Dave Cooke
LightNews LightNews
ucsdave.bsky.social
Dave Cooke
@ucsdave.bsky.social
260 followers 610 following 160 posts
Using my white male privilege to rabble rouse companies and govt agencies into doing more. Midwest-grown, California-schooled, Senator-less citizen of the Douglass Commonwealth.

This is a personal acct, but I'll still be mad about transportation issues.
Posts Replies Media Videos
ucsdave.bsky.social
Our transportation system puts mobility access on the backs of households through exorbitant private costs that flow to automotive industries to the tune of $1 trillion per year. This type of financial disaster is a virtual inevitability in what the US has designed. www.ucs.org/resources/fr...
Bar chart Title: Vehicles and Discuss Fuels are Larger Transportation Costs than Roads or Transit Where is the money coming from? $1.665 trillion from private vehicle ownership $304 billion from commercial trucking $206 billion from public funding $10 billion from transit users Where is the money going? $442 billion to the oil industry $1.075 trillion to automotive industries $182 billion to other businesses $118 billion to government funding and services $275 billion for spending on roads $82 billion for spending on transit Total 2021 transportation sector spending: $2.2 trillion
November 13, 2025 at 7:12 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
With affordability and the rising costs of living such a huge issue, the next surface transportation bill should be designed to HALT the wealth transfer from the American public to the #oil and #automotive industries, not accelerate it.
A bar chart showing the inputs and outputs for the $2.2 trillion in 2021 transportation sector spending in the United States. Where's the money coming from? $1.655 trillion from private vehicle ownership. $304 billion from commercial trucking. $206 billion in general public funding. $10 billion from transit users. Where's the money going? $442 billion to the oil industry. $1.075 trillion to the automotive industry. $182 billion to other businesses. $118 billion to general government funding and services. $275 billion to spending on roads. $82 billion to spending on transit.
November 5, 2025 at 3:35 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Televangelist praying, "Jesus, I see what you've done for other people, and I want that for me."
September 11, 2025 at 11:22 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
My #EPA testimony on vehicle stds repeal got cut off, so here's my final thought: "The lack of rigor underscores what everyone else gets: the data and analysis support setting strong vehicle GHG stds because they have significant benefits for health & economy, & EPA can’t simply handwave this away."
Screenshot of US EPA Virtual Public Hearing on Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards during the testimony of Dave Cooke, Union of Concerned Scientists, shown on screen with EPA panelists.
August 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
This is an issue for peds everywhere, even though cities have guidance on sign placement. This is DC's guidance. Guess how often construction signs are placed in sidewalks anyway, causing pedestrian conflicts? I'm not saying I've moved signs to address the issue...but I'm not NOT saying it, either.
Section 7.3 of the District of Columbia's Temporary Traffic Control Manual, covering Sign Placement. Guidance: Signs should be located on the right side of the roadway unless otherwise specified in this Manual. From Section 7.3 of the District of Columbia's Temporary Traffic Control Manual, covering Sign Placement. Guidance: Neither portable nor permanent sign supports should be located on sidewalks, bicycle lanes or areas designated for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Signs mounted lower than seven feet should not project more than four inches into pedestrian facilities.
August 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
This is a more nuanced issue around #CAFE and #fueleconomy regulations than implied by @politico.com. CAFE applies to ALL vehicles, but the dumb statute limits NHTSA's ability to consider #EVs in crafting the regs, artificially weakening CAFE. subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eene...
The CAFE standard only applies to internal combustion cars and light trucks, and the law that established the regulation says the Transportation Department can’t consider "alternative fuels" in its calculations.
June 3, 2025 at 2:02 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Sorry, @politico, but as someone who spends too much time explaining how vehicle rules work, this seems the wrong conclusion to draw from this poll. It's not a #Tesla rationale driving opinion on credit trading (itself a wonky issue to poll!)... subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025...
While liberal voters — the most likely buyers of EVs — leaned towards both supporting requirements for car companies to sell more electric models and keeping California’s ability to set stronger-than-federal emissions standards, they don’t like the credit-trading system state officials devised to make that happen. More than half of Democrats surveyed — 56 percent — said they oppose “allowing carmakers to sell their extra credits to other carmakers” that don’t hit their sales targets, while only 20 percent said they support the concept, according to the poll from Democratic consultant and pollster Evan Roth Smith.
May 29, 2025 at 1:24 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Screenshot from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: The black knight, having lost all his limbs in a duel with King Arthur, tells his opponent, "All right, we'll call it a draw" while sitting immobile and defenseless on the ground.
May 12, 2025 at 12:17 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different result is the proverbial definition of insanity, but that's our approach to transportation spending. Road construction costs outpace inflation, freight traffic more than fills increased capacity, and yet ppl think EVs are the problem? WTAF?
Chart title: Effectiveness of the Federal Fuel Tax Has Dropped by More than 80 percent. Shown: A chart with five bars showing the relative change in value of the federal fuel tax, per mile, compared to 1993 (100%). An increased share of miles from freight trucks results in a 9.2% increase in income per mile, while increased vehicle efficiency since 1993 has decreased the value taken in per mile by 17.1%. Electric vehicles do not contribute to the fuel tax but comprise 2.1% of miles traveled, a further decrease. But increased in the cost of road building, which is what the fuel tax is largely spent on, has resulted in a 78.6% decrease in the value of federal fuel tax since 1993, leading to an overall value of just 19% in 2023 compared to 1993.
April 30, 2025 at 1:28 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Maybe my favorite figure in @ucsusa.bsky.social's latest report (www.ucsusa.org/resources/re...) is this one, which pushes back on the antiquated Smokey and the Bandit b.s. vision of what trucking is today and points out how much low-hanging fruit we can electrify today.
A bar chart indicating the percent of national Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicle population by Typical Daily Operating Range. Less than or equal to 50 miles = 71 percent, 51 to 100 miles = 15 percent, 101 to 200 miles = 6 percent, 201 to 500 miles = 4 percent, greater than or equal to 501 miles = 5 percent. (Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding)
February 18, 2025 at 8:33 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
Literally every sentence of this 'graph is wrong. The domestic #auto industry is WORSE OFF the more isolated the US market is. EPCA quite explicitly is an ENERGY conservation law that extends beyond liquid fuels. And consumers are getting f'd by an admin that wants them to spend more money on #oil.
Fuel economy standards that diminish the strength of America's auto industry and deny Americans the full range of affordable ICE vehicles they need and are willing to pay for cannot satisfy the "technological feasibility" and "economic practicability" requirements of the governing law. The purpose of the CAFE program is not to force the electrification of the Nation's auto fleets; it is to establish the maximum average fuel economy standards that are realistic and feasible for fleets of vehicles of all sizes and uses that run on combustible liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel and that the auto industry is capable of producing and selling in sufficient volume to meet the real-world market demand of American buyers.
January 29, 2025 at 3:53 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
They didn't just stop at the lawsuit -- the Alliance directly asked the Trump administration to redo the rule. Unsurprisingly, the auto industry continues to not give a flying f*** about non-drivers.
Excerpted text of a letter from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation to President Trump. Improve Roadway Safety By refocusing its efforts on comprehensive and collaborative solutions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has an opportunity to meaningfully reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. NHTSA recently issued a final rule mandating Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) and Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB) in new vehicles beginning in 2029. Rather than leverage a voluntary commitment automakers made to NHTSA in 2016 to deploy AEB technology, the final rule mandates technology that is inconsistent with regulations implemented in other parts of the world and likely to result in aggressive and unpredictable braking that will frustrate drivers. Alliance for Automotive Innovation urges your administration to re-open the AEB rule and to foster a collaborative and solutions-oriented approach to roadway safety.
January 27, 2025 at 5:31 PM
ucsdave.bsky.social
As ppl despair over the avalanche of Trump executive orders, remember that this is mostly just a wish list of bullsh*t that requires regulation to enforce. For me I'm reminded of the opening of @timothysnyder.bsky.social's "On Tyranny". Don't pretend these EOs have the effect of law pre-emptively.
Photo of Chapter 1 in "On Tyranny." DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
January 21, 2025 at 2:39 PM