Tag: transitions

Transportation, urbanism, and energy: Three elements that can change it all

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 1 Jan 2026
No Comments on Transportation, urbanism, and energy: Three elements that can change it all

Transforming how we move, how we build and use land, and how we power our societies is central to creating a livable, equitable, climate‑safe future. Transportation, urbanism, and energy together shape the bulk of global emissions and also determine access to jobs, housing, food, and opportunity. When these systems are redesigned with people and ecosystems in mind, they become powerful levers for cutting pollution, improving health, reducing costs, and strengthening communities against the disruptions that are already here.

Foundations: Demand-Side Solutions, “ASI,” Resilience, and Wellbeing

Several cross‑cutting ideas underpin this transformation. One is demand‑side solutions. These are practical ways to reduce resource use and travel demand that are closely aligned with saving money and boosting efficiency. Better insulation and efficient appliances lower energy bills. Compact urban form shortens trips and reduces fuel costs. Logistics improvements cut freight mileage and operating expenses. Demand‑side solutions matter because they can deliver large emissions cuts while saving households, businesses, and governments money. Yet they often do not scale on their own. Users are largely subject to the products and services they are offered and the rules that shape those offers. Utilities make money by selling energy, not saving it, unless policies change. Automakers profit from larger, more expensive vehicles. Building owners often pass energy costs through to tenants, which weakens incentives to invest in efficiency. Without regulation, incentives, and public investment that reward using less, demand‑side solutions remain underused.

Building on that, a second foundational concept is the “Avoid–Shift–Improve” (ASI) framework. First, avoid unnecessary resource use and travel demand. Then, shift what remains to cleaner and more efficient options. Finally, improve technologies and operations. ASI matters because it multiplies what is possible. By avoiding and shifting first, technology improvements do not have to work as hard or as fast to deliver big gains. Yet ASI does not play out on its own because current systems, habits, and investments tend to lock in inefficient patterns, like long commutes and sprawling land use. Many planning and investment decisions still assume more driving, more infrastructure, and more consumption, rather than rethinking the need for them.

A third unifying idea is a broad notion of climate action as resilience that combines mitigation, adaptation, and a just transition. Mitigation reduces emissions. Adaptation prepares communities for the impacts that are already locked in. A just transition ensures that workers and communities are supported and empowered through the changes ahead. Resilience in this wider sense matters because climate risk is social and economic, not just physical. It affects jobs, housing, food systems, and political stability. Yet this kind of resilience does not emerge automatically. Market forces alone do not protect the most vulnerable, and investments in resilience are often delayed because their benefits are long term and diffuse. Intentional policies, strong institutions, and community leadership are needed to make resilience real and fair.

Wellbeing is a fourth pillar and asks how climate actions can make life better. It generally includes the foundations already mentioned—demand-side solutions, with ASI as part of that, and resilience—but it is broader. Cleaning up air pollution improves health and reduces medical costs. Making streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians encourages physical activity and gives people more choices in how they get around. Deploying electrification in ways that give people more control over their finances, such as stable electricity costs, home solar, and community energy programs, can reduce stress and increase financial security. In sum, it’s a lens for focusing on climate solutions that provide the greatest benefit. Wellbeing matters because it aligns climate policy with people’s immediate interests and daily lives, which builds lasting support. Yet wellbeing is not guaranteed. Many decisions are driven by short‑term profit or narrow cost calculations that ignore health, safety, and community impacts. Without intentional design, climate measures can even worsen inequities, for example if clean technologies are only affordable for wealthier households.

Transportation: Rethinking How People and Goods Move

Reimagining transportation starts with how and why people and goods move in the first place. Applying ASI, we can avoid some travel through digital services, better local access to jobs and amenities, and shorter, more regional supply chains. We can then shift many remaining trips to low‑carbon modes such as walking, cycling, micromobility, high quality public transit, and rail for both passengers and freight.

We still need motorized vehicles for many trips. Here, the focus is on improving technology, mainly through electrification and efficiency. That means scaling up electric buses, delivery vehicles, and passenger cars, investing in safe and dense networks for walking and cycling, and prioritizing rail and zero‑emission trucks for freight. Aviation and shipping are harder to decarbonize, so they rely more on efficiency measures, demand moderation, and truly sustainable fuels where needed. Done well, this transformation reduces congestion and air pollution, lowers household transport costs, improves safety, and makes access to opportunity less dependent on car ownership.

Urbanism: Middle Housing, Urban Form, and Land Stewardship

Urbanism, meaning how we plan cities, towns, and regions, both enables and amplifies these mobility changes. Compact, mixed‑use, transit‑oriented development brings homes, jobs, schools, and services closer together so that many trips can be shorter or not needed at all.

A crucial piece of this is infill “middle housing.” This includes a diverse range of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, small multiplexes, and accessory dwelling units added within existing neighborhoods. Middle housing is more space and energy efficient than detached single‑family homes. Because it is often located in existing urban fabric, it is also locationally efficient. It allows more people to live closer to where they need to go, which makes walking, cycling, and transit more viable and supports lower household transportation costs.

At the same time, building standards and retrofits can dramatically increase energy performance and comfort through insulation, passive solar design, natural ventilation, high‑performance windows, efficient appliances, and heat pumps. Thoughtful urbanism also stewards land and ecosystems. It preserves high quality farmland and natural habitat at the urban edge, integrates urban agriculture where appropriate, restores wetlands and river corridors, and weaves green and blue infrastructure through the built environment to cool cities, manage floods, and support biodiversity. The result is development that lowers emissions, enhances resilience, and broadens access to decent, affordable housing.

Energy: Widespread Electrification and Cleaner, More Effective System of Power

Modernizing energy systems through widespread electrification provides the backbone that makes low‑carbon transport and urbanism truly scalable. The central move is to shift from fossil‑based fuels toward a clean, largely renewable, highly integrated electric system. This involves rapidly expanding wind, solar, and other low‑carbon generation, reinforcing and interconnecting grids, and adding flexibility through storage, demand response, and smart controls.

As buildings and vehicles electrify, the grid becomes the central organizing system for energy and its design must prioritize reliability, affordability, and security. At the same time, distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, community solar farms, neighborhood batteries, and resilient microgrids can give communities more direct control over their energy, keep critical services running during disruptions, and share economic benefits more widely.

Where direct electrification is difficult, such as certain industrial processes, long‑distance shipping, or some high‑temperature applications, low‑carbon fuels like green hydrogen or sustainable bioenergy can play targeted roles rather than trying to replicate fossil use one for one. A cleaner, smarter, more participatory energy system reduces health burdens from air pollution, protects economies from fossil fuel price swings, and can be designed to correct long‑standing inequities in access and cost.

Synergies: Transportation, Urbanism, and Energy Working Together

These three transformations are more powerful together than in isolation. Compact, mixed‑use, transit‑oriented urbanism with abundant middle housing makes it far easier for people to choose walking, cycling, and transit. That in turn supports more frequent and viable transit service and reduces the number and size of vehicles that must be electrified.

A cleaner, more resilient electric grid allows buildings and vehicles to run on low‑carbon power, turning every new electric bus, train, or heat pump into a deeper climate win. Distributed energy resources and microgrids can be located in dense neighborhoods and near critical transport hubs, which enhances resilience during extreme events and keeps mobility and essential services functioning. When transportation plans, zoning and housing policy, and grid and charging infrastructure are coordinated, they become a workhorse package. They form a set of mutually reinforcing interventions that deliver large reductions in emissions and clear co‑benefits for health, equity, and economic opportunity.

Beyond the Core: Other Crucial Transitions

There are important additional transitions that require focused attention beyond this core. Heavy industry, especially cement, steel, and chemicals, demands new process technologies, material efficiency and circularity, and in some cases carbon capture to address process emissions. Food systems must transform across the entire chain, from regenerative and climate‑smart farming practices to reductions in food loss and waste and a shift toward healthier, lower‑impact diets where feasible.

Ecosystem protection and restoration, including forests, peatlands, mangroves, and grasslands, are vital both for carbon storage and for biodiversity, water regulation, and cultural values. Some level of carbon dioxide removal, especially through nature‑based solutions, is likely needed to balance residual emissions from the hardest‑to‑abate sectors. None of these changes can reach the required scale without deep shifts in finance, governance, and international cooperation, along with robust social protections, worker retraining, and community‑led decision‑making to ensure a truly just transition.

Bringing the Elements to Life

Taken together, the pillars of transportation, urbanism, and energy, framed by ASI, demand‑side solutions, wellbeing, and a broad understanding of resilience, offer a practical and highly synergistic foundation for climate action. Transforming how we move, build, and power our lives can slash emissions, strengthen economies, and improve everyday experience in ways people can see and feel, while creating the conditions for success in harder sectors like heavy industry and agriculture. By pairing this core workhorse package with targeted efforts in food systems, industry, ecosystem restoration, and fair economic transition, societies can chart development pathways that not only avoid the worst climate risks but also actively enhance human flourishing and planetary health.

References

Creutzig, F. et al. (2018). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0121-0

IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2017). Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence. Island Press. https://islandpress.org/books/resilient-cities-second-edition

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press. https://islandpress.org/books/cities-people
Mehaffy, M. (2019). A New Pattern Language for Growing Regions: Places, Networks, Processes. Sustasis Press. https://sustasis.net/NPL.html

Sovacool, B. (2016). How long will it take Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020
CTOD (2022). Building Mixed‑Income,

Transit‑Oriented Communities: A Practitioner’s Guide. Center for Transit‑Oriented Development. https://ctod.org/reports
Steffen, W. et al. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Tags energy, transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

Transportation is at the center of everything

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 25 Dec 2025
No Comments on Transportation is at the center of everything

Make transportation wonderful and you solve so much more.

When people hear “transportation,” they often picture cars and traffic. In reality, transportation is about something more fundamental: how we arrange our lives in space and how we and the things we need are situated and move through that space. It is about where homes, jobs, schools, parks, and shops are located, and how safely, affordably, and easily people can reach them.

Make transportation wonderful and you solve so much more. If places are walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented, and free of traffic danger, we will not only deeply reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but do so much more. We also address housing, health, inequality, isolation, public budgets, and our relationship with nature. We improve everyday life for everyone.

That is why transportation, understood together with land use, really is at the center—often invisibly—of everything.

Some background

Distribution, distance, and energy

Many of society’s biggest challenges share a simple underlying question: where are things, and how do people reach and connect with them?

Questions about affordability, access, and opportunity often come down to this physical distribution problem. Can people afford to live near where they work? Can children reach school safely? Can older adults and people with disabilities reach healthcare and groceries without depending on someone to drive them? Can goods and services move efficiently through a city?

All of this depends on locations and connections, the basic geometry of our towns and cities.

At the heart of that geometry is energy. Moving people and goods takes energy. As distances grow and speeds increase, energy use climbs rapidly. Physics is not gentle here. Air resistance grows much faster than speed and therefore demands rise very quickly as you approach highway speeds. So spreading things out and then linking them with fast driving is inherently energy hungry and expensive.

This high energy use shows up in many ways. Families pay more for fuel, vehicles, and maintenance. Governments pay more to build and maintain roads. Everyone loses time in traffic. The environment absorbs the impact in the form of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Limits of the private car

In much of the United States, the default assumption is that any adult who wants to get anywhere will drive. Over time this has turned the private car into a kind of monopoly transportation system. This was not destiny or culture alone. It was the result of many policies and investments that made almost every other option harder or less attractive.

Even before we talk about fuels, there is a basic inefficiency in using a heavy vehicle to move a single person. Most of the energy goes into moving the metal, not the human. Most trips involve only one occupant. On top of that, manufacturing and maintaining large fleets of vehicles and the pavement they require consumes enormous amounts of materials and energy.

Electric vehicles improve efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions, but they do not fix the underlying geometry. Cities cannot function well if every adult is in a car for every trip. There is not enough space on streets or at destinations to store that many vehicles. Even if those vehicles were silent and clean, the sheer volume of traffic would still clog roads and devour land.

Road widening does not solve this. For decades, researchers and planners have documented induced demand. When a road is widened, traffic may ease for a short time. Then people adjust, making more trips, traveling at different times, moving farther from work, or choosing to drive instead of taking another mode. Development follows the expanded road. In the end the new lanes fill up and congestion returns, often worse than before. The financial and energy costs rise while the benefits fade.

Inseparability of transportation and land use

Transportation is not just about vehicles and roads. It is inseparable from land use, which shapes how far apart our daily destinations are. Zoning rules, housing policies, and development patterns determine whether homes are near jobs, schools, and services, or separated from them by long distances.

Low-density sprawl that separates housing, offices, and shopping forces long car trips. A compact neighborhood that mixes homes with workplaces, schools, shops, and parks allows short trips and real choices about how to travel. When we talk about fixing transportation, we are really talking about reshaping both the network of movement and the pattern of places.

Car-centrism not a natural evolution but rather a product of political choices

Many people assume that Americans just love cars more than people elsewhere, and that this explains our landscape. The story is more complicated. Over many decades, governments and institutions made choices that favored driving. Zoning separated land uses. Minimum parking requirements surrounded buildings with large parking lots. Highways were built through city neighborhoods. Financial incentives favored new development on the edge over reinvestment in older areas. Transit and sidewalks often received far less funding and attention.

Each step seemed practical at the time, but together they built a system where driving is the only workable option in many places. Once that pattern was in place, it created a powerful path dependency. The easiest political decisions were often the ones that reinforced the existing car-based system.

The hopeful side of this history is clear. If policy and design decisions created our current pattern, new decisions can create a better one.

A list of benefits that happen when transportation serves everyone

If we focus on creating more compact towns and cities, with good transit, safe walking and biking, and less dependence on private cars, we set off a chain reaction of benefits. These places are structurally more energy efficient and make electrification more affordable and effective.

1. Real new freedom and savings

In a well-connected, multimodal place, people gain more choices. Buses, trains, safe bike routes, and good sidewalks offer real alternatives to driving for many trips. Shorter distances make these options practical.

Households can own fewer cars or sometimes none at all. They spend less on gas, insurance, repairs, and parking. They waste less time in traffic and on long commutes. Many daily trips can become short, pleasant walks or rides, instead of stressful drives.

This can also bring more joy and autonomy. Teenagers can reach school, jobs, and activities without relying on parents. Adults can choose how to move based on what feels best for a given trip, not just on what is mandatory. People can live more spontaneously, not organized around congestion peaks and parking searches.

2. Housing where people need it

When transportation planning supports transit-oriented development and compact growth, more homes can be built near the places people need to go. Infill and “middle housing” types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings, can fit into existing neighborhoods and add new neighbors without overwhelming the area.

This combination of compactness and variety helps in two ways. It increases the overall supply of homes in high-opportunity areas and it lowers the transportation burden of living there. When people can live closer to work and services, total household costs, including transportation, can fall even if rent or mortgages are not the lowest in the region.

3. Greater independence and healthy lifestyles

A car-only system quietly excludes many people. A large share of the population cannot reliably drive, including youth, many older adults, people with some disabilities, and people who cannot afford a vehicle or insurance. When driving is the only option, they are cut off from opportunity and even from basic daily needs.

Walkable, bikeable neighborhoods with good transit change that pattern. They give independence to people who might otherwise be stranded. A teenager can bike or ride a bus to an after-school job. An older adult can take a frequent, accessible bus to a clinic. A person with a disability can reach work by a predictable, barrier-free transit system.

These places often support more active lifestyles as well. Walking to a corner store or cycling to a friend’s house builds movement into ordinary days. Over time, this helps counteract the health impacts of sedentary living.

Access to transportation is also a major ingredient in economic mobility. If people can reach training programs, jobs, and childcare without needing to buy and maintain a car, they have a far better chance to move ahead.

4. Less precarity and less financial stress

Housing and transportation costs draw from the same household budget. In car-dependent areas, many families face a hard choice. They can live farther out and spend heavily on fuel and multiple vehicles, or they can pay more for housing closer in. Either way, budgets are stretched.

Compact, well-served neighborhoods reduce this bind. They make it possible to live closer to jobs, schools, and services while needing fewer vehicles, if any. Even when rent or mortgages are somewhat higher, overall costs can be lower, because transportation expenses fall.

This is especially important for people living close to the financial edge. If essential services, food, healthcare, and social supports are reachable without a car, the risk of missing appointments, losing jobs, or falling further behind is reduced. People experiencing homelessness also benefit when shelters, clinics, and outreach programs are accessible by foot or transit, instead of scattered in remote, car-only locations.

5. More livable, joyful neighborhoods

When streets are designed around people rather than just vehicles, they become more than traffic corridors. They become places to live, meet, and linger.

Slower vehicle speeds, clear crossings, continuous sidewalks, and protected bike lanes make it safer and more pleasant for people of all ages to move around. Parents feel more comfortable with children walking or biking. Older adults can navigate their neighborhoods with confidence. Everyday errands can become moments of fresh air and social contact.

With more people on the street and fewer cars rushing through, neighbors see one another more often. Small interactions accumulate into real social bonds. Quieter streets with cleaner air and more trees are more restful for people who live and work along them, even when they are not traveling.

6. Resolution of unsheltered homelessness and disorder in public space

Unsheltered homelessness often appears most visibly in public areas, such as sidewalks, parks, transit stops, and bike paths. This problem is rooted in housing and social services, but transportation and land use play an important supporting role.

When regions create clear, humane strategies to bring people indoors and connect them with services, transportation planning must be part of the solution. Shelters and supportive housing need to be placed where people can reach them by transit, walking, or services that use the existing street network efficiently. Public spaces, including transit stations and trails, need to be designed, maintained, and managed in ways that are welcoming and safe for everyone. That includes people who are housed and currently unhoused.

Taking responsibility for these connections can reduce the pressure on transit systems and bike networks to function as informal shelters. It can also help ensure that public spaces remain accessible and comfortable for both daily users and vulnerable residents.

7. Tackling bike theft

As more people choose to bike, cities must confront bike theft in a serious way. Reliable cycling networks need reliable parking and protection. That means secure bike storage at stations, workplaces, and major destinations, along with good lighting, natural surveillance, and clear management practices.

Stronger systems for bike registration and recovery, combined with consistent enforcement, can also help. When cities treat bikes as important vehicles, not disposable accessories, people are more willing to depend on them for daily mobility.

8. Fuller disaster preparedness

Climate change is driving more frequent and severe disasters, including floods, fires, storms, and heat waves. In these moments, the structure of a transportation system can save lives or put them at risk.

Car-dependent evacuation plans are fragile. Not everyone has a car. Roads can clog quickly. People with mobility challenges may be unable to leave in time. Compact, transit-rich communities make it easier to plan redundant, inclusive evacuation routes. Distances to shelters and safe zones are shorter. Organized transit and shuttles can supplement or replace private vehicles in emergencies. Emergency services can cover more people in less time.

Planning for disasters in this way requires thinking about people who do not drive or cannot drive reliably, and ensuring that they are not left behind.

9. A healthier relationship with nature

Efficient, compact transportation and land use opens room for more nature in cities and towns. When we do not need as many wide roads and vast parking lots, we can plant trees, create green medians, and line streets with vegetation.

Green infrastructure, such as bioswales, permeable pavements, and rain gardens, helps soak up stormwater and reduce flooding. Trees and plants cool neighborhoods, reduce the heat island effect, and improve air quality. Wildlife and pollinators can find habitat even in dense districts when green space is intentionally woven through the urban fabric.

Using land more efficiently in already developed areas also reduces pressure to convert farmland, forests, and wetlands at the edge of metro regions. That protects biodiversity and carbon storage outside the city while improving life inside it.

10. Lower electricity costs and a more resilient grid

Compact, transit-oriented communities do not just use less energy; they also make it cheaper and more reliable to deliver. When people live and work closer together, utilities can serve more customers with shorter runs of wires, fewer substations, and less equipment spread across difficult terrain. It takes fewer materials and less labor to build, maintain, and eventually replace the infrastructure needed to keep the lights on. Those savings show up over time in lower system costs and, ultimately, lower pressure on rates.

Sprawl pushes the grid outward into low-density areas and the wildland–urban interface. Long radial lines through forests and over hills are more exposed to wind, ice, and fire risk. They are also expensive to patrol and hard to upgrade. As climate-driven wildfires intensify, utilities are forced to spend billions hardening these far-flung networks or shutting them off during high-risk periods, costs that ratepayers absorb.

By contrast, compact development allows more of the grid to sit in shorter, looped configurations within already urbanized areas, where access is easier and vegetation risk is lower. When an outage does occur, crews can reach the fault more quickly, isolate it, and re-route power around it. Fewer people are left without power, and those who are can be restored faster. In this way, the same patterns of land use and transportation that reduce vehicle emissions also enable an electricity system that is cheaper to build, easier to defend against wildfire, and more resilient when things go wrong.

11. Better stewardship of public money

Transportation is one of the biggest items in public budgets. Building, repairing, and policing a very large road network is expensive. Low-density development requires long stretches of pipes, wires, and streets for relatively few people.

Compact, multimodal communities allow governments to serve more residents with fewer lane miles and shorter infrastructure runs. Transit routes can be shorter and more productive. Roads can be maintained to a higher standard when they are not constantly being widened.

By investing in systems that give people real choices and reduce dependence on cars, local governments can get more value from each dollar. They can improve the daily experience for residents while reducing long-term maintenance and operations costs. Addressing root causes, such as long distances and lack of options, is far cheaper than constantly responding to traffic, safety problems, and social crises after the fact.

12. Deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in many regions. In some rural and semi-rural areas of the United States, it is the single largest source. Cleaner vehicles are important, but they cannot carry the whole burden on their own.

Better transportation and land use policies reduce emissions directly. When people can take shorter trips, drive less, and use walking, biking, and transit more often, vehicle miles traveled go down. That means fewer emissions even before considering cleaner technologies.

Compact, mixed-use development also reduces building-related emissions. Multi-unit buildings tend to be more energy efficient per household than detached homes. Shorter distances also lower the energy required for deliveries and services.

A widely used framework for climate action in transportation is called “Avoid, Shift, Improve.” Avoid means avoiding unnecessary trips or long distances through better land use and digital access. Shift means shifting trips to more efficient modes such as walking, biking, and transit. Improve means improving vehicles and fuels, for example by electrifying fleets and cleaning up the grid.

Land use is central to the “avoid” part of this strategy. Without compact, connected development, we lock in long trips and high energy use, and then we try to fix the consequences at the tailpipe.

A more compact and predictable transportation system also makes electrification easier and cheaper. Transit fleets can be electrified with well-placed depots and chargers. Shorter driving distances reduce range requirements and charging needs for electric vehicles. Grids can be planned around dense clusters of demand rather than stretched thin. Building and transportation electrification can be coordinated as part of one integrated energy strategy.

In this way, transforming transportation and land use does more than cut emissions from cars. It makes the entire project of getting off fossil fuels more feasible.

Transportation as lever for a better future of everything

Transportation is at the center of everything because the way we organize movement and space shapes almost every part of our lives. It influences what we can afford, how we feel, how healthy we are, how strong our communities are, and how well we can respond to climate change.

Make transportation wonderful and you solve so much more. Build places where walking, biking, and transit are safe, dignified, and convenient. Bring daily destinations closer together. Reduce the need to drive for every trip. Support the electrification of everything in a way that is practical and affordable.

Do that, and you do not just lower emissions. You ease financial stress. You expand opportunity. You help people feel less isolated and more connected. You protect nature and public budgets at the same time. You make it easier for everyone, including those on the margins, to meet their basic needs and pursue their goals.

Transportation is not just how we move. It is a powerful tool for building the kind of world we want to live in.

References

IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr

C40 Cities & UN-Habitat (2023). C40 and UN-Habitat Urban Planning Accelerator. C40 Cities. https://www.c40.org/accelerators/urban-planning

Creutzig, F., Javaid, A., Soomauroo, Z., Lohrey, S., Milojevic-Dupont, N., Ramakrishnan, A., Sethi, M., Fouquet, R., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2022). Fair urban mitigation. Nature Climate Change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01349-1

Acheampong, R. A., Silva, E. A. (2021). Land-use transport models for climate change mitigation and adaptation planning. Journal of Transport and Land Use. https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/1209

Cao, J. (2021). Land Use and Transportation Policies Addressing Climate Change. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3940681

ITDP (2021). The Compact City Scenario – Electrified: How Electrification, Public Transport, and Urban Form Reduce Urban Passenger Transport Emissions. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. https://www.itdp.org/publication/the-compact-city-scenario-electrified

Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, S. (2017). Beyond Mobility: Planning Cities for People and Places. Island Press. https://islandpress.org/books/beyond-mobility

Suzuki, H., Cervero, R., & Iuchi, K. (2013). Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit and Land-Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/3ac8baac-cd06-5e05-a1fa-1a14cd12c74b

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766

North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (n.d.). Transportation and Land Use – Climate Action Toolkit. North Olympic Peninsula RC&D. https://www.noprcd.org/climate-action-toolkit/transportation-and-land-use

Tags energy, local government, transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

Lessons from 2025’s biggest transportation failures

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 23 Dec 2025
No Comments on Lessons from 2025’s biggest transportation failures

Failure is an important part of learning, but only learning is something we choose. We can treat failure as an inconvenient PR problem. Or it can be feedback on how our assumptions and thinking need work.

Transportation in 2025 provided some meaty feedback. A decade of confident predictions ran into political reality, economic incentives, and the basic messiness of moving people and goods in real cities.

Here are a few places where 2025 should be changing how we think and act.

1. Despite industry promises, personal cars are not on their way out

Ten years ago, a Lyft co‑founder w rote that by 2025 personal cars would be “nearly gone” from cities. Even then, that ignored basic facts about land use, politics, and human behavior. Yet the claim slid into headlines and policy conversations with little pushback.

Today, cars still dominate how Americans move. Many transit systems are struggling to recover riders. Rideshare is a supplement, not a substitute, for car ownership. Parking lots still occupy prime land that could house people or jobs.

The lesson is not that car‑light cities are impossible. It is that technology alone does not unwind decades of pro‑car decisions. If we want fewer cars, we have to change streets, zoning, finance, and law.

Questions to ask now:

What changes to parking policy, zoning, street design, and investments are we willing to make to reduce car dependence?
How do we hold companies and public officials accountable when they sell futures that depend on changes they never seriously pursue?
When we hear bold forecasts today, what visible groundwork would show they are more than wishful thinking?

2. Despite industry promises, EVs aren’t going to be cheap without a strong hand from the government

Elon Musk once said Tesla’s goal was to make EVs affordable for the masses, including a 25,000 dollar car by 2025. That car has not arrived. Tesla and most competitors focus on larger, more expensive models that deliver better margins.

This outcome is mostly the market responding to the incentives we have set up. For years, policy has encouraged bigger, heavier vehicles. Public subsidies do not always prioritize affordability. We have also allowed car ownership to remain the default way to access jobs and daily needs.

Without policies that directly favor smaller and cheaper EVs, the industry will keep drifting upscale.

Questions to ask now:

If we truly want a $25,000 EV, what tax credits, standards, feebates, and procurement rules are we willing to change to make that outcome likely?
Should subsidies be larger for smaller, lower‑cost vehicles and phase out for luxury models?
How can we invest in transit, shared mobility, walking, and biking so that “better transportation” does not always mean “another car?”

3. E‑bikes, the best transportation technology in a generation, are held back by what happens after the sale

E‑bikes may be the most transformative transportation technology of the past decade. They turn hills into minor details, extend the range of everyday trips, and offer a real alternative to many car journeys. They are also efficient, relatively affordable, and enjoyable to use.

Yet the e‑bike market is fragile. Rad Power Bikes, a high‑profile brand, rode a wave of rapid growth, then faltered under quality problems, safety concerns, and a thin support network. One seeming important mistake was treating the first sale as the finish line. Many owners were left to navigate parts, repairs, and battery issues on their own.

Transportation products need a durable support ecosystem. Cars have it through dealers, independent shops, and standardized parts. E‑bikes mostly do not, which erodes trust just as the mode is gaining momentum.

Questions to ask now:

What would a reliable national support system for e‑bikes look like, from standardized parts to training for local mechanics?
When governments subsidize e‑bike purchases, should they also fund (or require) maintenance support, warranties, or repair assistance?
How do we prevent “grow fast, fix it later” business models from undermining confidence in a technology that cities badly need?

4. Automated vehicles don’t really work unless they work in messy edge cases

Companies like Waymo have promised safer streets through automated driving. Waymo in particular has worked to build a reputation for caution and respect for the social contract on public roads.

Then came a clear warning sign. When confronted with unusual but real‑world conditions, Waymo’s vehicles shut down in ways that blocked traffic across a city and interfered with emergency responders and transit vehicles. The details of that event matter, but the broader pattern matters more. Transportation is full of overlapping, low‑probability situations. At scale, those situations are not rare at all.

A system that works only when everything seems normal is not a replacement for human drivers given thar driving is so complex, filled with unexpected things happening, and with ever-changing conditions. A system that expects broad public tolerance for its failures, while humans are punished for theirs, is also hard to defend.

Questions to ask now:

What level of performance in unusual, high‑risk situations should be required before automated vehicles are widely deployed?
Who bears responsibility when automated fleets fail in ways that hurt the public, from delays to blocked ambulances?
Are regulators equipped to demand independent, real‑world evidence of safety before granting broad operating permissions?

5. The US still tolerates an unusually deadly road system for no good reason

The harshest lesson is not new, but it is still largely unanswered. US roads remain far more dangerous than those in other wealthy countries. Our national death rate of roughly 11 to 12 traffic deaths per 100,000 people is two to three times the rate in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, and four to six times that of the safest Scandinavian countries.

This is not destiny. Other countries have cut traffic deaths dramatically with known tools. These include lower, self‑enforcing speed limits, safer street designs, protected bike lanes, safe pedestrian crossings, better vehicle standards for people outside the car, and targeted enforcement with privacy protections.

We know many of these countermeasures. Some cities and states are starting to apply them. Yet at the national level, especially under the Trump administration, we have seen steps away from stricter safety rules and toward looser standards and larger vehicles.

Questions to ask now

If other countries have cut traffic deaths by half or more, what stops us from doing the same?
Why are proven safety measures still treated as controversial experiments instead of standard practice?
How can states and cities move ahead with evidence‑based safety changes even when federal policy is lagging or hostile?

Choosing to learn from 2025

The common thread in these failures is not technology. It is choice. We chose to treat bold forecasts as destiny instead of asking what would have to change to make them real. We chose to trust that markets would deliver public benefits without shaping incentives to line up with those benefits. We chose, in many cases, to ignore examples from other countries that are already doing better.

Transportation will keep evolving. AI, automation, new business models, and new vehicles will all play a role. The question is whether we keep repeating the same patterns or start designing systems that are safer, fairer, and more resilient.

To learn from 2025, we should be asking
How do we align private profit with public goals instead of hoping they match on their own
Where do we need firm rules and public investment, not just innovation and marketing
How do we center human life, climate stability, and equitable access in every “future of mobility” pitch from now on

Failure in transportation is measured in lives, health, time, and money. We cannot avoid every failure, but we can decide whether each one becomes a turning point or just another missed chance to change course.

References

Badger, E. and Fitzsimmons, E.G. (2023). America’s Roads Are More Deadly. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/us/traffic-deaths-pandemic.html

Boudette, N.E. and Charging, A. (2024). Tesla Drops Plan for a $25,000 Car, Prioritizing Robotaxis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/business/tesla-cheap-car-robotaxi.html

Cobb, J. (2018). Lyft Co‑Founder Predicts End of Private Car Ownership in Cities by 2025. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescobb/2018/03/13/lyft-cofounder-cities-private-car-ownership-2025

Feitelberg, R. (2023). Why E‑Bikes Are the Future of Urban Transportation. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-10/e-bikes-are-replacing-cars-in-cities

Marshall, A. (2023). Rad Power Bikes’ Troubled Ride and What It Means for Micromobility. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/rad-power-bikes-troubles-micromobility

NTSB (2024). Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements 2024–2025. National Transportation Safety Board. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx

OECD/ITF (2023). Road Safety Annual Report 2023. International Transport Forum. https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safety-annual-report-2023

Waymo (2023). Waymo Safety Methodologies and Performance Update. Waymo. https://waymo.com/safety

Tags transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

After a century of driving, we have less freedom—here’s how to get it back

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 22 Dec 2025
No Comments on After a century of driving, we have less freedom—here’s how to get it back

On the surface, “freedom” on the road can seem like having a car and driving it everywhere. But when you look at how transportation and land use have changed over the last century, a different story emerges.

A hundred years ago, many more people lived close to what they needed and could reach daily life by walking, biking, or riding transit. Today, we travel farther, spend more of our income on transportation, are exposed to more peril, and are leaving a large and growing share of people who cannot easily drive stranded and stressing public services.

The unfortunate reality is that after a century of cars, we have fewer mobility options and our ability to thrive and even survive is more dependent on a profit-making industry that has nearly complete control over our freedom of movement.

The good news is that the same kinds of policies that have led us to where we are today can liberate us.

Transportation options a century ago

In the mid‑1920s, a large share of Americans in cities and towns lived within a short distance of daily life. In 1920, roughly half of the U.S. population lived in urban areas. Those cities were much denser and more compact than today’s metropolitan regions.

Streetcars and interurban rail shaped growth. In the 1910s and early 1920s, street railways carried on the order of 13 to 14 billion trips a year, well over 100 trips per resident. In many cities, most workers reached jobs by walking or riding transit. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago all depended heavily on streetcars and early subways for commuting.

Urban neighborhoods were mixed and close‑knit. Apartments and boarding houses stood near factories and warehouses. Many people lived in walking distance of small grocers, corner shops, schools, and churches. Developers built “streetcar suburbs” whose very business model depended on buyers being able to walk to a transit stop and ride into town.

People had real options. Walking was normal for short trips. Transit was normal for work and school. Bicycles expanded personal range for many who could not or did not want to buy a car. Streets carried slow traffic and a mix of users, which made cycling and walking more plausible for daily needs even without modern protected lanes.

Most important, you could live a full life without a car. Proximity and transit made that possible. That mix of short distances and multiple modes provided a kind of everyday freedom that many people do not have now.

Transportation options today

By the 2020s, the picture has flipped. About four out of five Americans now live in metropolitan areas, but those areas cover far more land than in 1920. Homes, jobs, and services are spread over large distances.

A typical pattern in newer development is clear. Single‑family houses fill large subdivisions. Shops cluster in centers along wide arterial roads. Offices sit in business parks and edge cities near freeway exits. Schools and hospitals stand on big sites fronted by parking lots and fast traffic. Sidewalks are missing on key links. Networks for safe bicycling are nearly nonexistent. Transit lines, where they exist at all, can be rare and hard to reach on foot.

Most people now use a car for almost every trip. Around 85 percent of U.S. workers commute by driving. Transit handles only a small share of trips, often around five percent of work commutes and less of total travel. The average one‑way commute has climbed to roughly 27 or 28 minutes, up from about 20 minutes in 1980, and often covers many more miles.

The money and safety costs are high. Household transportation spending often falls between 13 and 17 percent of the budget, with higher shares for lower‑income families. For many people, transportation is the second‑largest expense after housing. Owning and operating one car can easily cost several thousand dollars per year and two‑car households are common.

At the same time, the U.S. suffers tens of thousands of traffic deaths every year and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries. That adds up to roughly a dozen or more deaths per 100,000 people in many years. People walking or biking face particular danger on multi‑lane, high‑speed roads. Pedestrian deaths have risen sharply over the past decade.

This system also limits the freedom of many groups. Young people who cannot yet drive often cannot reach jobs, activities, or friends without rides. Older adults who stop driving for health or safety reasons can become isolated if they live far from stores or transit. People with disabilities who cannot drive or can drive only in limited circumstances face long waits and logistical hurdles. Lower‑income workers may spend a large part of limited earnings on cars or endure long, unreliable commutes on underfunded transit.

Cars can feel like they offer freedom on an individual trip. At the system level, we have built a world where long distances and missing alternatives turn cars into a requirement rather than a choice. That is a narrower kind of freedom than the one many people had a century ago.

What caused the “drive” towards less freedom

The shift from a closer, multimodal world to a distant, car‑based is a consequence of policy choices, backed and promoted by industries profiting from it.

One major force was highway building. Federal and state governments invested heavily in roads, especially after the 1950s. The Interstate Highway System alone created more than forty thousand miles of high‑speed routes. Urban freeways cut through city neighborhoods and made it possible to live and work much farther apart. For decades, most national and state transportation dollars went into highways, while transit received much less.

A second major force was zoning and land‑use control. After the 1920s and especially after World War II, many cities and suburbs adopted zoning maps that reserved most residential land for detached single‑family houses. In many communities, as much as two‑thirds or more of residential land allows only that one housing type. Local codes also imposed large minimum lot sizes, deep setbacks from the street, and generous parking requirements for homes and businesses. Commercial and residential uses were often separated. This legal structure made compact and mixed neighborhoods much harder to build.

As populations grew, new residents could not easily move into central or transit‑rich areas because those areas were limited to low‑density housing by law and were often already full. Instead, they were funneled into outer subdivisions and farther‑flung towns. Everyday distances grew. Driving became a necessity rather than a preference.

A third force was the decline and partial reinvention of transit. Private streetcar and bus companies lost riders as cars grew more common. They were tightly regulated on fares and often required to maintain streets along their tracks. Without public support, many systems cut service or shut down. Public agencies later took over and federal funding began in the 1960s and 1970s. New rail lines opened in some cities. But transit was often treated as a service for those without cars, not as the backbone of regional mobility, and funding levels reflected that.

A fourth force was road design and safety thinking. Mid‑century traffic engineering focused on vehicle speed and carrying capacity. Designers widened lanes and intersections and made turning radii large. Many older city streets that once worked at human scale turned into fast conduits for through traffic. Safety programs improved cars and driver behavior in some respects but left the basic structure of dangerous roads largely intact.

Finally, housing and civil rights policies shaped who had access to what. Redlining, discriminatory lending, and exclusionary zoning kept many Black families, immigrants, and lower‑income households out of new suburbs and often concentrated them in neighborhoods cut by new highways. These communities sometimes lost both housing and access when freeways arrived, with lasting effects.

Together, these choices stretched distances, removed compact options from the menu in many places, and made driving the default way to participate in normal life. They also divided access and burden along lines of income, race, age, and ability.

How to take our freedom back

Just as creating a car-centric system has made us less free, and we can restore freedom by rebuilding proximity, restoring variety in how neighborhoods are built, and supporting many ways to travel. This does not require banning cars. It means no longer building everything as if the car is the only option that matters.

One step is to change the rules about what can be built and where. Cities and suburbs can allow more housing types in more places, especially near jobs, schools, and transit. That includes legalizing duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings in areas that now allow only detached houses. It also includes allowing mixed use buildings in more locations so people can live near shops and services. Reducing or removing minimum parking requirements lets builders use land for homes and businesses rather than long‑term car storage. Over time, these changes allow more people to live closer to what they need.

Another step is to treat transit as essential infrastructure. Regions can fund frequent, all‑day service on key routes and protect those routes from congestion with bus lanes or rail priority where it makes sense. Land use and transit planning can be linked so that new housing and jobs cluster along strong transit lines rather than scattering randomly. Good transit gives people who drive another choice and gives those who do not drive a real right to the city and the region.

Street design needs attention as well. Many high‑speed arterials can be rebuilt so that they are safer for everyone. Narrower lanes, shorter crossings, better crosswalks, and protected space for cycling lower the chance and severity of crashes. Filling sidewalk gaps and improving lighting make walking more attractive and safer. Campaigns that aim to eliminate deaths and serious injuries can focus on the places and designs that create the most harm and track results.

We also need to focus on people with the fewest options today. That means strong paratransit and accessible fixed‑route service for people with disabilities. It means safe routes so children and teenagers can walk or bike to school or activities without relying on adults to drive them. It means better and more frequent transit in lower‑income neighborhoods, along with fares and passes people can afford. Supporting e‑bikes and other small electric vehicles with safe places to ride can also extend the reach of non‑car travel for many people.

Finally, transportation policy can line up more clearly with goals for health, climate, equity, and economic opportunity. Leaders can favor projects that shorten trip distances, improve access by walking, biking, and transit, and repair past harms from highways. Measures of success can shift from how fast cars move on a segment of road to how many people can reach jobs, schools, grocery stores, and doctors within a reasonable time without a car.

A hundred years ago, many urban Americans enjoyed a quieter form of freedom built on short distances and many ways to travel. Today, in spite of higher incomes and more advanced vehicles, many of us have less real choice and more dependency. By changing how we build and connect our communities, we can move back toward a world where people are free to use cars when they want, but do not have to use them for every part of life.

References

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2024). Fatality Facts. IIHS.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics

American Automobile Association (2023). Your Driving Costs. AAA.
https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/aaa-average-cost-of-owning-a-car

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023). Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2022. U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.bls.gov/cex/

U.S. Census Bureau (2021). American Community Survey 1‑Year Estimates, Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time to Work.
https://data.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Urban and Rural.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html

Federal Highway Administration (2017). Interstate System Facts. U.S. Department of Transportation.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/facts.cfm

American Public Transportation Association (various years). Public Transportation Fact Book (Historical Tables). American Public Transportation Association.
https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/

Norton, Peter D. (2008). Fighting Traffic. The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. MIT Press.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/

Flink, James J. (1988). The Automobile Age. MIT Press.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560559/the-automobile-age/

Seely, Bruce E. (1993). Building the American Highway System. Engineers as Policy Makers. Temple University Press.
https://tupress.temple.edu/books/building-the-american-highway-system

Rose, Mark H. (1979). Interstate. Express Highway Politics, 1939–1989. University of Tennessee Press.
https://utpress.org/title/interstate/

Tags action items, transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

Primer on how the UN COP process supports US climate action

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 23 Nov 2025
No Comments on Primer on how the UN COP process supports US climate action

The UN climate conferences do not write US law, yet they change what countries, companies, cities, and investors actually do.

COPs create shared timelines and yardsticks, translate science into clear messages, and convene coalitions that make credible action easier to recognize and finance.

That force multiplier reaches Congress and federal agencies, and it reaches governors, utility commissions, mayors, school districts, and tribal and regional governments.

In a federal system where delivery is distributed, the strongest results come when national and subnational actors move in step with global signals.

The COP as a catalyst for decisions that are made at home

No COP can compel votes on Capitol Hill or at a statehouse. What COPs do is synchronize clocks, define credibility, and concentrate attention.

The cycle of national climate plans and the Global Stocktake turn distant goals into near term milestones.

Guidance on net zero claims, methane accounting, and sector road maps sets a reference for regulators, investors, and civil society.

The events themselves gather public and private leaders in one place, which speeds deals that would take months in normal time.

The result is a steady pull on policy, procurement, and investment decisions across US institutions.

How COPs stimulate commitments beyond national decisions

Deadlines bring action forward. As COP dates approach, agencies and companies look for announcements that show momentum. That deadline effect pulls forward rules, grants, and procurements that might otherwise wait.

Shared expectations define what counts as credible. When there is clarity on methane measurement or on steel and cement pathways, federal departments, state regulators, and corporate boards can align their standards and purchasing.

Coalitions reduce risk for first movers. International buyer and producer groups on clean power, zero emission vehicles, shipping fuels, and low carbon materials lower market risk and unlock offtake agreements that justify US investment.

Finance aligns around pipelines. Development banks, green banks, and private lenders use COP to standardize program templates. That makes it easier for smaller US cities and utilities to join and easier for federal programs to blend public and private capital.

Co-benefits move to the center. Health, affordability, jobs, and time saved are now core parts of the COP narrative. That framing helps build durable coalitions for action in the United States.

Why COP outcomes matter for US federal action

Competitiveness and trade are on the line. Global buyers are demanding low carbon materials and clean power. The European Union is phasing in a carbon border adjustment. US producers that can verify lower emissions will protect market share and may gain it. COP signals help justify federal incentives for clean heat, electrified processes, and cleaner logistics and they support Buy Clean requirements that value low embodied carbon.

Federal rulemaking and guidance draw on international norms. Environmental and energy agencies look to global methods on measurement and verification when shaping standards.

Stocktake findings and sector road maps inform rule design at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, and they influence procurement rules at the General Services Administration and the Department of Defense.

When federal purchasing rewards outcomes such as comfort hours, uptime, and low embodied carbon, markets move.

Finance mobilization benefits from convergence on metrics. COP aligned disclosure and transition planning support the work of US financial regulators and voluntary reporting frameworks. Green banks and federal loan programs can use shared metrics to crowd in private lenders at scale while keeping affordability safeguards.

Energy security and price stability improve with the shift that COPs promote. Efficiency, electrification, and diversified clean supply mean more domestic manufacturing of heat pumps, transformers, batteries, and grid controls. Less exposure to fossil price shocks is good for households and for national security.

Health and affordability gains are central. COP emphasis on health gives cover and urgency to rules on soot and ozone, methane and volatile organic compounds, indoor air quality, and urban cooling. These rules cut medical costs and lower energy bills.

Why COP outcomes matter for US states and cities

States set clean power targets and building codes. Municipalities control land use, housing strategies, transit frequency, street design, shade, and cooling centers. Public utility commissions decide how fast utilities invest in grids, demand flexibility, and storage. School districts and hospital systems are giant energy customers. COP road maps and networks offer ready templates and finance that local actors can adopt quickly.

Standards and model policies will spread faster. Building performance standards, clean construction and Buy Clean specifications, zero emission truck and bus rules, and cooling action plans are moving through state and city networks. COP guidance gives these policies a common language and metrics, which lowers the cost of adoption and compliance.

Procurement will tilt toward buying outcomes and services. The services conversation at COP will show up in bids that pay for comfort, reliability, clean air, and trip speed. A school district can procure classroom comfort by bundling envelope upgrades, heat pumps, ventilation, and maintenance with pay as you save tariffs. A transit agency can procure on time service with zero emission fleets rather than only buses. A hospital system or water utility can procure resilience and uptime through performance based microgrids. Once a few large buyers standardize contracts and data, peers can copy them and scale the market.

Finance will move through standardized programs. COP is where multilateral lenders, green banks, and private capital converge on program templates. In the United States that enables state green banks, infrastructure banks, and municipal issuers to package retrofits, distributed energy, fleet electrification, and cooling networks into repeatable portfolios with common verification. Smaller jurisdictions benefit most because templates lower legal costs and protect low income customers.

Utility regulation will absorb global best practice. Breakthrough metrics on system flexibility, demand response, and interconnection speed will inform performance based regulation at state commissions. Expect wider use of outcome metrics such as avoided outages, interconnection cycle time, flexible load enrolled, and hourly carbon intensity of delivered electricity. These will pair with around the clock clean power procurement by cities, universities, and corporate buyers, which strengthens the signal for storage and transmission.

Ports and industry will organize around cross border corridors and buyers clubs. Green shipping corridors create specific routes where ports, carriers, fuel suppliers, and cargo owners commit to lower carbon operations. US ports on the West Coast, the Gulf, and the Atlantic will use these corridors to attract federal and private funds for bunkering, shore power, and efficient landside logistics. Buyers clubs for clean steel, cement, and aluminum will help states implement clean procurement for roads, bridges, schools, and public housing while keeping contractors competitive.

Health and heat will anchor local action. COP attention to health makes it easier for state health departments and city heat officers to justify investments in cooling networks, tree canopy, reflective surfaces, indoor air upgrades, and clean cooking. Expect growth in heat season playbooks, home cooling support for vulnerable residents, and resilience hubs in libraries and community centers.

How federal and subnational action can reinforce each other

As the next round of national climate targets takes shape, states and cities can feed quantified pipelines in power, buildings, transport, and industry into federal planning. In return, federal grants, tax credits, and procurement can prioritize projects that use shared COP metrics and verification, which makes progress provable at home and credible abroad.

Federal agencies can publish short sector playbooks that translate COP road maps into US ready actions with model contracts and data standards. Grant windows and procurement rounds can be timed with global cycles so US announcements ride the same wave as international partners. Technical assistance and open data can help smaller jurisdictions adopt best practice without heavy consulting costs.

States and cities can pick a few COP aligned plays that deliver visible benefits. A district wide comfort program for schools can cut bills and improve learning. A zero emission bus service contract with on time guarantees can boost ridership and air quality. A neighborhood cooling and heat health program can protect residents in the hottest weeks. An interconnection sprint with public dashboards can clear backlogs and enable more rooftop solar and batteries. Each play should use common metrics that peers are adopting to make financing and replication easy.

Illustrative national and local spillovers already underway

The Global Methane Pledge raised the profile of methane across energy and agriculture. The result is stronger satellite detection, more attention from producers, and faster uptake of low cost fixes. US methane standards and voluntary programs draw strength from this momentum and they create service markets for detection and repair that local firms can serve.

The First Movers Coalition gathered buyers for low carbon steel, cement, aluminum, shipping, and aviation fuels. US procurement and domestic investment credits create demand and supply at the same time, which lowers costs for industrial decarbonization and keeps US manufacturing in the race. States can align their Buy Clean policies to the same product rules and labels to amplify that effect.

The Breakthrough Agenda produced road maps for power, road transport, hydrogen, and industry. These road maps inform utility resource planning, state clean transport strategies, and federal purchasing guidance, and they steer demand toward cleaner supply chains that US producers can serve.

Article 6 pilots are improving methods for high integrity crediting. Even before a mature market exists, this signals to US project developers and buyers that better baselines, monitoring, and benefit sharing are coming. States and cities can use the same methods for results based payments in landfills, wastewater plants, building retrofits, and urban nature projects while maintaining safeguards.

The bottom line

COPs do not substitute for US lawmaking, yet they shape expectations, define credibility, and align finance in ways that help both federal and subnational leaders move faster.

The likely future is two way traffic. States and cities will feed concrete pipelines and metrics into national and global processes. Federal agencies will pull down templates and capital that make delivery cheaper and quicker on the ground.

If the United States leans into that exchange, it will get cleaner and more reliable energy, healthier air, safer heat seasons, competitive industries, and communities that see tangible improvements in daily life.

Tags local government, transitions

Uncategorized

Wrap-up of COP30 in Belém: Developments and what’s next

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 23 Nov 2025
No Comments on Wrap-up of COP30 in Belém: Developments and what’s next

The COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil closed with a familiar mixed message: the headline cover decision reaffirmed the 1.5°C limit and called for “transitions” in energy and economies, but stopped short of a clear, time‑bound fossil‑fuel phaseout and left finance and carbon‑market rules largely unresolved.

That gap between ambition and delivery is where the action now moves—to 2035 nationally-determined commitments (NDCs), to sector transitions guided by the IPCC, to health and wellbeing co‑benefits, and to cities, states, and service innovators who can make climate progress tangible.

Alignment with the IPCC’s “major transitions”

IPCC AR6 lays out the big shifts needed this decade. Power must decarbonize and end use must electrify. Industry needs efficiency and fuel switching. Transport and buildings require strong demand side changes. Land food and nature based solutions must expand. Finance and governance reforms must enable these changes in ways that are feasible and just.

On energy and fossil fuels, the cover decision invoked transitions and allowed for abatement and CCS, but it did not codify a universal fossil fuel phaseout. It reiterated scaling clean energy and efficiency consistent with IPCC least cost pathways, yet without stronger time bound collective targets. The net effect is a political signal to keep shifting capital while continued ambiguity risks a slower drawdown of coal oil and gas.

On 2035 NDCs, parties were urged to submit new economy wide targets aligned with 1.5°C. This matters because it sets a near term deadline for whole economy planning and, if done well, can drive integrated transitions across power transport buildings and industry rather than a set of siloed pledges.

On adaptation and resilience, negotiators advanced work on operationalizing the Global Goal on Adaptation with more clarity on indicators and reporting and less on quantified global targets. This helps countries design risk informed and locally appropriate transitions that remain robust under uncertainty.

On finance and feasibility, delivery pathways for climate finance still lag needs. Without clearer concessional flows and debt relief the feasibility dimension that combines institutions finance and capacity remains a bottleneck for many economies.

On process innovation, the Brazil Presidency draft Mutirão text was described in mid-COP briefings as a menu-based push on implementation. This signals a pivot from one-size-fits-all to practical options that countries can pick up. If carried into the 2035 NDC cycle, it could accelerate uptake of proven transition packages.

The bottom line on transitions is that COP30 nudged system wide planning with 2035 NDCs and adaptation metrics, but it left the core mitigation signal weaker than the IPCC call for rapid deep and sustained reductions. Delivery now hinges on national policy packages and real economy coalitions that move power transport buildings industry and land together.

Role of affordability, health, and other wellbeing

A notable advance at COP30 was the prominence of health and quality of life framing. The WHO Special Report Delivering the Belém Health Action Plan lays out a practical agenda to integrate health into climate action through climate resilient and low carbon health systems, cleaner air, heat health protection, and finance models that value health benefits.

In practice, more parties and partners signaled plans to embed health metrics in climate policy. They plan to track avoided deaths from cleaner air, reduced heat risk, and the resilience of clinics. This reframes climate policy as a public health dividend and not only an emissions ledger.

Demand-side measures for affordability and comfort gained attention. Efficient all-electric homes, passive and district cooling, and clean cooking can reduce bills, improve indoor air, and deliver thermal comfort, especially for low-income households.

Time saved and access also featured. Mobility investments that emphasize high frequency transit, safe walking and cycling, and integrated ticketing reduce commute times and improve access to jobs and services. These multiple benefits are often undervalued in cost benefit analysis.

This matters because policies that foreground lower energy poverty, better air, safer heat seasons, and shorter commutes tend to be more durable politically and faster to scale.

The Belém Health Action Plan offers a template that ministries can adopt now, with indicators that resonate beyond climate circles.

Subnational developments

The Presidency spotlighted cities, regions, tribal, and Indigenous governments as delivery agents. An official evening summary on November 11 emphasized how local and subnational leadership is driving real world climate progress in peoples homes.

Cities and states showcased local implementation plans that braid climate health and affordability goals. Examples include building performance standards, all electric codes for new buildings, rental retrofit programs, and cooling action plans.

They advanced fleet and infrastructure pivots such as zero emission buses, municipal fleets, freight corridors, and EV ready streetscapes, paired with reliability upgrades to distribution grids.

Nature and resilience programs featured urban tree canopies, blue green stormwater systems, fire smart land use, and nature based coastal buffers as no regrets moves that also improve daily life.

Finance innovation is helping smaller jurisdictions attract private capital while protecting low income households by packaging projects into standardized programs such as pay as you save retrofits, green mortgages, and resilience bonds.

This matters because subnational governments control many levers that shape user experience including permits codes service standards transit frequency and cooling centers. Their plans can translate COP speak into renovations routes and shade on the ground.

Focus on services to unite policy with user experience and value

One evolution at COP30 is the treatment of climate solutions as services and not only technologies. The focus is on meeting needs such as mobility, thermal comfort, cooling, clean cooking, and reliable power through integrated offers that align incentives from the start.

A services lens accelerates climate action in several ways. Clear value propositions help because people buy outcomes rather than kilowatt hours, for example mobility as a service that delivers fast reliable and safe trips, comfort as a service that delivers quiet healthy and stable indoor temperatures, and cooling as a service that guarantees performance without upfront cost.

Policy fit improves when service performance standards such as comfort hours trip times and air quality targets sit alongside emissions standards.

Public procurement can buy services for example contracted comfort for schools and hospitals instead of equipment, which enables aggregators to finance upgrades at scale.

Ownership of the user experience reduces friction when one accountable entity handles design delivery maintenance and billing, with bundles that include financing warranties and simple apps that make clean choices the easy default.

Equity by design becomes practical because services can embed affordability through lifeline tiers on bill tariffs and targeted subsidies that guarantee comfort and access for renters and low income households who are often locked out of capital intensive technology.

Data and verification also improve because service contracts create measurable outcomes such as comfort hours avoided outages and on time trips which can anchor results based finance and where appropriate high integrity carbon and health crediting.

Near‑term service plays to watch:

Thermal comfort services for social housing and schools, combining envelope, heat pumps, and ventilation with pay‑as‑you‑save tariffs.
Cooling‑as‑a‑service in hot cities, linked to heat‑health plans and time‑of‑use pricing.
Clean‑cooking service subscriptions that bundle stoves, fuel access, and maintenance.
Mobility subscriptions that integrate transit, bike/scooter share, and first/last‑mile shuttles.
Reliability‑as‑a‑service for critical facilities, pairing rooftop solar, storage, and microgrids under performance contracts.

Wrap-up

So, did COP30 move the needle? The signal is moderate because the cover text uses transitions language that keeps 1.5°C on the agenda but it avoided a clear fossil phaseout.

The structure is useful since 2035 NDC guidance, adaptation metrics work, and the Brazil Presidency’s menu style implementation push give countries and cities a clearer runway to act.

The substance is still to be delivered, and the most credible progress now lies in national policy packages, subnational implementation, and service based business models that foreground health, affordability, comfort, and time.

Looking ahead, watch for the first wave of 2035 NDCs and whether they are economy-wide, IPCC-aligned, and grounded in just locally led transitions.

Track how quickly countries operationalize the Belém Health Action Plan in budgets, clinics, heat health systems, and clean air rules.

See whether cities and states move building retrofits, cooling programs, and transit upgrades from pilots to standardized and financeable portfolios.

Monitor whether ministries, school districts, and utilities begin procuring outcomes such as comfort, reliability, and trips at scale.

References

UNFCCC (22 Nov 2025). Outcomes Report of the Global Climate Action Agenda at COP 30. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/documents/655037

COP30 Presidency (15 Nov 2025). COP30 Evening Summary – November 15. COP30 Presidency. https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-evening-summary-november-15

European Parliament (17 Nov 2025). COP30 outcome: slow progress, but insufficient to meet the climate crisis urgency. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20251117IPR31438/cop30-outcome-slow-progress-but-insufficient-to-meet-climate-crisis-urgency

Tags energy, local government, services, transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

Key climate solutions for communities

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 9 Oct 2025
No Comments on Key climate solutions for communities
Sticky post

To unlock new climate progress, apply the power of local communities. Communities are key to most of the climate action needed as well as types of action that can make daily life safer, healthier, and more affordable for everyone.

What follows is a list of community‑oriented solutions that:

Are key areas of climate action overall;
Offer some of the most effective climate opportunities for communities;
Fall within local authority and influence, representing unique power by communities; and
Advance equity and public wellbeing, which can lead the way to support for doing more.

Estimates reflect typical North American urban conditions and results vary by context.

#1. Make it legal and attractive to put housing near destinations, and amenities near homes: Reform zoning for more homes in job‑ and transit‑rich areas, permit “missing middle” housing and accessory units, reduce minimum parking, enable small mixed‑use corner stores, clinics, and childcare, and streamline approvals for affordability and inclusion.

Infill homes lower household VMT 20–40% versus sprawl; shifting 10–20% of growth to infill can cut regional on‑road emissions ~2–6% over a decade, while multifamily/attached homes use 10–30% less energy per unit. If 40%+ of new housing is transit‑oriented, metro transport emissions can fall 10–20% by 2040, with shorter trips, lower costs, and inclusionary policies reducing displacement pressures.

#2. Neutralize the threat of being killed or seriously injured by a driver: Design streets to self‑enforce safe speeds, build connected, protected bike networks, daylight intersections, prioritize pedestrians at crossings, and target high‑injury corridors with data‑driven design, paired with fair enforcement and universal access to safe mobility.

Such programs typically cut VMT 3–10% citywide within 5–10 years (about 2–8% on‑road CO2e, or 1–4% of total community emissions), with sustained mode shift reducing per‑capita transport emissions 20–50% over 10–20 years. Fewer severe crashes, reliable low‑cost mobility during fuel price spikes or outages, and better access to jobs and services especially benefit low‑income residents, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities.

#3. Deliver high‑quality walking, bicycling, and public transit for everyone: Build safe, direct bike routes and frequent, reliable transit with all‑door boarding, bus lanes, and integrated fares, and complete trips with wayfinding, lighting, benches, shade, and safe crossings. Network upgrades and service improvements reduce corridor VMT 5–15% and citywide 3–10%, and over time enable car‑light lifestyles that can halve household transport emissions. Redundant, multimodal networks also keep people moving during storms and outages while cutting mobility costs and improving access to essentials.

#4. Create abundant places to meet, interact, and belong outside of commerce: Invest in parks, plazas, libraries, greenways, and car‑free streets with free programming, designed for comfort—trees, water, seating, restrooms—and cultural expression.

Nearby amenities reduce short car trips (often 0.5–2% VMT citywide) and shaded, tree‑rich public spaces lower cooling demand for adjacent buildings. Social infrastructure strengthens mutual aid, and shade and cooling reduce heat risk while free programming expands wellbeing without raising household costs.

#5. Restore and steward nature in the city with climate‑resilient landscaping and urban forestry: Install bioswales, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and green roofs; landscape with native, drought‑tolerant species; expand and equitably distribute tree canopy; and restore wetlands, riparian corridors, dunes, and living shorelines.

Shade and evapotranspiration cut cooling loads 5–30% for shaded buildings (roughly 0.05–0.3 tCO2e per home per year), while each new street tree sequesters 10–25 kg CO2 annually; 100,000 trees store 1–2.5 ktCO2e per year and avoid more via energy savings. Citywide canopy gains of 10 percentage points can reduce peak electricity demand 2–5%, while bioswales and rain gardens reduce flooding and heat in historically underserved neighborhoods.

#6. Grow local, plant‑rich food for health, climate, and resilience: Support community gardens, urban farms, edible landscaping, school gardens, greenhouses and rooftop farms; expand farmers markets and CSAs with SNAP matching; prioritize culturally appropriate crops and cut food waste.

Plant‑rich diets reduce 0.5–1.6 tCO2e per person per year, while shorter cold chains for local produce trim 10–50 kg per person annually and compost‑amended soils store additional carbon. These measures increase food security, lower food bills, build community cohesion, and create local jobs and skills.

#7. Turn waste into soil with municipal composting: Provide universal organics collection (including multifamily) and business service, convenient drop‑offs, clear bin standards, and edible food recovery, and apply finished compost in parks, street trees, and urban agriculture.

Diverting 1 t of food scraps from landfill avoids 0.2–0.6 tCO2e; with 75% diversion, communities avoid 20–80 kg CO2e per person annually, and compost use adds soil carbon and displaces synthetic fertilizer, totaling 40–120 kg per person per year. Programs create local jobs, improve soils that retain water, support urban food, and reduce odors and pests near facilities often sited in low‑income areas.

#8. Create systems for water conservation and efficiency: Offer instant‑rebate upgrades for high‑efficiency fixtures and appliances, smart irrigation, and turf replacement with climate‑appropriate landscaping; deploy smart meters with leak alerts; promote rainwater harvesting and safe graywater reuse; and set fair, affordability‑protected rates.

Hot‑water efficiency (fixtures plus heat‑pump water heaters) lowers 0.6–1.8 tCO2e per home per year, while outdoor water efficiency and smart irrigation save 50–200 kg per home via the water‑energy nexus; utility‑scale leak detection and efficiency can cut water‑system electricity use 10–30%. The result is lower bills, improved drought resilience, reduced shutoff risk, and cooler neighborhoods where turf gives way to drought‑tolerant landscapes.

#9. Make buildings efficient and electric: Require and finance tight envelopes, passive cooling (shade, ventilation), and all‑electric systems; add rooftop solar and vehicle‑to‑home readiness; and harden for heat, smoke, fires, and floods.

Typical retrofits and heat pumps save 1–3 tCO2e per home per year, heat‑pump water heaters 0.5–1.5 t, and induction 0.1–0.3 t; retrofitting 2–3% of stock annually cuts building emissions 3–7% in five years, and with grid decarbonization achieves 60–90% cuts by 2040–2050. Efficient envelopes keep homes habitable during outages, indoor air is healthier without combustion, and targeted no‑cost programs reduce energy poverty.

#10. Make electrification available for virtually everything—and beneficial to users: Provide simple, up‑front rebates for heat pumps, induction, electric water heaters, cars, e‑bikes, and chargers; implement equitable rates, managed charging, and community solar; and invest in workforce training and local contractors.

Accelerated adoption increases cumulative 2030 reductions 10–30% versus slow rollout; each e‑bike that replaces car trips avoids ~0.3–1 tCO2e per year, and each home fuel‑switch avoids 1–3 tCO2e annually. Lower operating costs and cleaner air accrue broadly when access programs ensure renters and low‑income households benefit first.

#11. Build shared, neighborhood‑scale clean energy and resilience: Create resilience centers with solar, batteries, clean‑air rooms, and cooling/warming, link buildings via microgrids, deploy district geothermal/geoexchange networks, organize block commitments to decommission gas laterals and upgrade electrical capacity, and add curbside and hub EV charging.

District geothermal cuts heating/cooling energy 30–60% and GHGs 40–80% today; microgrids with solar+storage reduce feeder peaks and displace diesel backup (1–3% local electricity emissions), and coordinated gas retirement plus electrification can eliminate 10–20% of total city emissions from building combustion and leakage over two decades. Shared systems keep critical services powered, lower costs for renters and small businesses, and should be prioritized in frontline neighborhoods.

#12. Keep people collectively safe from disasters, shocks, and stressors: Combine nature‑based defenses (trees, wetlands, dunes) with modern standards (cool roofs, updated codes, elevation, floodable parks), add resilient hubs, cooling centers, and clear risk communication, and plan jointly for heat, smoke, floods, and outages.

These measures safeguard crucial clean energy and other assets that reduce emissions, contribute to a faster adoption of such systems and reduce the likelihood of maladaptations such as increased use of diesel generators, and prevent high‑emission disaster recovery and support reliable operation of clean energy systems. Clean air and cooling access, language‑inclusive alerts, and social infrastructure protect those most exposed.

#13. Tamp down air pollution across its many sources. Tackle tailpipes and smokestacks together with land use, travel‑demand fixes, and clean technology: legalize compact, mixed‑use infill near jobs and transit and pair it with transportation demand management (congestion and curb pricing, employer commute benefits, school travel plans, demand‑based parking, delivery consolidation) to shorten trips, cut VMT and idling, and curb non‑exhaust PM. Accelerate zero‑emission cars, buses, and trucks; electrify buildings; restrict the dirtiest vehicles in dense areas; and expand urban forests and cool corridors. Focus on ports, freight corridors, and overburdened neighborhoods with shore power, yard‑equipment electrification, clean‑truck rules, and fenceline monitoring. Drive down PM2.5 (including diesel black carbon and brake/tire/road dust), PM10, NOx, SO2, VOCs and air toxics (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3‑butadiene), carbon monoxide, and methane leaks that fuel ozone—verified with continuous monitoring and transparent public reporting.

Greenhouse‑gas benefits start with light‑duty vehicles: citywide VMT reduction of 3–10% from compact development and TDM typically yields ~2–8% on‑road CO2e cuts in 5–10 years; sustained mode shift to walking, biking, and transit can lower per‑capita transport emissions 20–50% over 10–20 years; and rapid LDV electrification adds 60–90% per‑mile CO2e reductions as grids decarbonize, with each e‑bike that replaces car trips avoiding ~0.3–1 tCO2e per year. Building electrification removes on‑site combustion; each e‑bus avoids ~50–80 tCO2e annually; and medium/heavy‑duty truck electrification cuts 60–95% per‑mile CO2e, while area‑focused clean‑air zones deliver additional, localized multi‑percent transport‑sector cuts. Health gains are largest for residents near ports, warehouses, and arterials, and fewer combustion appliances indoors reduce asthma triggers.

#14. Invest in public infrastructure efficiently and price disproportionate impacts fairly: Use lifecycle cost and carbon accounting, standardized designs, open data, and fair user fees such as weight‑ and distance‑based road charges, curb and congestion pricing, demand‑based parking, and stormwater fees tied to impervious areas, all with protections for low‑income users.

Congestion and curb pricing reduce VMT 10–20% in priced zones and 2–5% citywide, demand‑based parking trims 2–4%, and stable revenue enables sustained transit and active‑mode expansion that underpins 10–20% transport‑sector cuts over time. Pairing pricing with income‑based discounts and reinvestment delivers fairer outcomes and lowers long‑run costs.

#15. Save money and materials with sharing and lending: Launch tool, toy, sports‑gear, and baby‑gear libraries; repair cafes and fix‑it clinics; clothing swaps and reuse marketplaces; and shared equipment for schools and small businesses, in partnership with public libraries for memberships and reservations.

Avoided production dominates the climate benefit—sharing a handful of seldom‑used items can avert 50–200 kg CO2e per person per year, with mature programs achieving 0.1–1% community‑wide cuts and broader normalization of reuse delivering 2–5% consumption‑based reductions by 2035. These programs provide low‑cost access to essentials and skills and build social networks that matter in emergencies.

#16. Offer local services and experiences as affordable alternatives to high consumption: Invest in arts and culture passes, maker spaces, community kitchens, skill‑shares, recreation, local tourism, and nature access, and support small businesses that provide repair, care, wellness, and learning, using vouchers and memberships to ensure inclusion.

Shifting 5% of household spend from goods to low‑carbon services and experiences reduces ~0.2–0.8 tCO2e per household per year, with scaled programs cutting community consumption‑based emissions 1–3% over time. The result is more wellbeing per dollar, local jobs and skills, and inclusive access to community life.

#17. Organize public decision‑making around measurable collective wellbeing:

Use participatory budgeting, citizens’ assemblies, language access, evidence‑based pilots and A/B tests, transparent dashboards, and delivery‑focused timelines that give frontline communities real power, not just voice.

Faster, smarter adoption increases cumulative reductions—programs that double deployment rates can boost 2030 impact 10–30% versus business‑as‑usual rollout—while policies reflecting lived experience deliver fairer, more durable outcomes.

#18. Make large‑scale change possible and practical: Build project pipelines and pattern books, pre‑approve typical designs, procure at scale, train a climate‑ready workforce, and start with quick‑build projects that become permanent as data show benefits.

Standardization and bulk buys lower costs and speed deployment across sectors, compounding reductions, while predictable pipelines create local careers and let small and minority‑owned firms compete and thrive.

Putting it all together

Communities that pursue these strategies in parallel can plausibly cut total emissions 35–60% by 2035 (from a 2020s baseline) while reducing heat and flood risk, improving air quality, lowering household bills, and creating good local jobs. The fastest paths pair demand reduction (land use, mobility, efficiency), rapid electrification, neighborhood‑scale clean energy, water and materials stewardship, and joyful, lower‑consumption ways of living—implemented through equitable programs that prioritize those with the greatest energy and health burdens.

Tags action items, energy, local government, services, transitions, transportation, urbanism, wellbeing

Uncategorized

Lyft said private cars would be out by 2025–here’s what to ask next time

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 24 Jun 2025
No Comments on Lyft said private cars would be out by 2025–here’s what to ask next time

In 2016, Lyft cofounder and president John Zimmer wrote that by 2025 private car ownership would all but end in major U.S. cities. Fast forward: We’re not just off track but moving the opposite way.

Although the prediction should have been treated as unbelievable at the time, it was widely reported as credible, often with little scrutiny or independent analysis. Many readers and editors seemed eager for it to be true, perhaps because it fit a familiar story in which software rapidly overturns old systems.

Technological salvation is alluring, but enthusiasm can obscure how transportation really works. Smartphones and online retail moved fast because they could. Mobility is different. It is defined by land use, the allocation of rights, privileges, and funding, and infrastructure that lasts decades while continuously locking in supporting investments along the way.

Cars dominate because policy made it so. Highways, subsidies, zoning, finance, and design standards formed a meticulously-crafted ecosystem for automobiles. Homes have been separated from daily destinations, with gaps filled by roads that are wide and fast.

Transit, cycling, and walking are less common than driving. But it isn’t because they are inherently weaker or less popular. It’s because our current system treats the car as necessary and central for almost every trip, and constrains and prioritizes from there.

Automated vehicles have advanced, but slowly and within limits. Companies like Waymo show that meaningful progress takes time and careful deployment. We are prone to sweeping claims when they sparkle with tech optimism.

Looking ahead, we should not expect transformation to come from a single breakthrough. Rather, it will come from changing policy, reimagining urban design, and putting people at the center of mobility. That means funding choices, street space allocation, and land use decisions aligned with what we say we value.

The next time you hear about a miracle transportation breakthrough, here are some questions to ask:

1. What independent evidence supports this claim, and how could it be tested or falsified?

2. Which policies, budgets, and standards would need to change for it to work, and who has the authority to change them?

3. How must street design and land use shift to make the promised outcomes practical and safe?

4. What is the impact on people with below-average incomes and folks who can’t readily drive, including youth and the growing number of aging seniors?

Tags transitions, transportation, urbanism

Uncategorized

Primer on transitions for climate resilience

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 22 May 2023
No Comments on Primer on transitions for climate resilience

Climate-resilient development means changing how our systems work so people can thrive as the climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls these changes transitions.

A transition is a coordinated shift in technology and infrastructure, in rules and institutions, in finance and markets, in skills and social norms, in ecosystem stewardship, and in how we use knowledge to decide and act. These shifts point in one direction. Lower emissions and lower risk. They are learning processes. They center equity and justice. They reflect local context to avoid fixes that raise risk elsewhere or later.

After a transition, emissions are structurally lower. Energy, mobility, water, food, and health services hold up better during heat, floods, fire, and storms. Systems have more redundancy and diversity so one failure does not cascade. Nature is healthier and acts as a buffer. Access is fairer and the most exposed people are safer.

How fast this can happen varies. Policy and finance can pivot within one to five years and must stay the course. End use technologies and fleets turn over in five to twenty years. Energy supply and grids often take ten to thirty years to rebuild. Urban form and major infrastructure can take twenty to fifty years or more. Ecosystem recovery and coastal reconfiguration often take decades. Acting this decade keeps options open and avoids lock in.

Energy

The energy transition cuts waste, electrifies end uses, and scales clean supply. Efficiency lowers demand in buildings, industry, and devices. Electrification moves heating, cooking, and many industrial processes to clean power. Renewables, storage, flexible demand, and modern grids become the backbone. Unabated fossil fuels decline. Grids become more resilient and smarter, with a mix of large interconnections and distributed resources like rooftop solar, batteries, and microgrids. Siting and design account for heat, wildfire, and flood. The transition supports workers and regions that depend on fossil fuels and expands affordable clean energy access.

Transportation

Mobility changes through avoid, shift, and improve. We reduce unnecessary travel with better land use and digital access. We shift more trips to public transport and active modes that are safe and convenient. We improve vehicles and fuels. Electric vehicles grow quickly as grids decarbonize. Freight uses more rail where feasible. Aviation and shipping focus on efficiency and sustainable fuels where electrification is harder. Transport networks withstand heat, flood, and storms through better materials, elevation, rerouting, and redundancy.

Urbanism

Cities grow in ways that cut emissions and reduce risk. Compact, connected, mixed use neighborhoods shorten trips and support transit and walking. Buildings are efficient, well insulated, and designed for heat and smoke. Blue green infrastructure adds trees, parks, wetlands, and permeable surfaces that cool and absorb water. Land use, transport, water, and waste planning are integrated. Circular systems reduce waste and reuse water and materials. Emergency services have reliable access during extremes. Critical services can be decentralized when that improves reliability. Equity sits at the center through inclusive planning, slum upgrading, tenure security, and universal basic services for water, sanitation, cooling, and mobility.

Agriculture, water, and ecosystems

Food systems face rising heat, drought, flood, pests, and price shocks. The transition puts food and farm resilience up front. Farmers diversify crops and livestock, use agroecology, improve soils, harvest and store water, and use climate services for decisions. Cold chains, storage, and logistics reduce losses. Diets move toward healthy, sustainable options and food waste falls, which eases pressure on land and water. Water is managed across whole basins with demand management, nature based storage, reuse, and risk reduction for droughts and floods. Forests, wetlands, grasslands, rivers, and reefs are protected and restored, and landscapes stay connected so species can move. Coasts plan for rising seas with setbacks, buffers, and ecosystem based protection such as mangroves and reefs. Where risk becomes too high, managed retreat lowers harm. Indigenous rights and knowledge are respected and benefits and risks are shared fairly.

Health, livelihoods, and social protection

People face heat, disease, smoke, and displacement. Health systems prepare with heat action plans, climate informed primary care, and early warning that reaches every household. Safety from wildfire and other disasters is explicit in plans. Communities have clean air shelters, HEPA filtration, and N95 distribution for smoke. Hospitals, clinics, and schools have backup power and cooling. Evacuation routes, alerts, and shelters are accessible for people with disabilities, older adults, and families with young children. Programs harden homes against fire and storms and support retrofits for cooling and air quality. Universal access to water, sanitation, and hygiene reduces disease risk. Social protection cushions shocks through cash transfers, public works, insurance, and programs that scale automatically during disasters. Livelihoods diversify and education builds skills for new jobs. Mental health support is available after disasters.

Finance and governance

Money, rules, and skills enable everything above. Public and private finance scale up and shift toward mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation finance gaps close, especially in low income and climate vulnerable regions. Disclosure and pricing of climate risk become standard. Risk pooling and instruments for loss and damage expand. Governance is inclusive and multi level so communities, cities, regions, and nations work in concert. Decisions use scenarios and stress tests to manage uncertainty. Knowledge is co-produced with local and Indigenous communities. Education and workforce programs spread the skills needed for a just transition.

What success looks like

If we are on track, emissions will fall. Losses from climate hazards stop rising as quickly even as hazards grow. Access to energy, mobility, cooling, water, food, and health improves. Exposure of high risk groups declines. Ecosystems recover and provide stronger services like cooling, flood control, and carbon storage. Investment patterns, institutions, and daily choices reinforce these gains rather than undermine them.

References

IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022 Summary for Policymakers. Working Group II Sixth Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

IPCC (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Schaeffer R et al. (2025). Ten new insights in climate science 2024. One Earth. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332225001113

FAO (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2021/en/

Lancet Countdown (2024). 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change. The Lancet. https://www.lancetcountdown.org/2024-report/

Tags transitions

Uncategorized

To secure crucial climate action, focus on resilience

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 15 May 2023
No Comments on To secure crucial climate action, focus on resilience

What is climate action?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the most widely-accepted international scientific body on climate change, when we think about climate action, we should think climate-resilient development.¹

Climate-resilient development means deeply reducing greenhouse gas emissions (“mitigation”) while dealing with the changing climate already coming at us (“adaptation”) and doing both in a way that supports sustainable development for everyone.

Mitigation

Mitigationmeans reducing greenhouse gas emissions.² The magnitude of reduction needed is associated with limiting global warming by as close as possible to 1.5C (2.7F) degrees. Overall that means reducing half of global emissions from the period of 2023 (IPCC’s most recent major update) by 2030.

The US’ likely best ways to support that transition, as evaluated in 2024 by the Biden adminstration, are to (1) decarbonize the energy sector (focusing on cutting energy waste; shifting to carbon pollution-free electricity; electrifying and driving efficiency in vehicles, buildings, and parts of industry), (2) reduce emissions from forests and agriculture and enhancing carbon sinks, and (3) reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases including methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and other potent short-lived climate pollutants.

For the US to carry its fair share, it needs reduce its emissions by about half from 2024 to 2030, or about 6,400 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO2e), according to Climate Action Tracker, which monitors and evaluates countries’ commitments.

The US’ actual commitment as of November 2024 (per its nationally-determined contribution submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) was about 22-28% for the period of 2024 to 2030. ³

Adaptation

Adaptationmeans adapting to the changes underway. It also specifically means avoiding maladaptation, or in other words, responses that worsen existing inequities, especially for Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups, or that hurt ecosystem and biodiversity resilience.

Adaptation is a process that can take place over the range of multiple timescales, from nearer term to longer term, and really any physical level, from the whole human civilization on down.

Sustainable development for everyone

Sustainable development for everyone means centering justice, equity, and inclusion in investments and other commitments in order to avoid perpetuating historical and ongoing injustices, inequities, exclusions, and that reconcile divergent interests, values and worldviews toward equitable and just outcomes for all.

Sustainable development for everyone specifically involves building a just transition, or managing the shift to a low-carbon economy in a way that is fair and inclusive, ensuring that no one is left behind.

Such responses work more broadly to meet, and ideally create synergies with the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The three processes of mitigation, adaptation, and sustainble development for everyone together can be considered “climate-resilient development.”

The three aspects are related and affect each another. For example, initiatives that aim to support mitigation need to be adaptable to a heating climate or they could fail. Also, a community’s needs for adaptation are a function of how much warming is prevented by mitigation. And responses that are just, equitable, and inclusive are likely to strengthen the possibilities for mitigation and adaptation.

References

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

2 https://globalecoguy.org/we-need-to-see-the-whole-board-to-stop-climate-change-98be66412281

3 https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa

Click to access United%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf

https://rhg.com/research/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2023/embed/#?secret=Jj3TeU8v8M#?secret=FlMJIU6o5c

The US commitment is to reduce emissions from 2005 levels (7.4 gt total and 6.7 gt net) by about half (50-52%) by 2030. The US is projected to achieve about half of that reduction (26-28%) by 2025.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel. See especially Technical Summary. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Primer on subnational climate action

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 24 Aug 2022
No Comments on Primer on subnational climate action

Subnational climate action means everything that happens below the federal level. Cities, counties, regional agencies, states, multi state coalitions, and interstate institutions set rules and invest public dollars.

Subnational policy shapes markets, unlocks private capital, and builds the record that supports durable national standards. It spreads a few ways.

First, it creates working examples. A city or state proves a rule or program can work, then peers copy it and vendors standardize around it.

Second, it builds markets that lower costs. Public procurement and utility programs create steady demand that pulls in manufacturing and finance.

Third, it uses planning and permitting authority to direct dollars and projects.

Fourth, it establishes a technical and legal record that supports stronger federal standards later. The result is a set of local and regional moves that add up to national behavior long before a federal rule arrives.

Cities and counties

Cities and counties control land use, zoning, building codes, building performance standards, and permitting. Building performance standards, often shortened to BPS, set energy or emissions limits for large buildings and drive demand for heat pumps, smart controls, and retrofits. Local governments run fleets and buy buses, trucks, and construction materials. Electrification ready codes and streamlined permits reduce soft costs and speed adoption.

Local action can also advance national practice when done together. Cities can adopt common templates for electric vehicle ready requirements, clean construction, and benchmarking. They can pool purchases of buses and trucks, share compliance tools and data, and align timelines. When many cities move in concert, vendors face one clear set of expectations, which speeds product development and lowers costs across the country.

Intrastate (or “sub-state”) regional agencies

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, known as MPOs, program federal transportation dollars through long range plans and a Transportation Improvement Program, called a TIP. Plans must conform to the emissions budget in the State Implementation Plan, or SIP. Some states also set greenhouse gas targets for MPOs. When MPOs shift funds toward transit, maintenance, safe streets, managed lanes, and charging depots, vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, grows more slowly and fleets electrify faster.

Transit agencies operate bus and rail systems and manage large depots and right of way. They plan service, buy vehicles, install chargers and grid upgrades, and coordinate street design with cities and MPOs. Major procurements of zero emission buses and charging equipment create predictable demand that manufacturers serve nationwide. Service that is frequent, reliable, and safe also reduces driving, which cuts emissions and improves local air quality.

Air quality management districts write rules and permits that feed into the SIP under the federal Clean Air Act. They target nitrogen oxides, called NOx, and volatile organic compounds, called VOCs, to meet health standards. Many regulate pollution from freight hubs through indirect source rules for warehouses, ports, and airports, and through tighter limits on combustion equipment. Because logistics networks operate across state lines, strong rules in major hubs push markets for zero emission trucks, cargo handling equipment, and cleaner industrial heat across the country. These rules also generate data and legal precedent that support stronger Environmental Protection Agency standards later.

States and utility regulators

States set greenhouse gas targets and pass laws that require cleaner electricity such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard or a Clean Electricity Standard. They update building codes and BPS, adopt appliance standards, regulate methane and industrial emissions, and manage siting for energy projects. States deploy funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, often written as IIJA and IRA. Many run green banks and use public purchasing through Buy Clean programs that prefer lower carbon materials.

Public Utility Commissions and Public Service Commissions, often shortened to PUCs and PSCs, regulate utilities. They approve resource plans, transmission and distribution upgrades, interconnection reforms, demand side programs, and rates. Early state action proves feasibility and lowers costs. PUC decisions unlock large clean power builds and improve reliability, which reduces national prices and risk for private investors.

Multistate coalitions and agreements

Governor led coalitions such as the United States Climate Alliance and sector agreements on zero emission cars and trucks align targets, timelines, and model policies. Harmonized rules reduce compliance friction, speed replication across states, and signal a stable market to investors and manufacturers.

Interstate regional agencies

Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, known as RTOs and ISOs, operate wholesale power markets and plan transmission under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. They manage interconnection queues and resource adequacy. Stronger regional transmission, better queue management, and fair rules for storage and demand response enable gigawatt scale clean energy additions across multiple states. These changes lower costs for wide areas and make federal standards easier to implement.

Interstate carbon and fuel markets also create durable price signals. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, caps power sector carbon dioxide across several Northeast and Mid Atlantic states and invests allowance revenue in clean energy and efficiency. The Western Climate Initiative links California and Qu├ębec in a cap and trade system that covers multiple sectors. Low Carbon Fuel Standard programs, or LCFS, in California, Oregon, and Washington create credits for lower carbon fuels and for electricity used in transportation. Shared methods for measuring emissions and credits let firms operate at multi state scale and provide evidence that informs future federal rules.

Coalition of “Section 177” states

Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, states can adopt California vehicle emission standards after the Environmental Protection Agency grants California a waiver. These programs include Advanced Clean Cars II for light duty zero emission vehicle sales and Advanced Clean Trucks for medium and heavy duty sales. When many states adopt these programs without change, their combined market share creates a national trajectory for zero emission vehicles in practice. Automakers and fleet operators then plan and invest on a national basis, which supports stronger Environmental Protection Agency standards later.

Why subnational action matters

It accelerates scale and speed because local, regional, and state programs can move before federal rules arrive. It lowers costs because public procurement, utility programs, and regional power markets create steady demand that pulls down prices for vehicles, chargers, heat pumps, storage, and clean power. It protects public health because air and transportation actions reduce NOx and fine particles where burdens are highest. It builds the technical and legal record that federal agencies need to issue durable nationwide standards. It strengthens economic competitiveness because coordinated subnational demand anchors domestic supply chains and skilled jobs. It also preserves momentum if federal policy pauses because state and local action keeps progress moving.

Local codes and BPS spark demand for clean buildings and fleets. Intrastate regional agencies focus that demand at freight hubs and along major corridors and translate it into real projects and service. State laws and PUC decisions scale clean power and building electrification while deploying IIJA and IRA funds. Interstate agencies unlock transmission, fair market access, and consistent carbon and fuel signals, which lowers costs across many states. Multi state coalitions and Section 177 adoption align methods and timelines so companies face consistent expectations across very large markets. Federal agencies can then lift and lock in these proven approaches through nationwide standards.

Subnational action is the engine that turns goals into markets, turns markets into standards, and turns standards into durable national progress.

Tags local government, transitions

Uncategorized

Efficiency improvements through electric vehicles: You don’t know the half of it

Post author By Ryan Schuchard
Post date 24 Jan 2022
No Comments on Efficiency improvements through electric vehicles: You don’t know the half of it

Electrifying transportation seems like magic because the core machine is so much better at turning energy into motion.

A typical electric drivetrain is about three times as efficient as a gasoline one, and it runs on a fuel that can steadily move toward being 100% renewable and carbon-free.

EVs bring other benefits too, like quiet streets and low maintenance, but the headline is simple. Its superpower is efficiency. We are talking about roughly 0.27 kWh per mile for a mid-size EV, equivalent to about 125 MPG.

That gap alone is enough to deeply cut emissions as the grid cleans up. Yet there is another side to efficiency that most people miss.

The way most of us travel day to day is overbuilt for the job. One person, often alone, moving at low average speeds through city streets in a 3,000 to 5,000+ lb vehicle.

Most of the energy goes to pushing a heavy machine and a lot of air, not to moving a human body. On a typical urban trip, about 95% of the energy moves the vehicle, and only about 5% moves the person.

That is not a moral judgment. It is physics.

When you repeatedly accelerate two tons in stop-and-go traffic, you spend energy on mass. When you cruise with a large frontal area, you spend energy on drag. Either way, the human is the smallest part of the payload.

The battery-electric revolution opens the door to right-sized electric mobility that flips this ratio. Electric motors scale beautifully. They are compact, efficient, and happy at many sizes.

That is why we now have an entire family of vehicles that can deliver a full trip at a fraction of the energy. Think e-scooters, e-bikes and cargo bikes, mopeds, compact city EVs, and neighborhood electric vehicles. The savings are not subtle.

A typical e-bike uses about 10 to 20 Wh per mile. At the U.S. average residential electricity price, that is well under one cent per mile. A small neighborhood EV might use 80 to 150 Wh per mile, still many times less than a full-size car.

Compare that with a gasoline sedan at around 1,100 Wh per mile worth of fuel energy, or even a mid-size EV at about 250 to 300 Wh per mile, and the order-of-magnitude difference becomes clear.

Right-sizing brings other gains. Smaller electric vehicles need smaller batteries, which lowers cost and materials demand. They can charge from an ordinary outlet overnight. Parking gets easier. Streets get calmer. Air gets cleaner where people live.

These are resilience benefits as well. A household with a mix of light electric options can keep moving even during fuel disruptions, and a car with a modest battery can backstop outages at home with vehicle-to-load gear. Cities that shift short trips to light electric modes need less space and less money to move more people.

None of this argues against the mainstream EV. For many trips, a conventional car is the right tool, and replacing a gasoline car with an electric one cuts energy use by a factor of three or four before you account for the grid’s ongoing shift to renewables. It is simply that our efficiency story is incomplete if it stops at the car-for-car swap. The lowest-cost, lowest-carbon, and most space-efficient miles will often be ridden, not driven.

The good news is we are already living in this future. Most urban trips are short enough for light electric mobility. In the United States, roughly half of all trips are under three miles. That is e-bike territory for many people and many days, with weather gear and cargo options making it practical for more. Cities that add safe networks for small vehicles see rapid uptake, because the product is compelling. It is fun, fast enough, cheap to run, and simple to maintain.

If you want a simple mental model, use this. Electrification gives you a big step up in efficiency at any vehicle size. Downsizing gives you another. Stack them and you get both deep decarbonization and better daily life. We can triple drivetrain efficiency by moving from internal combustion to electric. We can multiply total-system efficiency again by choosing the smallest electric that does the job. The result is cleaner air, lower costs, quieter streets, and far less energy burned to move the same person from A to B.

So by all means celebrate the conventional electric car. It is a workhorse and a crucial climate tool. Then look at the rest of the electric toolbox and pick the right size for the job. The fastest way to win on energy and money is to electrify, and then right-size.

Tags energy, transitions, transportation