Policy Framework for Transport Industry in Canada and the USA - Case Study Example

Policy Framework for Transport Industry in Canada and USA Author’s Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract The transport industry plays a critical role in the development of a country’s health and economy. It comprises rail, road and air modes of transport. Transport promotes intra-state and inter-state trade. It enhances mobility among citizens to sources of livelihoods. It also promotes accessibility to health and other social services. Many countries have formulated different policies to help regulate the transport industry with an aim of maximizing its output while at the same time minimizing the inputs in terms of energy consumption. This essay attempts to compare the transport policies as established in USA and Canada with an ultimate goal of identifying the transport policy that has more capacity in promoting a more sustainable transport industry in the respective country. The transport industry plays a critical role in the development of a country’s health and economy. It comprises rail, road and air modes of transport. Transport promotes intra-state and inter-state trade. It enhances mobility among citizens to sources of livelihoods. It also promotes accessibility to health and other social services. However, transport remains one of the high-energy consuming sectors in many countries, both in the developed and developing countries. In 2001 for instance, the transport sector consumed 32.3% of the EU’s total energy, 28.7 percent in Canada, and a total of 26.8 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States of America (Hill, 2002). In view of the crucial role the transport sector plays in the economic and social growth of a nation and the challenges associated with it, there have been concerns on how to make this sector as sustainable as possible. Many countries have formulated different policies to help regulate the transport industry with an aim of maximizing its output while at the same time minimizing the inputs in terms of energy consumption. This essay attempts to compare the transport policies as established in USA and Canada with an ultimate goal of identifying the transport policy that has more capacity in promoting a more sustainable transport industry in the respective country. The development of a sustainable transport system depends on how it is perceived by the political class and the general public. It is therefore important that any transport policy that aims at achieving a sustainable transport system addresses the concerns of all the stakeholders. Such policies ought to strive to win the much crucial political will as will as the public confidence (Clarke, 2003). Available literature indicate that even though both the USA and Canada aim at achieving a more sustainable transport industry, the approach that have been adopted by the two countries appear to be different. Since the1960s and 70s, the USA has been trying to reduce emission of harmful gases by initiating more ‘strict’ rules and regulation for guiding all the players in the industry. However, the USA has not succeeded in controlling the emission of Carbon dioxide, which still remains one of the major destroyers of Ozone Layer. The transport policies in the USA and Canada have some commonness in the use of diesel fuel. The policies in both courtiers discourage the use of diesel in the transport sector. The USA’s air control policies have not put much emphasis reduction of dangerous emissions. The USA has never signed the Kyoto Protocol whose main objective has been to reduce the depletion of the ozone layer. The USA contributes a quarter of the total global emission of green house gases. In the USA, the government has made impressive efforts in the protection of environment since the establishment of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s (EPA, 2004). The successive USA governments have made efforts in improving vehicle technology by designing environment-friendly vehicle. Such efforts have also been characterized by the governments’ willingness to allocate more funds to reform the public transport sector. Policies that encourage the public to walk or use bicycles have also been formulated in the USA. However, the policies have fallen short in of reducing the frequency of using the motorized means of transport as well as complicating the process of acquiring the motorized means of transport in the USA (EC, 2001). In the USA, a transport policy is formulated based on how it will impact on the environment. Any transport project that might have a negative impact on the environment is never approved by the federal government. Such projects are normally subjected to revision and only proceed to the implementation once the federal government is convinced that the implementation of such projects will not cause serious harm to the environment. It can therefore be said that the transport policy in the USA is environment oriented. The USA’s National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act enacted in 1969 and 1970 respectively have provided the main platform for the formulation of transport policies in the USA. All transport projects are designed and approved based on these two major legislations. The USA’s transport policy is that that discourages usage of vehicular means of transport while encouraging transport projects that promote walking and cycling. Two innovative transport laws were enacted in 1991 to reinforce the transport culture of walking and cycling. The Intermodal Surface Transport Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Transport Equity Act for the 21st century of 1998 have helped in increasing funding for the transport projects that are aimed at promoting walking and cycling-which are considered by the USA’s transport policy as the most sustainable modes of transport. Since the introduction of these two transport laws, the transport allocations in the federal budgets have gone up for transport projects that promote walking and cycling. For example, federal funding for transport projects that aim at promoting these sustainable modes of transport (walking and cycling) rose from US$ 6 in 1990 to US$ 422 in the year 2003 (Banister, 2003). It is also a requirement of the transport laws in the USA that every state transport department establishes a special division that is charged with the responsibility of coordinating pedestrian and cycling programmes and policies within their jurisdictions. The Transport Equity Act has since provided a leveled playing field in the area of parking that for a long time encouraged the use of motorized means of transport. However, the developments of transport projects that encourage the protection of the environment have faced a number of challenges depending on the successive governments. Under the Bush’s, enforcement of the environmental standards and formulation of environment-friendly transport policies have suffered a major setback. During the period of President Bush, transport policies that discourage car dependence or those that promote cycling and working modes of transport have not been developed for awhile. The taxes on petrol prices, user-charges as well as fees for parking services in the USA are considered as one the lowest in the world. This is often viewed by many transport policy analysts as a loophole in the promotion of more sustainable means of transport on the part of the USA. The USA’s transport policies vary from state to state. In other states, the transport policy is stronger and more influential that in other states. A perfect example of a state in the USA where the transport policy is more effective and promotes the protection of the environment is the state of California. In the 1970s, the Californian vehicle emission standards became so strict that most vehicle manufactures were forced to design special vehicles that would go along way in meeting the set standards. Today, the Californian legislative body has even put a law in place that requires that a certain percentage of vehicle produced by the vehicle manufacturing industry are emission-free. This has led to the emergence of a generation of “Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicles” (SULEVs). California has also initiated other sustainable transport programmes. The use of public transport, car pooling walking and cycling are some of the areas where the State of California has high underscored (Hill, 2002). The State of California has developed considerable ways to improve user-friendly parking services. The transport policy in Canada is quite different from that in the USA. The transport policy of Canada emphasizes on the global movement of goods and people. It also focuses more on the regulation of vehicle construction. The government involvement in the regulation of the urban public transport in Canada is equally minimal. Unlike the USA, Canada’s transport policy does not have much reference to the protection of the environment. Instead, more efforts are directed on projects that promote the protection of public health and land use planning (Clarke, 2003). However, Canada has managed to harmonize her multivehicle emission standards. The Canadian transport policy borrows heavily from those of the USA. However, the Canadian transport policy framework is aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emission. With the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and enactment of subsequent transport policies, strategies and guidelines, Canada is seen as one in the countries in the world putting reasonable efforts to manage greenhouse gases’ emission as required by the Kyoto Protocol. The transport policy in Canada is also characterized by proper planning and the involvement of stakeholder in the identification, planning, design and implementation of [projects that aim at reducing vehicular emissions. The transport policy situations in the USA and Canada have many differences than similarities. The similarity in both cases is that there are efforts to controls vehicular emissions in both countries. There is also a common concern in the two countries for the protection of the life and health of the environment. The difference is seen in the strategies adopted by the two countries to achieve the common desires. In Canada for instance, concern is on reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and discouraging the use of carbon-based transport systems through the enactment of effective transport regulations and appraising environment friendly technological innovations. In the USA, the achievement of a free greenhouse gas environment is leaned towards technological innovations. The Belief in the USA is that a disruption of the current car-based transport would cause serious economic disruptions (EPA, 2004c). The USA transport policy is that that aims at realizing maximum economic growth while that of the Canada integrate both environmental protection and economic growth. In Canada, there is a strong public concerns on the environmental issues compared to the USA where there is little concern on the environmental issues. The USA’s transport policy also give very little attention on the reduction of emission of carbon dioxide compared to that of Canada that gives much focus on the reduction of carbon dioxide emission. Generally, the transport policy in Canada appears to be a better option compared to that of the USA as it advocates for the realization of a more sustainable transport sector that is environment friendly. References Banister, D. (2003). Critical pragmatism and congestion charging in London. International Social Science Journal, 176, 249-264. Clarke, A. (2003). Green modes and US transport policy: TEA-21. In R. Trolley (Ed.), Sustainable transport (pp.433-449). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2004). State sustainability plans: global warming. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Environment Canada. (2004). Canada’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2002. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_02_report/toc_e.cfm European Commission. (2001). European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int. Hill, E. (2002). Extra cash or free parking? Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office. Read More