More than Electric Cars: How to Finally Cut Transportation Pollution

It’s the best of times for climate policy in transportation: Despite some market fluctuations as companies scale up electric vehicle (EV) sales look to be up 35 percent globally this year, cheap EVs are suddenly everywhere, polluting diesel fuel use is at a 26-year low, and the US, China, and Europe all have ambitious electrification policies in place. Globally, one in five new cars was an EV in 2023 and EV truck sales are growing as billions flow into that market guided by strategic federal investments.

Sounds great, but here’s the rub: U.S. transportation carbon pollution is still the highest of any economic sector. Worse, they’re up over 18 percent from 1990 levels, have barely declined in years and might still increase. What’s wrong, and what can we do about it? The key is realizing that electrifying new cars and trucks takes a long time to move the needle because there are vastly more existing vehicles—and we have spent billions of dollars to make people dependent on driving those vehicles. As we celebrate historic progress on new vehicles this year, we have the chance to expand our focus to the whole transportation system and start making it work for everyone.

The bottom line is that, for decades, we’ve been working against ourselves on transportation pollution. Even as we have cleaned up individual vehicle engines, we have just kept adding vehicles to the system, slowing down or even swamping out those improvements. Now we have a chance to change course in ways that will both help the climate and repair communities. The result? Even as new engines have gotten cleaner (and even started to electrify), pollution still comes spewing out of millions of existing tailpipes as people are forced by bad transit, bad planning, and endless road building to make yet another trip to the gas station. If we want to accelerate climate action, we need to finally start investing in people, not pavement, and create a fair and affordable transportation system with real choices.

In this memo, we outline a path forward. We explain how we got into this fix, describe actionable policies states and the federal government need to start implementing right now to get us out of it, and how change can benefit all of us. For sure, it is time to free us all from the gas pump and tailpipe—but it is also time to knit back together communities divided by highways, stop futilely building new ones, and create walkable, bikeable, neighborhoods for everyone. Here’s how.

First: We Have to Stop Making the Problem Worse

One of the main reasons transportation pollution continues to increase is that, at all levels of government, we are continuing to invest in travel options that perpetuate an inequitable status quo. It’s imperative to restrain the unchecked expansion of the road/highway network to avoid significant increases in miles driven, carbon pollution, and the resulting local exposure to air pollution in surrounding communities. Because many transportation investment decisions are both made and implemented at the state level, state departments of transportation and the governors who oversee them are central to getting this right and achieving emissions reductions in the most heavily polluting sector of our economy.

In particular, states often invest in new roads and highways to reduce congestion and improve commute times. However, research increasingly demonstrates that roadway expansions often prompt “induced demand.” Essentially, new roads or expansions of existing roads often increase drivers’ interest in commuting using that same roadway. Any reduced congestion and improved travel time is almost always temporary, yet the increase in transportation pollution is not.

The transportation network in the United States also carries a legacy of profound dislocation and economic harm. In the middle of the last century, the construction of highways like I-81 in Syracuse caused whole communities to be systematically destroyed to make room for new roads. Moreover, these new highways often physically separated minority communities from the centers of the local economy.

Finally, the continued expansion of the road and highway network across the country continues to be a fiscal drag for states and local governments. The gas tax, traditionally used to fund road repairs, is a less and less dependable revenue source at both the state and federal levels, as gasoline-powered vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicle adoption continues to rapidly accelerate. Expanding existing highways and building new ones threatens to put a significant budgetary strain on communities nationwide.

Moreover, even as we increase electric vehicle deployment, much of the vehicle fleet will remain powered by fossil fuels, largely because most drivers tend to hang onto their vehicles for a decade or more. Giving people more options for getting where they need to go is both an investment in quality of life and affordability and an essential part of tackling the climate crisis.

The Sustainable Path Forward

Linking land use reforms to transportation investments

A key reason right now that so many people are dependent on their cars for getting to work and accessing basic necessities like food and medical services is that we’ve increasingly designed and planned our communities around cars, and developments are increasingly built further and further apart from one another. This adds pollution, expense, and lost time to everyday life.

Basic land use reforms to begin correcting for this unsustainable and cost-prohibitive paradigm can make a huge difference in reducing car trips and the multiple forms of pollution that they cause. According to analysis conducted by RMI, some of the most impactful reforms states and localities can implement to reduce people’s dependence on cars are: removing antiquated restrictions on multi-family housing in zoning codes, allowing for greater development closer to mass transit stations, and building housing on underutilized land. These interventions are also essential to generate more housing options broadly, combating our country’s growing housing affordability crisis in the process.

Making the most of transformative federal infrastructure investments

Within its transportation components, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds many promising climate mitigation initiatives (PDF), such as the $7.5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (NEVI), the EPA’s $5 billion Clean School Bus Program, the $5.62 Low/No Emissions Bus Program administered by the Federal Transit Administration and the Secretary’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot. However, these programs (a combination of competitive and formula-based) are dwarfed by the historic amount of funding allocated to legacy federal formula programs (PDF) overseen by the Federal Highway Administration, cumulatively funded at roughly $300 billion.

States have an enormous amount of discretion in allocating formula funds. Broadly, state Departments of Transportation (DOT) have the authority to invest their formula dollars in new highway/road/bridge construction, or they can choose to focus on repairing existing facilities. The latter emphasis both saves money for the state and road users on maintenance, while also minimizing the growth in transportation emissions associated with highway investments. Choosing expansion leads to more drivers on the road and more expensive infrastructure for states to be saddled with maintaining in the future. Indeed, analysis from the Georgetown Climate Center conducted shortly after IIJA was enacted found that the manner in which states direct their formula funds could lead cumulative transportation emissions to either increase or decrease as a result of IIJA spending.

Examples of state authority and primacy

The two largest federal transportation formula programs are the National Highway Performance Program ($147 billion in IIJA funding) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program ($79 billion in IIJA funding). The NHPP is intended to fund improvements to the National Highway System and can be used to construct new facilities or repair existing ones. The IIJA also authorizes, but does not require, new eligibility for select resilience initiatives. STBG funding is even more flexible and can theoretically be used on any manner of surface transportation investments, including repair projects, broad transportation planning, electric vehicle infrastructure, mass transit, and pedestrian/cyclist improvements.

Additionally, states have the ability to “flex” a large portion of their federal highway dollars and transfer them to programs overseen instead by the Federal Transit Administration, to support mass transit investments directly or related transportation improvements (i.e., bicycle facilities adjacent to a train station).

Right now, though, too many states are not rising to the occasion in the way that we need. Even states long considered climate leaders, like California and New Jersey, are plowing ahead with reckless highway expansion projects that will only worsen the situation and leave us with a deeper hole to dig from if we are to bend the curve on ever-rising transportation pollution. The climate movement will have to mount a concerted effort to ensure that we’re maximizing the climate potential of IIJA. And both state leaders and the federal DOT should now be clear that flexing funds need to be poured into transit urgently; the federal government should partner with the states to channel funds to key transit networks, and be clear that this approach is not just an option—it’s essential.

Policy and Advocacy Opportunities Abound in States

Ultimately, the transportation project selection, governance, and funding process needs to be reformed at every level of government. That should start at the state level, and model policies should be subsequently advanced federally in the next surface transportation reauthorization (due in 2026).

Thankfully, some states are already putting sound policies in place. In response to a legislative mandate, Colorado recently advanced major reforms to its project selection process. In brief, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are now required to establish project plans that meet greenhouse gas reduction levels through verified modeling estimates. In the event that a plan comes up short, CDOT and MPOs have the option to implement mitigation measures to offset any emission increases. This policy has real teeth and has already resulted in several highway projects getting postponed or scrapped. Minnesota has gone even further. Just this year, Minnesota has expanded its nation-leading legislation from 2023 that aims to fully account for climate impacts in major transportation investment decisions. Now, all major highway projects above a set dollar threshold will be required to account for their impacts on the climate, and robust implementation will be supported by a technical advisory committee and dedicated funding for mitigation projects.

Repairing Communities

In addition to emissions benefits, it’s critical to consider the equity and environmental justice implications of our dependence on highways. As the secretary of transportation has noted, our legacy transportation investment practices have inflicted disproportionate harm on communities of color.

The IIJA included a pilot “Reconnecting Communities” program that was also bolstered by investments in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The US DOT is hard at work awarding grants to begin the herculean task of righting past wrongs that highways have inflicted on communities across the country. In Pennsylvania, for example, Reconnecting Communities is supporting a planning effort to reconnect neighborhoods in Pittsburgh as well as a project to cover part of the Vine St. Expressway that most negatively impacts the residents of Philadelphia’s Chinatown.

Going forward, we’ll need to build upon Reconnecting Communities by allocating even more federal funds toward reparative projects in the next surface transportation bill. State funds should also flow toward this critical need. However, in the interim, states have enormous latitude to program flexible federal formula grants toward such projects, and governors and legislatures should work to identify other potential funding sources to seed similar programs at the state level during their budget process.

These investments have other important benefits. Creating more walkable and less car-centric downtowns is proven to increase property and land values, which can be a financial boon to homeowners and businesses alike, while also bringing in much-needed revenue to support strapped local budgets.

Congestion Pricing

In most of the country, we can make rapid steps toward equitably reducing transportation pollution through the actions outlined above. However, in densely populated urban centers, additional steps need to be taken to provide dedicated funding for mass transit and improve local air quality. In 2017, in response to a rapid deterioration in public transit service quality, New York state leaders called congestion pricing in New York an “idea whose time has come.” The concept is simple, charging a modest toll to enter the most congested part of a city’s central business district to dissuade drivers from entering via car, and allocating the proceeds to bolster and expand transit service.

This policy has been widely implemented abroad and is a proven means to provide commuters with more affordable and less polluting travel options. Unfortunately, after a years-long legislative fight and implementation process, Governor Kathy Hochul recklessly ordered a “pause” on implementing congestion pricing in New York, just as the state was poised to lead the nation by being the first in the United States to implement this commonsense policy and ensure that the MTA’s sorely needed capital plan is properly resourced. As Evergreen and other leading environmental organizations have recently outlined, it’s vital for Governor Hochul to reconsider her misguided decision and allow for congestion pricing to prove itself in New York and beyond.

Accelerating Toward Zero-Emission

Of course, even as we finally rebalance our overall transportation system spending, we need to continue and accelerate progress on electrifying all new vehicles, and on replacing existing fossil-fueled vehicles with zero-emission ones. Fortunately, the tools we need are in hand. Let’s take a brief tour of five steps we must take to deliver results.

Set ambitious standards for new vehicles

It is vital that governments continue setting ambitious standards for new vehicles to accelerate electrification. For example, although the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent standards for cars and trucks both cut historic amounts of climate pollution, neither sets a course all the way to 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales, in contrast to California and European standards. Fuel economy standards are also improving, but there is more to do.

The next generation of federal standards needs to go further, faster—especially because it takes so long for vehicles to leave the fleet once they enter it. That means federal standards that reach 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales for both cars and trucks. The faster new vehicles electrify, the better.

It is time, right now, for EPA to start work on vehicle standards that will apply from the early 2030s forward, and carry on to near-total new vehicle electrification. EPA should also actively support states moving faster by approving key state programs for enforcement, providing technical support and funding to states building out standards and investment programs in this area, and working with other federal agencies and the states to build out vehicle charging systems equitably and effectively.

Broaden the scope of standards and investments to reach all kinds of vehicles

The federal government has yet to set electrification-forward standards for trains (unlike California) and offroad vehicles and has much to do to decarbonize aviation and shipping. The next administration must accelerate in all these areas. In the meantime, the administration should also be approving waivers for the state of California, and the many states nationwide that follow California standards, to get a jump start on these sectors, as well as accelerating car and truck electrification.

There are big benefits to be achieved. Ships and planes continue to be major pollution sources, and the freight rail system is heavily polluting. Within the next presidential term, we should see strong federal standards for these sources, paired with major infrastructure investments to support electrification—like electrifying key rail lines from big ports, like those of Los Angeles and Long Beach, providing shore power equipment for ships to plug into rather than idling their giant engines, and investments in net-zero fuels for aviation.

But that’s not all. Off-road vehicles, like forklifts, emit a lot of pollution—and often do so near neighborhoods adjacent to warehouses. Zero-emission standards for this equipment would improve community air and advance electrification, as would standards that cut pollution from heavy-duty off-road equipment like construction machinery.

And of course, aligning federal investments and convening power to drive forward aligned planning for full system decarbonization is huge. The federal government has issued a new strategy to electrify entire trucking corridors with aligned IRA funding supporting strong standards. Similar strategies to capture the other big vehicles moving through the system by channeling aligned funding and policy support for these sectors too—from ports to warehouses to rail lines—would help transform the system faster.

Engage with a diverse set of stakeholders

It’s time to pull in more stakeholders—from utilities to warehouse owners to union labor to ensure charging infrastructure keeps pace with electrification. The U.S. has a visionary policy blueprint to decarbonize transportation and a focused strategy to decarbonize heavy-duty trucking but we need to align investments and efforts to achieve them. For example, using key Inflation Reduction Act funds to help build charger networks, hook vehicles up to the grid to help store renewable energy as virtual power plants, and accelerate fleet turnover in sync with these strategies would all help us move forward. States and federal governments can also keep working to make sure everyone—especially lower-income folks and small and minority-owned businesses—have access to key incentives to get into electric vehicles, and can create new incentives, like feebates, that can make more funds available.

There are also new kinds of standards that can help by aligning the owners of warehouses and ports behind electrification by requiring them to cut pollution from their fleets of vehicles. For example, EPA is on the verge of approving rules for warehouses in the key Los Angeles freight corridor that will support warehouse owners as they put in charging equipment and move to zero-emission fleets. It should finalize that approval, and then work to support similar rules in other key ports and freight hubs nationwide. These “indirect source rules” as they are called could rapidly bring in funds from big shippers, including companies like Amazon, to drive forward decarbonization and ensure that the entire freight system acts together to electrify.

Decarbonize fuels used in existing vehicles

The federal government also has much to do to decarbonize the fuels used in existing vehicles. Though leading states have low carbon fuel standards (and are considering calls to tighten those standards further), the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) remains far too dependent on corn-based ethanol, rather than focusing on zero carbon fuels and could even drive emissions increases.

We need to see fuel standards that favor electrification, for almost all uses, rather than legacy first-generation biofuels, while also driving forward highly advanced liquid or gaseous fuels for the few uses that cannot just electrify. The federal government can use its authorities to focus the federal RFS on truly low-carbon fuels, and work with Congress to shift toward a federal Low Carbon Fuel Standard focused on electricity. It can also provide technical support for state systems, and states interested in fuels standards, aiming in the same direction.

This is also a chance to integrate across other economic sectors. For instance, waste gas from landfills and treatment works often gets burned in vehicles that could just be electric. That is not the highest and best use of that fuel and pollutes communities. This is a great chance to refocus those fuels away from electrifying uses, cut production of dangerous gases altogether by tightening up leak detection standards at landfills and treatment works, and diverting organic wastes to compost and other uses. Remaining fuels can be aimed at harder-to-electrify uses, including as feedstocks for industrial processes as appropriate. We need to think about the best use of carbon-based fuels—and increasingly that won’t be to power vehicles that can zoom forward on batteries instead. It’s time for fuel policies that recognize that truth and move us faster toward zero-emission transportation.

Insist corporations live up to their green commitments

Finally, it’s important to lock in corporate commitments to vehicle electrification in a way that benefits workers and communities. In an uncertain legal and political environment, companies should be held accountable to staying the course, as Big Oil tries to derail programs. That means first doubling down on the various forms of contractual and public commitments big companies have made to electrification, including commitments to California to reach major electrification levels for both cars and trucks.

Notably, most car makers are only committed to following ambitious California standards until 2025 while truck makers have signed up all the way to full electrification in 2036. It’s time for the car companies to step up and recommit to California and the states that follow its standards, and for both car and truck companies to say—clearly and accountably—that they will get all the way to zero not just in those states, but nationally, well before 2040.

That’s especially important as we face down the election and a hostile Supreme Court. Workers, communities, and even corporate CEOs all need certainty—and don’t need our national chance to build zero-emission vehicles derailed by Big Oil and right-wing ideologues. Under the Trump administration, leading automakers recognized this and made clear commitments to decarbonize anyway. It is past time for the companies to stand up again and announce they are on the side of their workers and the future and will continue the course to build up zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and exit combustion regardless of rollback attempts that may come. As they do, they should also welcome the ongoing union efforts that are ensuring their workers and communities share in the economic transition’s benefits. If companies won’t publicly commit to a pro-climate, pro-worker future, we need to call them to account until they do.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that we have many of the tools we need to complete the transition of vehicle engines to batteries—but that we need to do this work at the same time as we help move our transportation system, as a whole, away from car dependency. The future of transportation is with safe, clean, electric vehicles—and with buses, trains, bicycles, and walkable communities. The combination will clear the air.

Authors: Craig Segall, Vice President and Justin Backal Balik, State Program Director

Editor: Medhini Kumar, Digital Lead - Writer/Editor

We’re leading an all-out national mobilization to defeat the climate crisis.