident in the recent experiences of major transit systems.

The Bay Area’s regional transportation authority concedes, for example, that per capita use of transit in all forms has declined by 12 percent since 1991. Sacramento’s Regional Transit system of rail and bus service has seen a 9.3 percent decline in ridership in just the past year and is in serious financial straits.

Californians, it would appear, are voting with their feet – right feet, on accelerator pedals.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article68340617.html#storylink=cpy