An interview with Minnesotans For An Energy Efficient Economy (ME3's) executive director Michael Noble.

ME3 is a nonprofit organization fostering a clean, efficient and fair energy system to advance Minnesota's Economy with Clean Power & Transportation n choices.

 Michael Noble backdropped by his office view of the 4th and Minnesota St parking lot. The indoor lot adjacent his office building charges $7.00 for the first hour for visitors driving combustion engine vehicles.
Here's how interviewer Vicki Pellar-Price got to ME3's offices in St. Paul.
She drove there in her SUV with Mapquest driving directions. She chose the shortest route that took her approximately 45 minutes via the 494 and Hwy 5 to 7th St. and into downtown St Paul.

What were the alternative modes of transportation to get to the interview?
Metro Transit's Bus Trip Planner had the following options: are you willing to walk a 1/4, 1/2 or a full mile; do you prefer the least amounts of transfers, or a faster trip, or fewer stops, and what time of day, and hour of departure do you prefer? After entering in all the possible variables the result was no departing routes from origin (that meant given the trip options she entered there were no departing routes from her neck of the burbs.) Suburban Taxi-- Approximately $45.00 for a one way trip.


Question #1

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
In his address to delegates, the DFL's gubernatorial pick, Roger Moe, stressed the stewardship of natural resources and sustainable energy and a transportation system that protects the environment and promotes economic growth. GOP hopeful Brian Sullivan has said that we need better roads, and that light rail is not a good solution to congestion. Sullivan suggests that building more roads is the environmentally friendly thing to do. GOP candidate Tim Pawlenty says 95% of Minnesotans are still going to use personal vehicles as their transportation of choice, but that transit must be part of the solution too. The Green party supports a reduction in combustion engine traffic, the addition of LRT, automobile free zones and plant based fuels. Minnesotans want mobility, non-congested roads, clean air and livable communities; they support intermodal options that have both an economic and environmental upside. What needs to happen within the next five years to put us on a fast track to more sustainable and accessible mobility options?

Mike Noble:
I'm encouraged about the transportation policy issues brought to light by the gubernatorial debate this year. There is a strong need for government action in the next five years. I think that all the parties that are active in the debate have staked out strong views on the subject; it will be a well articulated issue and the public will be become part of this debate. Just building more roads and lanes is out of step with voters and reality; we have to aggressively employ alternative modes of transport. Road advocates argue persuasively that even if we double the amount of transit trips, it will only account for a small percentage, even if we double it again, it won't compare to auto transport. That doesn't make the case that we should neglect, or abandon alternatives, it makes the case that it will be a process over time that we have to aggressively invest in. One well known adage is building more lanes on the freeway, in order to alleviate the congestion problem, is like letting your belt out to cure an overeating problem. That's a very apt description, because as soon as you add more lanes, and more drivers, you discover the only solution to provide more surface capacity is to provide many different options.

We should be investing in rail, even though some say rail is too expensive. The analogy I would give is that education is expensive too, but certainly its benefit far out weighs the investment to the community and the multitude of effects to those who pursue it. We need to follow through with our commitment to build the North Star Corridor to the St Cloud area; we need to invest in more transportation options for people to get to work from the southern and northern points of the metro. In addition, we need to figure out ways to reduce driving by giving incentives for riding the bus, for biking, for car pooling. We really need to look at these options as viable solutions and not just give lip service. We need to try to implement the best practices by looking at other cities. For example, what city has the best bus system? That's the kind of system we want. What city has the most bike friendly access to their downtown area? That's the kind of bike system we want with bike friendly community infrastructure. What cities have the best car sharing policies that allow families to only use one car? That's the kind of policy that will create new businesses offering co-op, ride-sharing opportunities to promote less congestion, cleaner air. This is just a starter list that can put us on a fast track to creative mobility options.


Question #2

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
The College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences at the U of M reports that the rural economy contributes 22% of Minnesota's total exports. Agriculture and its value-added products contribute 14% of the state's personal income and employment, still the rural economy trails the Metro economy. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture says soy diesel production and its utilization in Minnesota will generate $185 to $460 million in total economic impact, 983 to 2,439 jobs, and $64 to $159 million in value-added products in various economic sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade, services, finance, insurance, and real estate.
There are some environmentalists and agriculturalists who believe that the mono-cultural approach to soybeans and corn is based on growth that is basically flat surfaced annual crops which create soil loss, fertilization depletion and high expense. The opposite would be true of a poly-cultural, three-dimensional natural system, which would create variety interaction, such as farming utilizing perennial poly-cultural systems. This could involve a more expensive growing process which could make the Minnesota product uncompetitive in world markets where both land and labor are cheaper. Can Minnesota’s ethanol and biofuels be a sustainable economic source to the region and can we profit from these natural resources without destroying the land in the process?

Mike Noble:
I support ethanol and biofuels. There is controversy in the environmental and public community in regard to the heavy reliance on corn as fuel stock. In the long run we'll need to have alternative liquid fuels from plant matter; it's an important opportunity for rural economic development and to promote cleaner air. The longer term vision has been articulated best by David Morris from the Institute of Self Reliance. I share his vision that while the demand for oil rises and rises, rather than build a new million dollar oil refinery in MN, we ought to keep the demand down and look at community, county, township based ethanol facilities that provide clean fuels. I'm concerned about the backlash and the air quality attacks from St Paul; perhaps that setting is not the best location for an ethanol facility. But I'm also encouraged by the rural economic opportunities that so many towns and communities have gained from local ethanol production. In the long run, I'm hopeful that we can move from corn based ethanol to grasses and new woody crops, and other kinds of plant matter as a feedstock, which would require much less intensive agriculture. The concern of environmentalists is the chemical inputs, manufacturing intensities that are necessary in production of the feedstock. We should think of corn to ethanol as a stepping stone to grasses to ethanol: poly-cultural grass and hay and prairie infrastructures that produce ethanol from plant matter with very little chemical inputs. I'm actually part of the community of folks who supports ethanol, but I am very supportive and concerned about the air emission impacts of ethanol production to communities and believe in moving strongly to lower impacts and invest in feed stocks other than corn.


Question #3

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
The automobile industry could produce a high efficiency engine with power and load matching, reduced weight, better aerodynamics, and tires with lower resistance right now if they wanted to-- but instead are spending millions to lobby new fuel efficiency legislation. For a population that seems unlikely to give up the comforts of their SUVs anytime soon, are local alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel really viable solutions for land and man, or is mobility's ultimate fuel future under a hood with fuel cells?


Mike Noble:
Well yes fuel cells are the ultimate solution. But, fuel cells utilizing fossil fuels in their production may be a short term solution to limiting our use of unsustainable and polluting sources of energy. Every major car company in the world has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the race to be first with a fuel cell car. There was a new book out last year about the rapid development of fuel cells and fuel cell research. Bill Ford has been quoted numerous times saying that he expects a CEO of Ford Motor Company will preside over the end of the combustion engine. That's a hopeful comment. It's encouraging when the giants of the auto industry recognize we're in a transition. Even the President, whose administration's environmental record is horrible, has said that fuel cell cars are an important aspect of America's future transportation needs. The hard challenge with fuel cells will be from which feed stock will the hydrogen be made. Fuel cells are a simple idea, in that you take hydrogen and oxygen and through an electrochemical process, you create power. The only emission from combining hydrogen and oxygen is pure water, which you could take a glass and drink from the tail pipe of your car. So the question is where would we get the hydrogen? Well there are lots of competitors in line for that opportunity. Some people think the hydrogen can come most cheaply and easily from gasoline, some people think it can come from natural gas, some people think it can come from methanol, some think hydrogen can come from ethanol. All of the various feed stocks have their challenges and problems, but the one point to make that's fairly obvious is that they all heavily rely on fossil fuels for production.

The country of Iceland has announced that its public transit system, its buses, and soon its cars will run on fuel cells. They plan on making hydrogen directly from water using renewable electricity to split the water into hydrogen/ oxygen. They intend to build their first hydrogen station in downtown Rekjavik Iceland, and soon begin fueling the buses of their public transit system with hydrogen. Their plan is skip over all these questions of converters on board, methanol to hydrogen, gas to hydrogen, natural gas to hydrogen, and go with a pure renewable energy: a water to hydrogen /oxygen energy system which would be truly sustainable. So I don't want to get too enamored, too soon, with fuel cells-- because fuel cells produced with fossil fuels may provide a significant improvement in efficiency and reduced pollution-- but our long term need is to get off the fossil fuels altogether, and the critical reason that's so important is because fossil fuels are changing our climate. I agree with the premise of your question that people are unlikely to give up their cars-- and I'm not advocating that they do-- but fuel cells made with fossil fuels are not the silver bullet solution.


Question #4

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
There are real indications that our cargo/freight and airline capacity will be unable to handle future growth. This would have a serious effect on our ability to maintain a competitive position nationally and in the global market. Without improving these services we risk losing companies and tourist dollars. Because population growth demands new and value-added services expanding our capacity is essential to maintaining economic growth. With tourism being the fastest growing industry in the world, our local insufficiencies in carrier options and the lack of competitive air fares and direct routes negatively impacts tourist dollars. As to cargo deficiencies, MSP has the least capacity/growth potential nationally for competitive cargo operations. The airport's present location presents increased congestion and negative environmental consequences to the Metro area. Would you support the utilization of an underused regional hub like St Cloud to increase capacity and add new services, while also implementing programs at all airports adjacent communities to control night flights and reduce noise, congestion and environmental pollution, as well as advocating for alternative methods of transport such as rail for short distances?

Michael Noble:
The air transport issue is a difficult question. I'm very concerned with the quality of life around the metro area near the airport. Part of the solution is to get airfreight to alternative airport sites. I know people who work intently and thoughtfully on this issue. MSP could reduce its concentration of airfreight by moving freight to regional hubs. I'm not a supporter of the idea of moving the airport to southern Dakota County. I'm glad that issue was set aside, because that would have meant a new airport another 45 min, or an hour out of the city, which would certainly accelerate urban sprawl down the Mississippi river and toward that part of the metro area. One thing that isn't often spoken about is the possibility of reducing air travel altogether. Some of the statistics I've seen indicate that an enormous percentage of commercial air travel is the day to day flying of a very small percentage of travelers. I think it would be possible to reduce jet usage 10, 15 or 20 %, just by getting a commitment from businesses and a commitment of business travelers to institute a business ethic that proposes business travelers should fly less often and more strategically.

In the wake of 9-11, as tragic as that was, out of it came a conscious consideration: how much travel is really necessary? Business flyers and CEOs started asking the question is this the only way to conduct business? Alternatives to air travel in the business community could include the vigorous expansion of teleconferencing. An ideal that has been thrown around a lot is that business meetings could be conducted by teleconferencing and video interfaces. Yet I've never been to a business meeting like that where there are 8 or 10 people in a conference room in Minneapolis, communicating to 8 to 10 people in a conference room in Washington DC. I suppose there is an infrastructure and a cost question-- but again if we had a conscious policy to reduce business travel to its essential, then business could be conducted anywhere, anytime-- then someone like me wouldn't have to say after ten years of hearing about teleconferencing that I've never been to a teleconference.


Question #5

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
MIT's John Paul Clarke, assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics, says there is currently no comprehensive, internationally accepted method for determining the impact of aviation-related emissions. According to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), air transportation contributes 2% of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions, and 13% of the fossil fuel used for transportation. Air passenger traffic on scheduled airlines has grown 60% in the past ten years, with an estimated 5% increase expected for the next ten to 15 years. Clarke has begun a study to determine the global impacts in terms of performance, fuel burn, emissions, traffic and traffic growth. Also, unlike all other industries, the aviation industry is exempt from reporting their TRI, toxic release inventory. Since air transportation is necessary to a global economy what course do you suggest that would allow competitive services, but still demand public accountability and alternative fuel sources?

Michael Noble:
This is the hardest question. I know that air transportation is an important part of the global economy. I really believe in the possibility of a substitution of electronic, video and other types of communications over the need to be there in person for every different business purpose for air travel. Obviously the shipping of goods is important, but there should be a hierarchy of priorities. Rail is so much more energy efficient than air travel and rail is much more efficient than Hwy and truck travel. It's a shame that our country has allowed rail infrastructure to wane the way it has. One partial solution to air pollution and urban quality of life issues that arise from air travel would be to focus on ways to substitute alternative modes of transport.


Question #6

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute, says road travel won't be replaced any time soon. Downs says transit accounts for 46.6 billion transit miles compared to 2.5 trillion in cars, 1.5 trillion in small trucks and SUVs. Even though a 4.8% transit gain in 2000 has been reported, transit is at a disadvantage with a 1.5% share in 2000 and total passenger travel on highways rising all the time. Which means transit might not even be able to play catch-up. If transit grows at 5.36% per year, and highway travel gains only 1% per year, transit passenger miles wouldn't catch up until 2036.

The MET council’s transportation planner has stated there isn’t enough money to fund transit. In a new report called the Changing Face of Transportation n, the DOT says they recognize that transportation is all about connections to the economy and to people. The DOT says they know that to be effective, transportation must be international in reach, intermodal in form. The Report emphasizes the importance of the environment and energy sources, growth and intermodalism. How can we gradually change our road-only access region, and regain our sense of shared community, by sharing transportation? With these figures in mind will transit really be able to make a dent in creating an alternative that improves mobility and the environment?


Michael Noble:
My view is that great cities have great transportation. You go to Toronto, go to Paris, go to New York City they have fantastic transportation systems; that's what makes them great cities to visit and live. Being able to get around the city conveniently, efficiently and quickly without a car is actually an important part of quality-of-life. I don't have any Pollyanna or idealistic view on how far Minneapolis and St Paul are behind, or how much we'll have to invest to catch up, but I don't see any choice other than investing in alternative modes. It's important that people are aware of the costs of our road only approach to transportation. Minnesota has really disproportionately invested in road transportation to the neglect of bus, bike and rail transportation. The most important choice citizens can make is where they live, vis a vis where they work. If people chose to live in a place where they can easily get transit options to go to work they will take enormous pressure off our road system. If you chose to live 40 or 50 miles from where you work, the result will be to increase congestion. Over 15 years ago, our family of four chose to be a one car family. The only way we could do that was by choosing a home that was convenient to public transit, so our teenagers ride the bus and I ride the bus often. If I have a business meeting, I can rent a car, grab a cab; if it's close I can walk, bike, or take the bus. All these choices makes one car work even though we have three drivers. So, I think that kind of example shows that a lot of families could survive with only one car.

I don't think people should be naive though about how dominant cars are in the transportation mix, and how dominate they will continue to be. People do need their cars for access to point-to-point destinations. People who insist that cars are bad, or unnecessary, are naive. I've been told by some people that they have gone without cars and found it quite difficult to manage getting around. Having said that, our vehicle miles are rising more than the population growth over the last 20 years. One reason that the miles we travel in cars has grown more rapidly is attributed to people's lifestyles. But to use the old adage, we can't build enough black top, or highways, or freeways, or roads to accommodate all the road travelers is more true than ever today. This is a very serious problem and I'm not flippant or cavalier about the solutions. But what I do know is that we have to aggressively invest in every transit possibility so we can drive less. To do this we must have a vigorous public discussion about what that means. This year there was a legislative showdown over refurbishing an old rail line from downtown to St Cloud, even though 80% of public thought it was a good idea. Some how the specter of rail transit has gotten to be a very partisan issue, which is very unfortunate. Rail is the backbone of a new infrastructure that can promote the kind of development and urban density that makes neighborhoods more bikeable and walkable providing more of the necessary core revitalization to cities. I'm a big rail advocate. I support high-speed rail to Chicago. I know that the concept, on the simple face of it, doesn't carry enough travelers to justify the expense, but I'd like to see rails proliferate in order to provide more choices.


Question #7

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
For a sustainable aviation industry that is accountable to the public and the environment would you require a reduction in flights under 500 miles by promoting stronger intermodal transportation policies in the region, particularly the use of high-speed trains, and by promoting advanced telecommunications technologies for business communications?

Would you support the following measures for a sustainable and accountable aviation system?
1.Enforce curfews on all flights between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM, except in emergencies.
2.The use of DNL to measure aircraft noise is inadequate. Implement 55 dB CNEL, community noise equivalent level in combination with SNEL, single exposure level that measures the intensity of sound during a single noise event.
3.Initiate impact studies of aircraft noise on property values, health of human and other life to be performed by independent agencies.
4. Work towards the refunding of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) as proposed in the Toricelli Bill (S951) and the Lowey Bill(HR536) of the Quiet Communities Act.
5. Work towards the passing a national bill that will evaluate the quantity and composition of the air pollution on and around the airports.

Mike Noble:
Yes, I'm very strongly supportive of high-speed rail and advanced telecommunications technologies. Perhaps an idea that we could look at for promoting these alternatives would be business tax incentives and fiscal policies that could promote quick development of new industries. In general I think broadly across all these issues that the public has not been adequately consulted and represented, or included, in airport decision making and air transport policy making. There is more opportunity for accountability, more involvement and more responsiveness from the aviation industry to citizens concerns about the impacts to quality-of-life from air transportation.


Question #8

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
There are around 141,000 vehicles a day that use the 494 corridor near the Mall of America. That figure is expected to escalate to 177,000 by 2022, a 25% increase. The plans to widen the hwy east of hwy 100 to the airport aren't scheduled till 2010. Up till now the suggestions on how to ease congestion have ended in a political standoff. Bills may appropriate funds, a gas tax will bring more money for roads, but if there is no vision to reform the system, no agreement on the importance of funding intermodal transportation, or reigning special interests who ride rough shod over metro interests, getting there could turn into more than just inconvenience, but an economic and environmental crisis. It seems as if our transportation planners started thinking ramp-meters-- ten years after the fact-- while the rest of the nation implemented pay-as-you-go, smart road technology and car-pooling, even staggered work hours to alleviate rush hour gridlock. Now that we're way beyond metering as a solution could Intelligent Transportation n Systems, smart technology, relieve gridlock, make roads safer and decrease their environmental impacts?

Michael Noble:
I think that there is some potential area for improvement for the management and use of our road infrastructure, but frankly I put this on a much lower priority than other investments. I will acknowledge that to get more traffic moving, smart technology is a solution. But, I don't want to primarily invest in major new infrastructure that allows us to move more cars, resulting in a rapid increase in vehicle miles traveled from the use of sensors in the road, time of day pricing and other mechanisms. All interesting ideas, but I'm far more interested in the next question.


Question #9

Interviewer: Vicki Pellar-Price
The 2001 Urban Mobility Study done by the Texas Transportation n Institute reports that the average cost of congestion to the state was $1.1 billion in 1999. The average cost per person for congestion was $630 in 1999 and on average, 55 gallons of fuel is wasted per person per year in stop-and-go traffic or idling at traffic signals. "Playing with Fire," the ME3 report on Minnesota's climate changes indicates that every gallon of gas we burn produces almost 20 pounds of CO2 and figures from the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that the average minivan spews 16,800 pounds of CO2 into the air each year. It's clear that congestion not only hurts the environment but it hurts the economy. Would you favor the commercialization of roads themselves in order to open up the competitive forces necessary to eliminate jammed peak travel hours, inefficient use, and poor road conditions which might include technological advances such as navigational aids providing choices of routes, set travel speeds, and even drive vehicles?

Michael Noble talks:
I think there is actually a lot of potential fruitful work to be done developing market mechanisms; you refer to it as commercialization of roads. There are definitely further opportunities in this area. One of the things I'm most interested in is changing the price of driving. Right now if I have a car available to me, the marginal price of driving that car is limited to the price of gasoline. One of the interesting ideas I saw a couple years ago from a research group in Canada is to take the total cost of driving, insurance, vehicle registration, gas and the entire inventory of care costs and see what we can do through public policy to have those costs made variable instead of fixed. In other words, we should use the market to decrease the marginal cost of driving. If you're a retired person who uses your car just to get groceries and go to church, driving under 5000 miles a year, compared to a salesman who uses his car for business, and puts on 100,000 thousand miles a year, why should each pay $600 a year in insurance costs. The driver who is never on the road winds up paying as much as the driver who is always on the road. If your contribution to driving accidents and insurance premiums is modest why should you have to incur the high costs of insurance? What if we had our vehicle tabs based on how much we used the car, not on how much the car costs? We could have a gas tax based on vehicle miles traveled. Existing smart technology, assembled with a simple retrofit, could enable gas stations to base prices on vehicle miles traveled. That kind of technology needs to be looked at over time.

If we are moving away from gasoline, maybe the gas tax is an anachronism, and it's not a useful policy tool anymore? We have had this big fight in the legislature to raise taxes for roads-- as well as the debate to find a way to raise funds for alternative transit-- maybe the real question that needs to be raised is when are gas taxes going to be obsolete? I’m in favor of thoughtful and thorough exploration of all the kinds of market mechanisms, not just those focusing on marketing mechanisms that would just encourage more efficient use of highways, that's not my primary interest, although it is useful to explore. My interest is to explore market mechanisms that would explore reducing vehicle miles traveled. An analogy from another area is electricity use. We have a lot of incentives and encouragement to use electricity services at different times other than peak times. For example, time of day rates, or incentives to use saver switches, or heated water at night instead of peak hours. Those are interesting and productive tools, and should be expanded; however I'm much more focused on reducing the overall usage. Were not just interested in changing the time of day that people drive, we're interested in reducing driving times.