[Senate Hearing 108-280]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-280
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY: CMAQ AND CONFORMITY PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
and the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CMAQ PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY
PROVISIONS OF TEA-21, THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY
__________
MARCH 13, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-365 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND
NUCLEAR SAFETY
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Lieberman
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 13, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 21
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 9
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 3
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 18
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1
WITNESSES
Frankel, Hon. Emil H., Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, Department of Transportation........................... 7
Graph, Percentage of Change in Motor Vehicle Emissions,
Demographics, and Travel (1970-2000)....................... 72
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 72
Holmstead, Hon. Jeffrey R., Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency..................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 54
Senator Voinovich........................................ 63
Kaiser, Marsha, director, Department of Planning and Capital
Programming, Maryland Department of Transportation, on behalf
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials...................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Lasker, Jerry, executive director, Indian Nations Council of
Governments.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 111
Liebe, Annette, manager, Air Quality Planning, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality on behalf of the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials.......................... 28
Letter to Senator Voinovich.................................. 80
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Procedures, Substitution of Transportation Control Measure
(D-10-2-Volume 3).......................................... 82
Statement, STAPPA/ALAPCO--CMAQ and Transportation Conformity
Principles for Reauthorization of TEA-21................... 79
Maier, Howard R., executive director, Northeast Ohio Areawide
Coordinating Agency............................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 111
Replogle, Michael, transportation director, Environmental Defense 32
Graph, Share of Selected Criteria Pollutants from Highway
Sources by Year and Area from Adopted or Submitted SIPs.... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Responses from a previous hearing held in the 107th Congress
on air quality to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 96
Senator Smith............................................ 101
Senator Voinovich........................................ 99
Steed, Diane, president, American Highway Users Alliance......... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Teague, W. Gerald, M.D., professor and vice chairman of
pediatrics, director, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Emory
University School of Medicine.................................. 30
Fact Sheet, Olympic Asthma Study............................. 86
Graphs:
Acute Care Visits for Asthma, 1-16 Year Old Residents of
Atlanta................................................ 84
Mean Levels of Major Pollutants Before, During, and After
the Olympic Games as a Percentage of the EPA's National
Ambient Air Quality Standard........................... 85
One-Hour AM Peak Traffic Counts.......................... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 83
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Lawsuit Pits Risks and Roads, USA Today...................... 131
Too Freeway Close, The Times, December 15, 2002.............. 133
Statements:
Associated General Contractors of America.................... 135
Becker, S. William, executive director, State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA)/Association
of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO).......... 79
Flowers, Melody, Sierra Club Washington Representative....... 127
Report, Key Studies on Air Pollution and Health Effects
Near High-Traffic Areas, Sierra Club................... 129
National Association of Home Builders........................ 10
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY:
CMAQ AND CONFORMITY PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear
Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Thomas, Carper, and Jeffords
[ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
We will convene this hearing. We have a number of witnesses
today, many of them in the second panel. I think that in
fairness to them, we should get started.
I will restrain myself from giving my opening statement
which I will have put in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
The Hearing will come to order. Good Morning.
This hearing continues a long-running conversation that this
subcommittee and indeed the whole EPW Committee has had on the issues
of congestion and air quality.
Specifically, we are here to discuss two programs--the Conformity
program under the Clean Air Act and the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality--or--CMAQ program under TEA-21. Although these two programs are
placed under separate enabling legislation, they both have a lot to do
with two major problems--congestion and air quality.
The Department of Transportation has estimated that the cost of
traffic congestion to travelers topped $72 billion in terms of hours of
lost time and wasted fuel in 1999 alone. Between 1982 and 2000, the
annual hours of delay per driver in 75 urban areas studied by the Texas
Transportation Institute increased by 46 hours. Drivers in these areas
spent 4 times longer sitting in traffic in 2000 than they did in 1982.
Even more startling, small urban areas saw a 400 percent increase over
the same period, according to U.S. DOT. These numbers are projected to
grow even further in the near future.
One recent study estimated that Cincinnati drivers spent an average
of 43 hours in traffic jams in 2000, compared to 4 hours in 1982; while
Columbus drivers sat in traffic an average of 38 hours in 2000 compared
to 4 hours in 1982; and in my hometown of Cleveland, drivers spent an
average of 21 hours in congestion in 2000, compared to 1 hour in 1982.
As a result, 104 million gallons of fuel was wasted in these three
cities in 2000.
These costs--hours of delay, lost time and wasted fuel--are not the
only costs associated with congestion. Congestion contributes to air
quality degradation by increasing travel delays, engine idle time and
unproductive fuel consumption.
As we move forward on reauthorizing the Highway Bill in this
Committee, it is critically important that we look for ways to reform
these two programs--Conformity and CMAQ--so they can be used by the
States to reduce congestion and improve their air quality.
The transportation conformity process was designed to ensure that
an area's transportation projects and plans fit within a State's
implementation plan, which is set pursuant to the Clean Air Act. This
sounds like a simple prospect, but making this process work in a high-
growth area is anything but simple. Those areas tend to simultaneously
have transportation and air quality problems.
As Governor of Ohio, I spent considerable effort to bring Ohio
counties into attainment for the air quality standards. When I first
entered office, 28 out of Ohio's 88 counties failed to meet the 1-hour
ozone standard. As a result of some very hard choices, all 88 of Ohio's
counties are now in attainment for ozone.
Unfortunately, under two new NAAQS standards, many of these
counties will likely be re-designated as non-attainment counties. Over
the next 2 years, EPA is set to implement its new 8-hour standards for
ozone and the new 2.5 standards for particulate matter. Preliminary
estimates indicate that when these new standards go into effect, 30
counties in Ohio will become non-attainment counties for ozone, and
another 15 for particulate matter. Under the current rules, each of
these counties stands to lose Federal funding for important highway
projects, which imperils countless efforts to reduce congestion and
repair our increasingly dilapidated infrastructure.
According to the Ohio Department of Transportation, over $1.4
billion worth of projects identified for fiscal year 2004 through 2007
would be subject to conformity once the new 8-hour standards are
effective.
Many of you may recall that our late Chairman, Senator John Chafee,
held a hearing on this topic back in 1999. At that hearing, I stated
that a lot of communities in this country would have a dickens of a
time meeting the new NAAQS standards and predicted that the chickens
would come home to roost when they went into effect. Well, here we are
4 years later, and it looks like the chickens indeed are coming home to
roost. Under the new ozone standard, 232 counties in 32 States will be
designated non-attainment next year and 176 counties in 26 States for
the PM2.5 standard in 2005. As I just mentioned, each of
these counties stands to lose Federal funding for all of their highway
projects under the current rules.
As we move forward on reauthorizing the Highway Bill and on clean
air legislation this year, I think we need to take a look at this
process and see if there are ways we can change it to make it work
better for States and counties in a manner that is consistent with our
national clean air goals. I would be interested to hear from our
witnesses what suggestions they would have on how to improve this
process.
In 1991, Congress authorized $6 billion for the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) in order to help
areas fight congestion in order to maintain conformity. Congress
reauthorized the CMAQ program in TEA-21, and increased the funding to
$8.1 billion over 6 years. The main goal of CMAQ is to fund
transportation projects that reduce emissions in non-attainment and
maintenance areas. A second goal of CMAQ is to fund projects that slow
the growth of congestion, reduce emissions, and maintain economically
viable and mobile communities.
CMAQ funding is apportioned to the States by means of a formula
that takes into account the severity of air quality problems and the
size of affected populations. The States are required to spend the
money in non-attainment areas and maintenance areas. CMAQ funds are
focused primarily on the transportation control measures contained in
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The primary purpose of these
measures is to lessen the pollutants emitted by motor vehicles by
decreasing travel demand and decreasing congestion. Over the first 8
years of the CMAQ program, funding has been concentrated in two areas--
transit and traffic flow improvements.
Having been funded at a total of $14.5 billion over 8 years, the
CMAQ program represents less than 1 percent of the total amount spent
by all levels of government on highway and transit projects. However,
the fact that CMAQ funding will not solve an area's air quality or
congestion problems single-handedly does not mean that the program is
not valuable. In fact, one of its greatest benefits has been toward
assisting areas in the demonstration of conformity--by funding
emissions-reducing projects which will offset the emissions increases
that are expected when highway projects are completed. Such projects
have included park-and-ride facilities, high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
traffic monitoring and incident management centers, special freeway
service patrols, and emissions-testing programs.
One major concern that I do have with the CMAQ program is that--in
terms of reducing emissions--you don't get much bang for your buck. A
recent study of the CMAQ program conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences revealed that most CMAQ funds have been allocated to the least
cost-effective strategies for reducing emissions. Department of
Transportation statistics show that 89 percent of CMAQ-funded projects
in 1997 reduced VOC emissions by fewer than 100 kilograms per day or
less. In fact, 50 percent of these projects reduced VOC emissions by
fewer than 5 kilograms per day or less. This is simply an unacceptable
waste of taxpayer dollars when several CMAQ-funded projects, such as
inspection and maintenance programs, have shown much higher emissions-
reduction totals.
As this Committee considers whether to reauthorizing this program,
we need to take a look at whether there any changes--such as reforming
the criteria used to fund these projects--that will deliver more
emissions-reductions bang for our bucks. I would be interested to hear
from our witnesses what suggestions they would have on how best to
accomplish this.
I look forward to examining these issues in today's hearing. As I
mentioned earlier, we need to find a way to reform these programs in a
way that will allow our States to fight congestion in a manner
consistent with our national clean air goals.
Our witnesses on the first panel today include Mr. Jeffrey
Holmstead, the Assistant Administrator for Air Quality at the
Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Emil Frankel, the Assistant
Secretary for Policy at the Department of Transportation. In our second
panel we will hear from various witnesses about the effects these
programs have on States and local MPOs. I would like to thank these
witnesses for coming here today to discuss these issues and I look
forward to their testimony.
Senator Voinovich. The former chairman would like to make a
brief opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. This will be brief. I have a lengthy
statement I would like to have made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Thank you Mr. Chairman. In July 2002, the committee held a hearing
similar to the one we are having today. From that hearing, I concluded
that while there may be occasional conflicts between air quality
protection and transportation investments, the overall system is
working pretty well and continues to improve.
Today, I hope we will hear about the Administration's plans for
increased funding for the CMAQ program and tightening the linkages
between air quality and transportation planning and policies.
Strengthening the conformity process and ensuring that adequate
resources are available for planners is essential.
It is becoming clearer all the time that our ability to meet
national air quality standards and continue economic growth requires a
very thoroughly integrated approach.
There is no doubt that coordinating these two policy areas and
disciplines is complicated. But, our CMAQ investments and conformity
have encouraged smarter growth, better land use decisions, and provided
air quality benefits.
We should continue moving aggressively along this same path. If we
don't, even tomorrow's cleaner vehicles could swamp our efforts to
achieve cleaner air as their numbers grow and they travel ever farther.
The total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) has grown 4 times faster
than the rate of population growth in the last 30 years. And, at least
one study in Tennessee indicates that the VMT increases there will
overwhelm the reductions from the cleaner Tier 2 vehicles and heavy
duty vehicles. This may make it difficult for them to attain the
national air quality standards.
There is no question that attaining the revised ozone and fine
particulate standards will be a challenge for all communities across
the United States. Fortunately, nonattainment status and conformity
requirements due to that status will only be new to a relatively small
portion of the areas.
For those that may experience nonattainment for the first time, EPA
and DOT should already be providing guidance, training and resources,
so these new areas can be ready with the necessary expertise. I hope
our witnesses will comment on that.
Expanding and increasing funding for the CMAQ program will make it
an even more important tool for communities to reduce vehicle emissions
creatively and permanently so that the standards can be attained. We
also need to look at possible ways that CMAQ can be used effectively in
clean areas so they might stay clean and avoid being designated as a
nonattainment area at all.
The first transportation authorization bill of the 21st Century
should, in all respects, bring us closer to the point at which vehicle
emissions are a trivial or disappearing source of air quality and
environmental health problems. That means dealing with all emissions,
not just those that contribute to nonattainment.
Mobile sources are a significant source of toxic air pollutants. In
1998, the entire transportation sector was responsible for emitting 2.3
million tons or 4.6 billion pounds of toxic air pollutants, such as
benzene and 20 other hazardous chemicals.
Recent studies indicate that people living within a short distance
of high-volume freeways have a much higher than normal risk of cancer
and other adverse health effects. EPA's final rule on mobile source air
toxics, which is scheduled for July 2004, should consider these
studies.
Federal Highways should use this information in conducting NEPA
analyses too.
As the Committee heard in the August 2001 hearing on mobile source
air pollution, the transportation sector is a huge and growing
component of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. One third or 1.8
billion tons in carbon emissions comes from the sector, about 18
percent above 1990 levels and continuing to rise. Senators know my
belief about global warming. Scientists appearing before this Committee
have told us that unmitigated increases in emissions increase the risks
associated with global warming and climate change.
This year's reauthorization bill is the place to start thinking
about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. We must
also look for ways to strengthen the linkages we have already forged
between transportation and air quality and environmental health
protection.
I hope we will hear today from DOT and EPA on their proposals, if
any, to change policy or law in this area as part of reauthorization,
rather than revisiting this again later.
Senator Jeffords. One of the witnesses in the second panel
is Jerry Lasker with whom I have worked since I was mayor of
the city of Tulsa. We have gone through attainment programs
over the years. This is something we are going to try to do
under the leadership of Senator Voinovich to come up with some
real sensible compromises and efforts to work with the States,
the countries, and areas so that we are not assuming an
attitude of punishment, but of help.
So I look forward to working with you on your subcommittee,
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome the two witnesses on our first
panel. Our first witness is the Honorable Emil H. Frankel,
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department
of Transportation. Mr. Frankel, we are glad to have you here.
Our second witness is the Honorable Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
We are here to discuss two programs--the Conformity Program
under the Clean Air Act, and the Congestion Litigation and Air
Quality, or CMAQ Program under TEA-21. Although these two
programs are placed under separate enabling legislation, they
both have to do with two major problems that we have in this
country--congestion and air quality.
I would like to call on you first, Mr. Holmstead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Holmstead. Thank you very much for having me, Chairman
Voinovich, and Chairman Inhofe. I am delighted to be here
today. With your permission, I would also like to submit my
written statement for the record.
Congress has long recognized that a successful strategy for
reducing emissions from mobile sources must address the
vehicles we drive, the fuels we use, and the roads on which we
travel. This morning, as you mentioned, I would like to briefly
offer my thoughts on these programs--the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and the
Transportation Conformity Program.
Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, we as a
country have been extremely successful in reducing pollution
from cars, trucks, and other mobile sources. For example, as I
think you know, new cars today are more than 90 percent cleaner
than cars purchased 30 years ago. They will become even cleaner
still as the Agency gears to passenger and light truck
standards and related fuel requirements that come into place
beginning next year.
In addition, new technologies for diesel engines, which are
enabled by cleaner diesel fuel will result in even greater
emission reductions over the next few years. Beginning in 2007,
new heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses will be more than 90
percent cleaner than they are today. Within the next 2 months,
we will be proposing a rule for non-road diesel engines and
fuels that will achieve even greater emission reductions than
the 2007 rule for on-road trucks and buses.
Concentrations of the four key pollutants affected most by
the transportation sector--carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, and particulate matter--have all declined significantly.
They will decline even more because of the upcoming standards I
just mentioned. These reductions will help protect public
health by reducing incidents of premature mortality, asthma
attacks, and other health problems caused by air pollution.
These reductions are obviously extremely good news.
But we have also learned that cleaner cars and cleaner
fuels alone cannot achieve the air quality improvements we
need. Notwithstanding all the progress we have made,
transportation is still a major contributor to air quality
problems. It accounts for about 15 percent of inventoried
particulate matter emissions, almost 30 percent of the
pollutants that cause ozone, and 62 percent of carbon monoxide
emissions.
Preliminary data suggests that about 80 million people will
live in areas that don't meet the new National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for ozone and about 75 million will live in
areas not meeting the new fine particulate matter standard. The
number of cars and the number of miles driven continue to
increase dramatically. Since 1970, the number of vehicle miles
driven has almost tripled to 2.8 trillion miles a year.
CMAQ is an innovative and important tool designed to reduce
pollution from the transportation sector by funding innovative
projects and programs to reduce emissions, and also vehicle
miles traveled. Many of these projects have not only improved
air quality, but have the added benefit of reducing traffic
congestion and making communities more livable.
We agree with the recommendation of the National Academy of
Sciences that CMAQ should be continued and even expanded in
certain ways. We also agree, however, that this program can and
should be improved. For example, fine particulate matter, or
PM2.5, is the biggest health concern posed by air
pollution and is clearly linked to motor vehicles.
But fine particulate matter and the technologies to address
it, such as diesel engine retrofits and anti-idling
technologies are not currently considered in the allocation
formula or eligibility criteria of CMAQ. As more areas need
funds to help them address congestion and air quality issues,
it is also clear that pressure on funding decisions will only
increase, and so will the need for State and local
transportation and air quality agencies to work together
closely to select projects for funding. We believe that more
effective consultation between air quality planners and
transportation planners is critical to maximize the air quality
benefits of limited CMAQ resources.
In addition, areas that are able to make the leap from non-
attainment to attainment are essentially penalized by
reductions to their CMAQ funds. We believe that this
disincentive needs to be addressed and that a more stable
funding basis should be provided for areas redesignated to
attainment.
In addition to the CMAQ program, Congress created another
program known as the Transportation Conformity Program to
ensure that air quality planning and transportation planning
are better coordinated. We believe that the Conformity Program
has helped to maintain progress toward meeting air quality
goals without unduly compromising improvements in our
transportation network. We also believe, however, that this
program can and should be improved.
As I mentioned earlier, new National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone and fine particulate matter will become
effective in 2004. A significant number of counties will become
new non-attainment areas under these new standards. A number of
people have expressed concern about what this will mean for
transportation programs. I want to just briefly address these
concerns.
We understand that there will be challenges, but we have
learned a lot about the Conformity Program over the last
decade. Perhaps more importantly, local and State agencies have
developed expertise that will provide a solid basis for
success. We are working with the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to develop new conformity guidance and regulations that
will streamline the program without compromising its air
quality benefits. We also will be working with DOT to provide
training and other assistance to help new non-attainment areas
implement the Conformity Program successfully.
Finally, I would like to briefly address a couple of common
misperceptions about what happens if a State fails to meet the
conformity deadlines. This is often referred to as a conformity
lapse.
First, these conformity lapses are relatively infrequent
and generally resolved quickly. In some cases, conformity
lapses have delayed some highway funding until the plan is
approved. I don't want to minimize the impact of these delays
because I know they can be disruptive. However, we are not
aware of any State that has actually lost highway funding due
to a conformity lapse.
I know that there will be many questions about these
issues. I would be delighted to answer those questions and to
work with the committee to discuss these and any other issues.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Frankel.
STATEMENT OF HON. EMIL H. FRANKEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Frankel. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss transportation conformity and the CMAQ Program--the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program.
I would also ask that my written statement be made part of
the record of this hearing.
Meeting the dual challenges of congestion relief and air
quality improvement is a very high priority for the Department
of Transportation, as I know it is for you personally and for
the members of this subcommittee and the committee.
Secretary Mineta has noted that one of the core principles
of the Department of Transportation's efforts to reauthorize
TEA-21 will be to ensure an efficient infrastructure while
retaining environmental protections that enhance our quality of
life.
As you know, the bill to reauthorize TEA-21 is currently in
interagency review and clearance. We are anticipating that that
bill will be introduced to Congress within the next few weeks.
While I obviously, under those circumstances, can't go into the
specifics of the bill, which, therefore is not yet the
Administration's bill, I do want to assure you that
continuation of a robust and strong CMAQ Program will be a key
feature of our proposal, building on the approximately $14
billion that has been spent under this Program since its
adoption in ISTEA.
Over the last 30 years, as Mr. Holmstead has said, we have
made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution,
particularly from transportation sources. Since 1970, we have
reduced carbon monoxide emissions by 45 percent, coarse
particulate matter, or PM10 emissions, by 38
percent, and volatile organic compounds, VOC emissions, by 61
percent, despite increases in population, GDP, and vehicle
miles traveled.
The automotive fuels: highway, and transit communities have
managed to achieve this success while still working to improve
mobility.
While the downward trend in emissions is expected to
continue, some of our Nation's largest metropolitan areas still
face challenges in meeting the current 1-hour ozone standard.
We must meet the challenges of implementing the new Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The Department of Transportation and EPA are
working together to help the States meet these challenges.
We have learned a lot about the linkages between
transportation and air quality, including that there is no one
right way for the entire Nation to reduce congestion and
improve air quality. The problem requires a flexible multilevel
solution. The CMAQ Program provides States flexibility to fund
transportation improvements that cross traditional Federal aid
program boundaries, including transit, ride-sharing, bicycle
and pedestrian, alternative fuels and vehicles, emissions
inspection and maintenance, and ITS--Intelligence
Transportation System--implementation.
In addition, CMAQ supports experimentation by States and
MPOs to meet travel demand in the most environmentally
sensitive ways and has encouraged cooperation between
transportation and air quality agencies.
As we approach reauthorization of TEA-21 we must consider
stakeholder concerns about the CMAQ Program. One issue relates
to the statutory apportionment formula which I know is of
interest to you and to members of this subcommittee. The
current formula does not take into account areas that would be
designated under the new Ambient Air Quality Standards. There
is some concern that State apportionments would not be based on
the total number of people living in non-attainment areas.
Another issue relates to the integration of transportation
and air quality planning. We have now almost a decade of
experience in implementing the Clean Air Act's Transportation
Conformity Provisions. Stronger institutional links between
transportation and air quality planning agencies have been
created and this has led to the development of more realistic
plans.
In addition, the conformity provisions have been
instrumental in fostering improvements to the modeling
processes. However, we have heard concerns that transportation
and air quality plans are not synchronized and that this can
cause unwarranted lapses in conformity that can disrupt the
transportation funding process.
While transportation plans have very long planning horizons
and are updated frequently, most air quality plans have very
short planning horizons and are updated less frequently. DOT
and EPA are evaluating all of these issues as part of the
reauthorization process.
DOT actions other than highway and transit, such as airport
development, are subject to a different EPA rule, the General
Conformity Rule. We are working with EPA to improve
implementation of these requirements as well.
In addition, EPA's new Ambient Air Quality Standards will
also impact the conformity process. These new standards are
more stringent. Many areas across the Eastern United States and
California have pollution levels now exceeding these standards.
It is too early to tell the magnitude of transportation and air
quality planning and conformity issues that might surface
following implementation of the new standards. But the
Department of Transportation and EPA are working with these
areas to increase their capacity to deal with new non-
attainment designations and conformity.
Finally, I want to assure you that the Department is
committed to continue the progress our Nation has made in
reducing motor vehicle emissions. I am proud of our successes
under CMAQ with flexible funding for innovative transportation
projects that improve air quality and mitigate the congestion.
Continued progress will require improved coordination of the
transportation and air quality planning processes.
The American public demands and deserves both mobility and
clean air. We must remain focused on providing the highest
level of service and environmental protection possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I look
forward to working with you and your colleagues as we prepare
for reauthorization of the surface transportation programs and
responding to any questions you may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Frankel.
The chairman has asked that I insert in the record, after
his short opening statement, a letter from the National
Association of Home Builders.
Without objection, it will be inserted in the record.
[The referenced statement and letter follow:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from
the State of Oklahoma
Over the years, I've have had the opportunity to work on the issue
of conformity quite a bit. Having chaired this subcommittee during TEA-
21, I worked to ensure that States had the tools necessary to meet the
requirements in the Clean Air Act. Working with Senator Bond, this
committee gave States the flexibility to demonstrate conformity once an
area may be newly designated as being in non-attainment. These new non-
attainment areas were given a 1-year grace period to demonstrate
conformity avoiding the immediate risk of losing critical funding for
highway projects.
More recently, having served as Ranking Member for the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I, again, had the
opportunity to work closely on the issue of conformity by working to
ensure that requirements of the Clean Air Act and the transportation
needs of States and communities do not run in conflict with each other.
Today, conformity remains a major issue. It is crucial that the
important goals of conformity remain a top priority of the work of this
committee. We must work to ensure that rather than being a process
driven issue, conformity will be about striking the right balance
between transportation needs and improving air quality standards, and
allowing communities the flexibility to achieve both.
I am pleased to report to this Committee that currently Oklahoma is
fully in attainment. However, my home town of Tulsa may soon face
issues with ozone attainment with the adoption of the new standards. I
have invited Mr. Jerry Lasker here today representing the MPO for
Northeastern Oklahoma. I understand that Tulsa is working on an ``early
action compact'' to avoid a non-attainment designation. I look forward
to hearing Mr. Lasker's testimony today on this ``compact.'' I wanted
to highlight the ``early action compact'' because it is just another
example of flexibility for States to meet air quality and
transportation needs. Programs like early action compacts should shape
our frame of mind in considering issues of conformity and attainment.
Nevertheless, there are currently 196 counties in non-attainment
for ozone. However, under the new standards, there will be 291 counties
in non-attainment for ozone. In reality, this figure will be much, much
higher because counties that are on the boarders of these new 291 non-
attainment counties will be also placed in non-attainment. With this
many more areas in non-attainment, these ``early action compacts''
could be more important than ever. Regardless, these attainment
problems around the country are the makings of a ``perfect conformity
storm.'' Therefore, we must take a very close look at the issues
surrounding conformity.
Specifically, we should look at:
1. Synchronizing conformity requirements with State Implementation
Plans (SIP's), Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP's), and long range
transportation plans in a better way;
2. Ensuring that governmental agencies and MPO's have more
flexibility on conformity; and
3. A greater degree of predictability on the conformity process for
the private sector.
Under the same principle of flexibility, CMAQ was designed to give
States flexibility to tailor projects to meet attainment with NAAQS.
With ISTEA's and TEA-21's authorization of CMAQ funds, we now have a
number of years of experience to evaluate the value of CMAQ funding to
States. With that information and National Academy of Sciences Report
264, it is important that this committee consider the future of CMAQ as
to how best to enable States to meet air quality attainment.
One last item: I would like to submit for the record testimony from
the National Association of Homebuilders. I think Members and staff
would benefit from NAHB's interesting perspective on the issues of
conformity and CMAQ.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and, again,
would like to welcome Mr. Lasker and thank him for coming all the way
to Washington from Oklahoma to help educate the Committee on these
issues.
______
Statement of the National Association of Home Builders
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
presenting the views of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) on the issue of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) and transportation conformity process and
their impact on the home building industry.
NAHB represents more than 205,000 member firms involved in home
building, remodeling, multifamily construction, property management,
housing finance, building product manufacturing and other aspects of
residential and light commercial construction. The members of NAHB
recognize the importance and value of a safe, easily accessible and
reliable transportation system. Homeowners and potential homebuyers
depend upon transportation systems to move from homes, to places of
employment, to shopping and to schools. Homeowners also demand
communities with clean air. The transportation conformity process
creates the nexus between the necessity of a safe and efficient
transportation system with the desire for maintaining clean air.
Unfortunately, the conformity process can be confusing, bureaucratic
and burdensome without necessarily demonstrating unmistakable air
quality benefits. The transportation conformity program goals and
processes must be reevaluated and reforms need to be made. NAHB's
members believe that the building industry can play a constructive role
in addressing this issue.
background
Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is a requirement under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
that mandates States with impaired air quality to conduct air quality
assessments prior to Federal approval, or the expenditure of Federal
funds, for construction of any major transportation project that may
have an impact on regional air quality (e.g., highway expansion, bridge
construction, new freeway construction, or transit project). In short,
it is a Federal requirement that local transportation plans must
``conform'' to the State air quality plan.
Transportation conformity applies to counties with impaired air
quality (``called ``non-attainment'' areas--today there are
approximately 276 counties in 32 States that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as having excessive amounts of
ozone (smog), particulate matter (soot), carbon monoxide, and/or
nitrogen dioxide. In addition, EPA is in the process of implementing
new, more stringent standards for ozone and particulate matter. With
the implementation of these new standards, the number of non-attainment
areas considered to have impaired air quality and subject to
transportation conformity requirements could double by 2007.
A transportation conformity determination is set up as an all-or-
nothing proposition. The projects in the local transportation plan are
taken in the aggregate. If local planners are unable to show conformity
of both a 20-year transportation plan and a 3-year transportation plan
(including the funding to back the projects contained in those plans)
with a the State air quality plan, the area experiences a ``conformity
lapse.'' The result of a conformity lapse is that all Federal
transportation funding for the area is frozen until the transportation
plans are approved. With Federal funding suspended due to a conformity
lapse, badly needed transportation projects are delayed or even
canceled, leaving the population of these areas with continued traffic
congestion and no better air quality.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Enacted as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 and reauthorized in TEA-21, the CMAQ program sought to
highlight the impact highways and transportation facilities have on the
environment and quality of life. The CMAQ program provides a flexible
funding source to State and local governments for transportation
projects and programs that improve air quality and congestion in areas
of the country with the most severe air quality problems. Originally,
funding was available for only non-attainment areas for ozone and
carbon monoxide. However, TEA-21 expanded the program to include former
non-attainment areas that are now in Clean Air Act compliance
(maintenance areas). Eligible activities for CMAQ funding include
transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, cleaner fuels
conversion of public vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian programs that
reduce congestion and emissions and improve the quality of life.
Impacts on the Home Building Industry
By all measures, the housing industry, which accounts for 14
percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, has been a bellwether
during the recent difficult economic times. Fortunately, to date,
transportation conformity requirements have not hindered the industry's
ability to continue producing safe, affordable housing in most cities.
In recent economic data for 2002, builders produced 1.7 million housing
units, including 1.36 million single-family units and 345,000
multifamily units. As a result, U.S. homeownership reached its highest
level--yet 68.3 percent--in 2002's final quarter. Over the past year,
low interest rates and strong underlying demographic demand has kept
housing strong while the rest of the economy has struggled to regain
its footing.
The construction of 1,000 single-family homes generates 2,448 jobs
in construction and construction-related industries, approximately
$79.4 million in wages and more than $42.5 million in Federal State and
local revenues. The construction of 1,000 multifamily homes generates
1,030 jobs in construction and related industries, approximately $33.5
million in wages, and more than $17.8 million in Federal, State and
local revenues and fees. NAHB members will construct approximately
eighty percent of the almost 1.6 million new housing units projected
for 2003.
In 2001, 41 of the largest 50 housing markets in the United States
were either non-attainment or maintenance areas subject to
transportation conformity requirements. As these population centers
grow, the demand for affordable housing must be coupled with the need
for a safe, efficient and modern transportation system. Driven by
consumer demand, land developers and builders plan their projects
according to local growth plans. Local transportation plans and
projects must be designed to complement and support the local growth
plan. Since many consumers factor transportation into their decisions
about home location, delayed or canceled transportation projects change
the demands of the homebuyer after development projects are planned or
even completed. If a metropolitan area is unable to appropriately wade
through the red-tape of the Federal conformity requirements so that it
can keep transportation project funding flowing, previously approved
transportation projects are halted, the congestion continues, and
homebuyers are left idling in traffic.
In 1999, a NAHB survey showed that 83 percent of the survey's
respondents favored a detached single-family home in a suburban setting
with a longer commute to work and farther distances to public
transportation and shopping. Overwhelmingly, the survey showed that the
greatest concern to respondents was traffic congestion. Respondents
chose road widening (44 percent), new road construction (27 percent)
and greater availability to public transportation (33 percent) as
solutions to traffic problems. Though a substantial number of
respondents advocated the use of public transportation, 92 percent
owned automobiles and 85 percent said that they use them for commuting.
The survey highlights the tradeoff Americans are willing to make:
tolerance of traffic congestion in return for the home of their choice,
in the setting of their choice. Further, while Americans support public
transportation, they rely on the automobile as their primary means of
transportation and support transportation improvements to ease traffic
congestion. It is clear that transportation, whether by automobile or
by transit, is a vital component of the decisionmaking process for
homebuyers. This point is not lost on home builders. Home builders
depend on a safe, efficient, modern transportation system (to
complement land use choices and patterns) because it is an important
selling point for the homebuyers they serve.
NAHB Activity
NAHB began working on transportation conformity in 1999 when
environmental advocates in Atlanta, Georgia decided to mount legal
challenges to transportation plans in Federal court. Throughout the
country, environmental groups have petitioned Federal courts to have
transportation plans frozen and then voided by the court because they
are ``flawed'' in some way. If a transportation plan is stricken,
essentially there is no plan and, therefore, no conformity. Without
conformity, Federal funding would be frozen until a ``better'' plan is
approved.
In response, NAHB formed a coalition with other construction
interests to intervene on a national level in transportation conformity
lawsuits. NAHB has participated in transportation-related litigation in
Sacramento, Atlanta, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City. NAHB is of the
opinion that Congress did not intend for environmental groups to have
standing to challenge transportation planning decisions under the
Federal Aid Highways Act and that the courts should not resort to
picking and choosing specific transportation projects for a region.
Congress envisioned a dynamic process where transportation documents
are continuously reviewed and updated on a regular basis in an effort
to account for new data, technology improvements, and shifts in
transportation growth. The conformity process is not static, and by
necessity, is dependent on estimates and predictions based on ever-
changing data and projections regarding future transportation trends.
However, while this litigation continues, it is imperative for parties
with an economic interest or those parties who are reasonably affected
by an ultimate decision have the opportunity to intervene in those
lawsuits. Efforts to keep transportation planning flowing without
court-selection of specific transportation projects have been very
successful.
NAHB has also recognized that a conformity lapse can result from a
poorly coordinated administrative process as much as any court
decision. For example, Houston was days away from lapse in the summer
of 2001, and San Francisco did experience conformity lapse twice in
2002. Both of these areas became bogged down in underlying challenges
to State air quality planning (such as modeling issues) that overlapped
with upcoming deadlines for approval of transportation plans. It was
not that the transportation plan itself was flawed, but that the air
quality plan approval process was not synchronized with the
transportation plan approval process. The transportation planning
process itself can be unnecessarily burdensome on local planners, and
changes should be made to the requirements to facilitate better air
quality and transportation planning.
Concerns about Current Transportation Conformity Requirements
In reconsidering transportation conformity while reauthorizing TEA-
21, NAHB urges Congress to carefully weigh the air quality benefits
gained by implementing the complicated transportation conformity
requirements against the economic impacts of the current transportation
conformity system. NAHB supports air quality planning aimed at reaching
the goals of the CAA and understands the need for future motor vehicle
emissions to be factored into transportation planning. As the
reauthorization effort progresses, Congress first should carefully
consider whether the transportation conformity program is fundamentally
addressing the goals of Congress.
NAHB would like to work with Congress to address the major problems
with the transportation conformity program. Through several meetings
and conversations with industry stakeholders and transportation and
environmental officials, NAHB has identified several areas of concern:
The inconsistency of statutory timelines between
transportation and air quality plans results in the delay of
transportation projects and subjects MPOs to excessive and burdensome
planning requirements. Under TEA-21, conformity is required at least
every 3 years, the regional transportation plan must be revised every 3
years and the transportation improvement program (although a 3-year
plan) must be revised every 2 years. Congress should enact statutory
reforms to merge transportation and clean air requirements into a
single timeline that avoids overlapping efforts and additional
conformity requirements.
Excessive statutory triggers result in non-attainment
areas continually performing countless transportation conformity
demonstrations that often overlap and are considered obsolete before
they are complete. Under the existing transportation conformity
program, non-attainment areas must demonstrate conformity each time EPA
proposes or approves a State Implementation Plan (SIP), each time EPA
modifies a control measure that impacts the motor vehicle emissions
budget (MVEB), and each time a transportation control measure is added,
modified or deleted. Conformity determinations are also required each
time a MPO adds or modifies a project in its transportation plan.
Congress should ensure that conformity determinations are only required
once every 3 years and on a cycle that has timelines consistent with
transportation planning. Further, Congress should consider establishing
a level of change in the MVEB below which MPOs can make changes to the
transportation program without triggering a conformity determination.
Transportation planners are confused by current EPA and
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance about what procedures
should be followed and which data should be used in planning. Under the
current transportation conformity system, the introduction of ``new''
air or transportation data triggers the need for a new air quality plan
and, in turn, a new conformity determination. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to find a balance between introducing new air and
transportation data into the system while still maximizing the time
available to State and local transportation planners to make conformity
determinations prior to statutory deadlines. Congress should ensure
that a region is not liable for new data that becomes available during
the course of developing a conformity determination. By doing so, an
area will be able to meet conformity timelines and avoid penalizing the
area for ongoing data collection and analysis.
The Federal agencies have not concluded properly or
consistently what kind of transportation projects can move forward
during a transportation conformity lapse. As EPA and DOT address a
court decision from 1999 that interprets the statute, once a project is
approved by a local government and well on its way to becoming a
reality, conformity lapse can leave a partially completed project
unfinished. Unfinished or idled transportation projects serve only to
perpetuate traffic congestion and dirty air, the very consequences
these projects presumably are intended to alleviate.
The way that EPA implements its new 8-hour ozone and fine
particulate matter standards will have significant impact on the
transportation conformity process. As stated previously, the number of
non-attainment areas may double, limiting State and Federal resources.
Further, the newly designated non-attainment areas will have little
experience with the implementation of an already complicated conformity
process.
Concerns about the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program
Unfortunately, over its history, the CMAQ program, which is
extremely popular with State and local officials, has funded some
questionable projects that fail to improve air quality. As a result, in
1998 Congress requested a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study of
the program's effectiveness in improving air quality. The study
recommended reauthorization of the CMAQ program with caveats, such as
that State and local air quality agencies should be more involved in
the CMAQ project decisionmaking process and that CMAQ funding should be
expanded to areas with pollutants other than ozone and carbon monoxide.
During the reauthorization of TEA-21, NAHB urges Congress to weigh
the air quality benefits gained by the current administration of the
CMAQ program. First, Congress should fully examine whether the CMAQ
program is realizing the goals of Congress. Through several meetings
and conversations with industry stakeholders and transportation and
environmental officials, NAHB has identified the following areas of
concern:
CMAQ-funded projects must not only reduce congestion but
also be scientifically proven to provide air quality benefits. By
allowing projects with questionable results to continue to be funded,
the CMAQ program is not fulfilling its intended goals of cleaning the
air and reducing congestion. Further, the program is not making
efficient use of taxpayers' dollars and deriving no air quality
benefits for the citizens who live in non-attainment areas, the very
citizens the program is designed to help.
Congress should preserve the original intent of the CMAQ
program by ensuring that funding is used exclusively in non-attainment
and maintenance areas. Opening up the CMAQ program to non-designated
areas would serve only to dilute the already limited funding levels and
take away projects from the areas that need the funding the most
desperately.
Only a fully funded CMAQ program that accounts for the
increase in non-attainment areas will ensure the popular program's
viability. As stated previously, due to EPA's implementation of the new
8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards, the number of non-
attainment areas may double, stretching limited CMAQ funding.
Thank you for allowing NAHB the opportunity to share its views on
the CMAQ and transportation conformity programs. NAHB applauds the
efforts of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to tackle
these difficult issues. We look forward to working with members of the
committee on these issue and other issues of concern to the home
building industry during the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Holmstead, several years ago, as a
matter of fact when Senator Chafee was chairman of this
committee, I indicated that under the new National Ambient Air
Quality Standards that many communities would not be in
conformity with the new ozone and particulate standards.
According to the information that I have, under the new
Standards, you will have 232 counties in 32 States that will be
designated non-attainment and 176 counties in 26 States for
PM2.5 standard in 2005. In my own State, the
statistics are that 30 of Ohio's 88 counties are projected by
EPA to be designated as non-attainment for the new ozone
standards, and 15 counties in 2005 for the particulate
standards.
As you know from previous conversations that we have had, I
am very proud of the fact that when I was Governor of Ohio we
worked very hard to bring all of our counties into attainment.
Under these new standards, many of them are going to fall out
of attainment.
What are you going to do for these counties in terms of the
problem of conformity? Many of the projections are that we
could lose $1.7 billion of money in terms of these counties not
being in conformity. You have talked about new technology that
is out there, such as automobiles are cleaner.
Where are you going right now, looking down the road, as to
how this is going to be handled so we don't end up having a
gigantic traffic jam of projects that are going nowhere?
Mr. Holmstead. We are keenly aware of this issue. As you
may know, we are going through this process that will culminate
in April of next year of actually designating areas. We
anticipate that nationally there will be about 50 new areas
that haven't really had to deal with conformity before. As Mr.
Frankel mentioned, we are doing a couple of things to address
this issue.
We are working with DOT to make the Conformity Program work
better. There are things that we believe that we can do
administratively. We are now, in fact, working on new
conformity regulations that will address many of the issues
faced by these new areas. We also will be providing additional
assistance and training to States and local governments so that
they can understand how the process works.
One of the things that we take some comfort in is that when
the Conformity Program was first created under the 1990
Amendments--and you are certainly aware of all of the issues
that that raised--there were some significant bumps in the road
as people began doing conformity for the first time. I think
EPA has learned from that experience.
Senator Voinovich. They weren't doing conformity. Period.
We had a lawsuit that was filed because people were ignoring
that. We had quite a crisis for awhile to try to see if we
could clean it up.
Mr. Holmstead. We anticipate that this transition will be
quite a bit smoother in part because our regulatory programs
will be improved. We have ironed out some of the bugs in large
part because of what Mr. Frankel mentioned. The tools are
available to make this work. I don't want to minimize the
challenges that we will face, but we really are doing
everything we can within the current statutory scheme to try to
minimize the burden, while at the same time encouraging State
air quality planners and transportation planners to continue to
work together on these issues.
Senator Voinovich. Have you sat down and looked down the
road at some of the major projects that are contemplated in
areas where you know there will be non-attainment of ozone and
particulate matter standards?
Mr. Holmstead. I haven't done that personally. I am sure
that is something that we could respond to you. I know that
many of the areas that now have conformity lapses are areas
where there are no projects going on, so they have no real need
to resolve those lapses. This is something that Mr. Frankel and
I could probably do together. We could look at where some of
the upcoming projects are expected to come.
As I think you might know, projects that are already
approved, or steps in projects that are already approved, are
not subject to these conformity lapses. So those will continue,
as will many of the other non-exempt projects. At this point, I
don't think we are anticipating that there will be a
significant number of conformity lapses.
I think it makes sense for us to look at big projects
coming up in some of these areas. But we really don't expect
that there will be a significant number of conformity lapses
because of the way the program has been refined over the years.
Senator Voinovich. Well, for example, in our State we have
a track system of transportation allocation of resources. We
have Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. We know what we are going to
be doing in the next several years. Right away, design has been
done. It would seem to me that you would look down the road to
see where those kinds of things are going to occur. You are
talking about educating people about what they can do. It seems
to me that is where you can spend a little more time in some
other areas.
The other thing is that I would be very interested--and I
know other members of the committee would be as well--as to how
you are going about doing this. I think it is really important
that those regulations be vetted; we would then have a lot of
input. Once this is done, we won't have a cry from a lot of
people out there saying that you are trying to get around the
new ozone and particulate matter standards and trying to avoid
the laws. This is what triggered the lawsuit that got us in a
jam several years ago.
Mr. Holmstead. Currently, we are going through what we
refer to as a ``stakeholder process,'' to make sure that we
really do understand the issues of various stakeholders. We are
confident that the refinements that we are looking at will be
fully in accordance with the laws. So we don't expect any
significant problems there. We will have these revised
regulations and guidance out well before areas are actually
designated under the new standards.
Senator Voinovich. You will share that with the committee?
Mr. Holmstead. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Mr. Frankel, you say that $14 billion has been spent over
the last 8 years. I am familiar with some of those projects in
the State of Ohio. The information that I have is that a lot of
that money that has been spent has not gone for projects that
really do very much about reducing emissions. In fact, I think
the National Academy of Sciences did a study of them and was
quite critical that many of the projects that were done. One
could question about whether or not they complied with the
congressional intent.
I just wonder. Are you contemplating looking at some new
criteria in determining which of those projects are going to be
funded? There are certain ones that were highlighted in that
study that contributed more toward reducing emission and
helping with the conformity problem than many others. Could you
share with us what your thinking on that is?
Mr. Frankel. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, roughly $14
billion has been authorized and $11 billion spent since the
beginning of the program in 1991 and the enactment of ISTEA.
That is actually a little longer period. As Mr. Holmstead has
said, and as you acknowledged, the National Academy of Science
study was generally supportive of the program and recommended
its continuation.
It is, as is true under the programs under TEA-21, and
ISTEA before it, a grant program--in this case to the States,
depending on their level of air quality attainment. There is
flexibility on the part of the States and MPOs to develop
specific programs and projects. Funded projects do have to meet
certain standards, obviously, and must contribute to air
quality improvements and congestion relief.
We are looking, in the context of the reauthorization bill,
at eligibility issues and what sorts of projects should be
eligible or not. We will continue to examine what projects are
selected by States to make sure, through general oversight of
these programs, that the projects are consistent with the
program requirements.
As is true of programs under TEA-21 generally, there is
flexibility on the part of States to develop programs that meet
these goals. Overall, it is hard to measure the specific impact
of the CMAQ program on improvements in air quality, let alone
the impact of individual projects.
I think you would acknowledge this, and both of us have
said, there have been dramatic improvements in the reduction of
emissions attributable to mobile sources. CMAQ has been a big
part of that. I think CMAQ will continue to make those
contributions while DOT exercises appropriate oversight of the
program.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would like to have you review
that report and get back to us with your comments on it.
Perhaps you can give some consideration in terms of language.
We want to be sure that we don't build a bunch of garages all
over the United States that couldn't be built with any other
money. CMAQ funds are there and people go after them.
I just think that the programs that are being supported and
paid for ought to have some real connection with reducing
emissions in the area and helping with conformity. I know that
is a tough one. I am for flexibility, but if you look at them,
they don't fit in with the law that made this money available.
Mr. Frankel. I appreciate that, Senator. We will be
responsive to that.
[Material to be supplied follows:]
Response to Senator Voinovich's request: The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report makes ten major recommendations in four different
areas of evaluation. A review of each is discussed below.
NAS Recommendation 1. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) has value and should be reauthorized with
modifications.
We agree that CMAQ has value and should be continued. It is the
only transportation program focused on contributing to improvement in
air quality. We agree that some modifications are warranted, primarily
for streamlining the program and allowing for funding of areas that
will become nonattainment under the Environmental Protection Agency's
new air quality standards. The exact changes that will be contained in
the Administration's proposal for reauthorization have not been finally
decided, but will likely address many of the report's recommendations.
NAS Recommendation 2. Air quality improvement should continue to
receive high priority in the CMAQ program.
The report notes that there are other highway funding categories
that focus on congestion relief and finds that the prohibition of
construction of single occupant vehicle capacity with CMAQ funds should
be continued. We agree that cost-effective congestion relief projects
should be funded when they have been found to have emission reduction
benefits.
NAS Recommendation 3. State and local air quality agencies should
be involved more directly in the evaluation of proposals for
expenditures of CMAQ funds.
We have encouraged interagency consultation in the CMAQ project
selection process and many areas have responded by including State and
local air pollution control officials in project selection. In the
interests of local flexibility and decisionmaking, we have not required
any specific make-up of these local project selection committees. It is
not clear whether Federal specification of the local project selection
process is warranted.
NAS Recommendation 4. The CMAQ program should be broadened to
include, at a minimum, all pollutants regulated under the Clean Air
Act.
The report specifically notes the new data showing fine
particulates (PM2.5) as having serious human health impacts.
That is our understanding as well. The current focus of the program is
on those EPA-regulated pollutants that can be affected by
transportation-related measures. While EPA has not yet designated any
areas as being in nonattainment of its new standard for fine
particulate matter or under the 8-hour ozone standard, there may well
be justification for including these areas in the CMAQ apportionment
formula. Failure to do so could restrict funding in States whose
nonattainment populations have grown substantially. Other pollutants
suggested in the NAS report may not be as applicable to mitigation
under the CMAQ program. For example, transportation contributes just 2
percent to sulfur dioxide, and no standards have yet been set for air
toxics. As such, it may not be worthwhile to pursue funding for S02
reduction since transportation sources are so small compared to thy
whole. Similarly, without standards and nonattainment designations, we
may not be able to target control strategies and areas to address air
toxics in reasonable ways.
NSA Recommendation 5. Any local project that can demonstrate
potential to reduce mobile source emissions should be eligible for CMAQ
funds.
The report specifically mentions vehicle scrappage programs, which
are statutorily ineligible, as well as public-private projects, diesel
programs and freight, all of which are eligible and have been funded by
the CMAQ program. With the exception of scrappage programs, it is not
clear what else might be funded under the program that is not already
eligible.
NAS Recommendation 6. Relax the restriction on the use of CMAQ
funds for operations.
The use of CMAQ funds for operational support is being evaluated by
the Department to determine whether eligibility for such funding should
be continued and, if so, for how long. Discussions within the
Department have ranged from 0 to 5 years of eligibility. The use of
CMAQ for operations must be considered very carefully because CMAQ
funds are used for transit projects, inspection and maintenance
programs, as well as highway projects, and the combined operational
needs of just the transit operators and the State and local highways
agencies is about $32 billion annually, many times larger than the $1.8
billion of CMAQ funding apportioned to the States in fiscal year 2002.
In further discussions with the NAS panel, it is clear that this
recommendation carried the requirement that further air quality benefit
be demons trated. We are not sure that such a demonstration can be made
under existing EPA procedures since operating support does not yield
further emission reductions toward attainment.
NAS Recommendation 7. Consider the use of CMAQ funds for land use
strategies leading to long term reduction in future mobile source
emissions.
As noted in the report, the potential for land use strategies to
reduce congestion or vehicle emissions is complex and unclear. An
important consideration is that CMAQ funding, is derived from the
Highway Trust Fund and must be used for ``transportation'' projects
that assist attainment. Some land use strategies may not be reasonably
considered to be transportation activities. Those that are
transportation activities may already be eligible for CMAQ funding. At
least one proposal for transit-oriented development has been determined
to be eligible for CMAQ support. Further, it may be difficult to
demonstrate an emission reduction which assists attainment of the
standards.
NAS Recommendation 8. Develop more rigorous procedures for
selection and evaluation of CMAQ projects in the context of local air
quality and congestion problems.
The Department is evaluating what reauthorization recommendations
to make concerning project selection. While we support performance-
based approaches, there is concern about balancing the needs of the
local decisionmakers against the strictures of a federally required
project evaluation and selection process.
NAS Recommendation 9. Provide incentives and guidance to local
recipients of CMAQ funds to encourage more evaluations of funded
projects.
We currently allow CMAQ funds to be used for evaluation purposes of
a CMAQ-funded project. We even require it for experimental pilot
projects. We are evaluating just how something more might be
accomplished. One of the problems is that a high quality evaluation,
including before and after studies, can cost as much as the
transportation improvement being evaluated according to a recent NCHRP
report. State and local jurisdictions might prefer to spend that money
doing another project.
NAS Recommendation 10. Undertake a national level, targeted program
of evaluation.
We find this an interesting proposal. The CMAQ program has funded
more than $11 billion thus far; some funding might be justified to make
sure that the program investment is optimized. It seems unlikely that
State and local programs will have the ability to undertake such a
program, and the Federal Government may be the only entity that could
provide such assessments and disseminate the results nationally.
Mr. Frankel. As I think you know, I served as a State
transportation executive. So I am aware of that. I think that
you would acknowledge, and I am sure under your leadership in
Ohio, that it was the case that overall these projects are the
ones that do meet the goals of the program.
Senator Voinovich. You know and I know that in some
instances you get a project and you figure out how you can fund
it. You look at all the pots of money. ``There is the CMAQ
money. Let's go after that money and use it.'' That is the way
it is. I think that we ought to be careful about how we are
going about spending that money.
I have to excuse myself to cast a vote. I want to apologize
to witnesses that we didn't get started on time. This is the
last day that our Chaplain is giving our Senate prayer. We had
a vote at 9:30. We just had another vote. That is how it is
here in the Senate for our guests that haven't been around
Washington.
We never know about our schedule here. Senator Carper and I
were once Governors. One of the things that we were able to do
when we were Governors is control our schedules. Now we are
members of the Senate, the system controls the system. So I
apologize to you for the delay in opening the hearing.
I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Carper, the
ranking member of this committee.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have been joined by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming.
Senator Thomas, do you have a statement you would like to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the rest of
us, I have another meeting to go to.
I am concerned about the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
standards. Wyoming, of course, being fairly low in population,
we don't have some of the difficulties that they have in other
States. They have been in compliance. But now with the proposal
to change the particulate matter portion of it from 10 ppm to
2.5 ppm, it impacts us and reduces our ability to work with
this. Much of it will be dust and dirt.
I guess I am interested in where you think that is and
whether it seems to be good policy to allow the States to get
the money to be able to use them proactively before we had
problems.
Mr. Frankel. Obviously, I can't speak, Senator, to the
specifics of what can be anticipated under the new standards
for Wyoming. Perhaps Mr. Holmstead can. I don't think we
necessarily anticipate that the change in the standards would
necessarily have an impact on Wyoming.
But nonetheless, there is a minimum allocation. Even though
Wyoming doesn't currently have non-attainment areas, those
funds can be utilized. The Federal Highway Administration
funds, the STP program, are available so that a State can be
proactive in trying to develop these sorts of projects that can
meet air quality concerns in a State such as Wyoming.
The Federal Highway Administration, I know, would look
forward to working--and I am sure has worked--with your State
government and your State Department of Transportation in
trying to develop projects which would be appropriate under the
circumstances.
Senator Thomas. That minimum allocation has been useful. We
have worked on projects. I am just concerned. I hope that we
can continue to have that minimum payment to Wyoming. Thank you
very much.
Senator Carper. Gentleman, I apologize for missing your
statements. I am not going to ask you to give your statements
again.
Mr. Holmstead. They were short.
Senator Carper. They must have been.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Could you each just take a minute or two
and give me the gist of what you had to say. The nub of what
you think I really need to take out of here would be helpful.
Mr. Holmstead. I would be happy to do that quickly. As I
think you know, we have made enormous strides in reducing air
pollution from mobile sources. This is largely because of much
cleaner cars and much cleaner trucks and buses, but it is also
due in part to what Congress has done in the area of linking
transportation and air quality through the CMAQ program and
transportation conformity.
I think we both agree with the recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences that it is an important program
and that in certain respects, it could be expanded and
improved. We are working with Mr. Frankel and other folks in
the Administration to make some recommendations that will be
part of the new Administration bill. But overall I think we are
supportive of the goals of that program and think it has worked
fairly well. Again, we have had some experience and we think it
can be made better.
On the transportation conformity side, as I think you know,
conformity was created during the 1990 Amendments. It has been,
in some respects, challenging, because for the first time it
required State air quality planners and State transportation
planners to work together in a way that they hadn't before.
As you can imagine as a former Governor, there were a few
bumps in the road, but we think it is working quite well now.
In fact, a lot of the models that people use to do these plans
have a significant amount of data that go into those models.
This whole process has worked out fairly well.
We do anticipate that with new non-attainment areas
designated over the next 1\1/2\ or 2 years, there will be new
areas that have not had to deal with transportation conformity
before. We are working to make sure that, first of all, they
are educated about how they can do conformity, and that second,
our regulations can be further refined specifically to address
the needs of some of these areas. We are committed to doing
that before the designations occur.
Our bottom line is that we think both of these programs
have been good programs and successful programs, but we do
agree with those who say they can be improved.
Mr. Frankel. I might say, Senator, in response to your
request, I want to emphasize something that Mr. Holmstead has
said, and that I referred to in my opening statement. That is
the closer relationship that both of these programs, CMAQ and
conformity rules, have stimulated, particularly at the State
level, between transportation officials, air quality officials,
transportation planners, and MPOs.
I know you are very aware of this from your experience,
particularly as a Governor. Even though we are moving toward
more developed and stricter standards, in some regards, in
terms of attainment, I think we are not where we were in 1990,
1991, and 1992. I think it is instructive, and I hope
encouraging to the Congress. I know you have heard this from
others.
Congress adopted the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, and
ISTEA in 1991. It was not accidental that these two programs
were merged. I think this committee was in the lead in trying
to tie and bridge the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and
ISTEA, the transportation programs, in 1991. I think Congress
did so in a very imaginative and thoughtful way. There were a
lot of bumps and a lot of difficulties. As you know, when these
came into force, I was a State transportation executive in
grappling with these sort of things. It is not perfect, by any
means.
As Mr. Holmstead has said, as we go forward developing the
reauthorization of TEA-21, we will be with EPA. We have been
trying to develop some ideas to make improvements in the
conformity process. There are some issues that have developed
in terms of the synchronization, if you will, of the timing,
the scheduling, and the planning processes which I think
together we can smooth out. Unintended conformity lapses can be
addressed.
Generally, we are committed. The Administration is
committed specifically here through EPA and the Department of
Transportation, to propose to Congress and to this committee
some thoughtful changes which will continue to make
improvements. As we go forward in the implementation of these
programs, those institutional relationships which have
developed at the State level, the metropolitan level, and the
Federal level, I think will ensure that we can continue to make
progress in reducing emissions.
Senator Carper. I have a statement that I will ask be
entered into the record. I am not going to go through my
statement today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator from the
State of Delaware
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and to our
witnesses, thank you for taking the time to be here.
The connection between transportation and air quality is clear. Its
interesting that at the same time this hearing is being held, the
Banking Committee, on which I also serve, is having a hearing on
transit. Talking about transit should remind us that it is simplest to
manage air pollution from a vehicle that rarely hits the road--or even
easier from one that is never built. Whatever we can do to reduce the
number of vehicles on the road in any given day is important. But we
should also remember, although today's hearing is not about this, we
should continue to help our colleagues take steps to improve the
mileage of vehicles and reduce the emissions from them.
Today's hearing is about the TEA-21 Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) program, which has been a successful effort to pursue
our dual goals of improved mobility through reduced traffic congestion
and a better environment through reduced air emissions. We should seek
to buildupon this legacy of effectiveness through the reauthorization
of TEA-21. By strengthening the program and providing more resources,
we can continue to hand our States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) the tools they need to improve air quality while
enhancing mobility.
Transportation remains the dominant source of air pollution in our
Nation, posing a significant threat to public health. As a former
Governor, I understand the challenges States face in meeting clean air
and conformity requirements. In Delaware, mobile source emissions
account for over one half of the State's emissions inventory. Two of
Delaware's three counties--including New Castle County where I-95
runs--are currently non-attainment areas, with the third county most
likely joining them as the new PM2.5 and 8-hour Ozone
standards are put in place.
However, Delaware has managed to remain in conformity with its
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State has accomplished this by
taking advantage of the CMAQ program to fund transportation projects
that reduce emissions, by strengthening long-term air quality/
transportation planning processes and by facilitating close
collaboration and cooperation between the State's Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and the Department of
Transportation in harmonizing air quality and transportation goals.
I believe we can improve the existing CMAQ program structure to
provide even more benefits to air quality, while preserving the
flexibility our States need to maintain our transportation network and
improve our quality of life. To do this, we must first expand the
amount of resources devoted to CMAQ. As more regions across our country
face conformity issues, it is appropriate to expand available funds to
meet the increasing needs. Out of this larger pot, we should make
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone non-attainment and maintenance areas
eligible for CMAQ funding. We should devise a way to fund former non-
attainment areas as needed to ensure continued attainment, and fund
CMAQ projects in travel corridors feeding into non-attainment areas.
Additionally, we should consider extending project funding by
phasing it in over time and adopt an interim policy of funding projects
beyond 3 years on a case-by-case basis based on continuing air quality
benefits.
To ensure that CMAQ resources are well spent and deliver the
maximum air quality benefits, greater emphasis should be placed on
projects that will result in direct, timely, and sustained air quality
benefits. I believe State air quality agencies could help determine
such projects by participating in a well-defined consultation and
concurrence process during CMAQ project selection. The State air
quality agency could establish criteria for identifying air quality
benefits and determining a minimum air quality benefit threshold for
projects. This would help ensure projects with the most impact get top
priority for funding while still providing flexibility to the States to
set their own standards and transportation agendas. Part of this
process would be providing State resources to improve data collection
so that we can clearly understand the impacts of transportation
projects on air quality.
Also, where we can make the conformity process more consistent,
with planning horizons and the frequency of updates harmonized, we
should. The purpose of the conformity requirement is to ensure a
healthy and safe environment for us all and we must focus on reaching
that result. We should maintain regular and timely analyses to
demonstrate compliance of constrained Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP's) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP's) with State
Implementation Plan (SIP's) motor vehicle budgets, and possibly combine
the TIP and RTP into one document to better harmonize timelines.
Additionally, we should conduct conformity analyses on the combined
TIP/RTP document no less than once every 3 years and retain the 20-year
planning horizon for transportation plans. Because the conformity of
transportation plans to air quality plans is critical to achieving
clean air goals, particularly given the continued increase in motor
vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled, preserving, and improving upon,
the basic conformity requirements and schedules now in place is
crucial.
States and regions also need the flexibility that CMAQ provides to
address their attainment goals. We need to further that flexibility by
explicitly making both freight and intercity passenger rail eligible
activities through the CMAQ program. Rail's ability to reduce emissions
by taking drivers and trucks off the road is well documented and CMAQ
has been used so far to fund rail projects in my State and others. We
must push to make rail clearly eligible to encourage these types of
investments when they can be shown to benefit air quality directly.
Combined, these changes could make a good program even better,
bringing CMAQ into the 21st century with an even stronger focus on air
quality. But in this effort, we must also not forget the daunting issue
of congestion. In fact, I believe that congestion is perhaps the single
biggest transportations challenge facing my State and the Nation. Yet,
the CMAQ program is the only TEA-21 program specifically aimed at
fighting congestion. While I absolutely support the connection between
air quality improvements and congestion reduction, I believe it is
perhaps time to take congestion on, front and center, in new program.
Simply put, congestion is too big for CMAQ, at its $1.35 billion annual
funding level, to fight alone.
According to the US DOT, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have more
than doubled over the past 20 years, with similar predictions for the
next 20 years. Meanwhile, our highway infrastructure has roughly
reached its development maximum, thereby greatly increasing congestion.
We need to promote more options to fight congestion through transit,
passenger and freight rail, smarter development, land use and other
strategies. By providing more resources and enhanced flexibility to
States and MPO's through a new program to fight congestion directly, we
could make major improvements in mobility, while also including
safeguards to ensure such projects are commiserate with a states' air
quality goals.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I will say that we have an important
task ahead of us. The two major contributors to air pollution--
transportation and electricity generation--will be topics we should
debate this year, and I hope we will. The fact is that we must make
significant progress on both of these sources of pollutants. I think we
all know it's the right thing to do. We should put out heads together
and find a way to strengthen the conformity and CMAQ tools we have, and
consider others if necessary, and I look forward to working with you
and the committee to get something done that we can both agree to.
Senator Carper. I do have a couple more specific questions
that I would like to ask, if I could.
Mr. Frankel, you have alluded to your sordid past, which
included a stint as a transportation agency not far from ours.
Mr. Frankel. Thank goodness for Delaware. Connecticut is
bigger.
Senator Carper. A little bit bigger.
We think of Vermont and New Hampshire as big States.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Put your old hat on, the hat you wore for a
number of years as the head of a State transportation agency.
Just talk to me a little bit about the kind of changes that you
would recommend seeing made from the States' perspective, with
respect to CMAQ or conformity. I am really looking for common
sense changes.
Mr. Frankel. Right. I would say in the CMAQ area, Senator,
and you probably heard the part of my answer to the chairman,
the CMAQ Program is like the other core highway programs. I
would like to say that I think that the basic programs of the
Department of Transportation through TEA-21 are really based on
the flexibility, the discretion, of States to design their own
programs. We set out national goals and national purposes for
these core programs, whether it is the national highway system
or interstate maintenance, or the CMAQ Program.
I think you have heard me say this before, in the bill that
we present on behalf of the Administration to reauthorize TEA-
21, we will try to build on that flexibility and discretion on
the part of States. It is not so much that there are specific
requirements that I would like to see added--and certainly
wearing my old hat that is the case--but rather to continue to
work with States and MPOs to assist them in developing their
programs to meet their particular needs for shaping a
transportation investment program that also meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and environmental quality.
I think we are on the right road with that. We have had
extensive discussions with EPA, stakeholders, and others, about
eligibility issues under CMAQ. The chairman has just asked
about the other side of it, if you will, and that is projects
that perhaps get funded under CMAQ that really don't meet
objectives. So I think we need to continue to refine that.
Basically the CMAQ Program is a good program that has made an
important contribution to the reduction of emissions.
In the case of conformity, again wearing my old hat, the
disparity--if I can use that word--between the planning cycles
is something that we have to address. I think too much burden
has fallen on transportation planners and transportation
agencies because the air quality planning process is not as up-
to-date as it should be in some places. We have addressed that,
and I think we will have some proposals.
I think that is very important not only at the State level
and not only for Governors, commissioners, secretaries of
transportation, but MPO officials and air quality environmental
officials at the State level as well. So I think that is an
important thing that we can address.
Also, although not subject to legislation, but I can say we
all have to work together to continue to make improvements in
the modeling so that the analytical process that occurs on
which the conformity findings are based, is more authentic.
I think everybody would acknowledge that we have work that
has to be done. Both agencies have struggled over the years to
improve that. That is in everybody's interest. It is also
extremely difficult, as you know--very, very challenging.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, back to you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Could you explain how Clear Skies might impact on the new
National Ambient Air Quality Standards? As you know, Senator
Inhofe and I recently introduced the Clear Skies Proposal. Is
there any connection between the two?
Mr. Holmstead. As I think all three of you know, the real
issue in these transportation programs and their link to air
quality is an attempt to come into attainment with national air
quality standards.
We have done very extensive projections, based on state-of-
the-art computer modeling techniques to explore what would
happen over the next few years if there were these national
caps put in place under Clear Skies. Just to put it in context,
right now I think there are roughly 330 some odd counties in
the country that are out of attainment with the ozone standard.
There may be 125 or 130 counties that are out of attainment
with the PM2.5. There is some overlap there. You
don't just add those up, but it is hundreds and hundreds of
counties.
If you look at the reductions that you get regionally from
Clear Skies, especially in the Eastern part of the United
States, that number drops dramatically over time. Part of that
is due to the other things that are happening--the cleaner
standards and cleaner fuels are coming into place, which help
to reduce emissions.
So, when you look at those measures and you add on top of
that the very dramatic reductions that you get from Clear
Skies, the number of remaining non-attainment areas is
dramatically reduced. I don't have the exact numbers, but by
the 2015 timeframe, which will be the attainment date for most
parts of the country for PM2.5, the number goes down
from 300-400 to in the neighborhood of 50.
This means that all of those counties that had to deal with
transportation conformity, are now in a very different
position. Some of them may still have to do conformity because
they will be doing a maintenance plan. It will dramatically
reduce the burden on States and local governments throughout
the Eastern United States.
Instead of putting all of that burden on the Conformity
Program and on local controls, you just get a dramatic
reduction in these regional air pollutants. It will make a very
big difference, not only in terms of transportation conformity,
but in terms of all of the other planning that States and local
governments have to do to come into attainment.
Senator Voinovich. I didn't see the ranking member of our
committee, Senator Jeffords, come in. Have you had an
opportunity to ask any questions?
Senator Jeffords. No. I didn't make my statement either. I
would like to make my statement part of the record.
Without objection, I assume that would happen.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. Without objection, it will be included,
reserving the right to object.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. No, not really.
Senator Jeffords. We don't object down here.
Mr. Holmstead, Governor Whitman testified that when Clear
Skies is fully implemented, sometime around 2018 or later, it
would prevent premature deaths of approximately 12,000. I have
two questions for you.
No. 1, how many people does EPA estimate are dying
prematurely each year from power plant pollution right now?
Mr. Holmstead. There is no way to attribute deaths just to
power plants because, as I think you know, what is actually
causing these premature deaths is PM2.5, fine
particles. These fine particles are made up of emissions from
power plants and emissions from cars. It is a collection of
emissions from all of these sources. Collectively we believe
that the total number of premature deaths from PM2.5
is tens of thousands of people a year. I don't know that we
have an official Agency estimate. But it is in the range of
probably more than 25,000 or 30,000 premature deaths that occur
every year.
A number of programs already in place will reduce that
number. On top of those existing programs, Clear Skies would
reduce an additional 12,000 premature deaths. That is our best
estimate. The improvement is very dramatic.
Senator Jeffords. How many people does EPA estimate are
dying prematurely each year from power plant pollution right
now?
Mr. Holmstead. We are not able to estimate that. As I said
before, if power plants were the only source of emissions, then
we could estimate that. But it really is not fair to power
plants to say that they are causing all this pollution when, in
fact, what is causing the premature mortality comes from a
number of other sources at the same time. But what we can say
is that by reducing pollution from power plants we can reduce
this number very significantly. It is impossible for anybody to
say with certainty the estimated number of premature deaths
from power plants.
Senator Jeffords. In the past 2 years, what specific steps
has EPA taken using its existing authority to reduce that
number?
Mr. Holmstead. The Clean Air Act is passed by Congress and
gives us limited ability to do anything until we go through
this process of designating areas. We have done a number of
things using our non-regulatory authority. For instance, we
have a very significant program working with people to reduce
diesel retrofits. We certainly continue to pursue enforcement
cases that get reductions from power plant emissions. Since I
have been at EPA, there have been several settlements of those
cases. Additional settlements, I think, are expected fairly
soon.
The real reductions under our regulatory authority come
once we actually have 3 years of data from States and we do the
designations. As you know, this process takes many years to
play out. This is one of the reasons why we are so eager to get
multi-pollutant legislation, because we can get those
reductions, and much bigger reductions, much sooner, especially
over the next decade or so.
Senator Jeffords. No regulatory actions have been done or
started?
Mr. Holmstead. We are, as you know, limited. We just can't
go out and regulate anyone that we want to. We are constrained
by the Clean Air Act. So we are actually right now looking at
what we would do under something called the Transport Rule. We
could do that at some point in the future.
We are also in the process now of developing something
called the MACT Standard for power plants. That MACT Standard
will be finalized under a settlement agreement at the end of
2004. So we are working on that standard right now.
Under the Clean Air Act we have a number of existing
programs that we implement including the Acid Rain Program and
other things. We only have the authority that you give us. This
is why we are so eager to ask you to put in place more
stringent caps and a stronger program.
Senator Jeffords. As you may know, I am not very happy
about the Agency's level of cooperation with the committee,
particularly regarding the Office of General Counsel and your
office. Congress and this committee needs truly responsive
information in a much more timely fashion.
Just recently Governor Whitman pledged to reverse this
unfortunate situation. I really hope that starts to happen. Can
you tell me why I still don't have a complete answer to the
questions, the NSR questions that I sent you on July 20, 2002,
approximately 7\1/2\ months ago?
Mr. Holmstead. Here is what I can tell you about that
issue. First of all, Governor Whitman made it clear that she is
following up on her commitment to you to make sure that we can
be more responsive. We will do that.
As you know, we have been involved in many, many activities
regarding the NSR program, including working on regulations,
preparing for hearings and answering questions. I believe that
we have answered several hundred questions. We have a handful
that we still haven't answered. I will check to see and make
sure we can get that.
Senator Jeffords. I appreciate your doing that because I am
concerned.
This is not a question but rather a comment. There are
several other air-related examples where the Agency has given
us the runaround in the form of inadequate answers,
unresponsive answers, or no answers. I will be talking with the
Governor about those shortly. In general, you should note that
this noncooperation of NSR and other matters will make it
harder to get the multi-pollutant bill done. I just urge you to
expedite that.
I have many questions, but we will do it for the record.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
The only comment I have, Senator Jeffords, is that I know
the utilities in Ohio are moving forward with the SER
technology which is to reduce their emissions which have some
side benefits in terms of particulate matter. All of the
utilities are moving forward to comply with the NOx SIP call
that is upcoming in 2004 or 2005?
Mr. Holmstead. Yes, 2004. That is correct.
Senator Voinovich. So there is some action taking place. I
would comment that because of the uncertainty about new source
review, many of them are doing nothing but what they have to do
because they are uncertain about whether if they go forward
with something, it will trigger new source reviews. So the
sooner we get that cleared up so they know where they stand,
the better off we will be.
Senator Carper, do you have any other questions?
Senator Carper. I would just like to ask one more quick
question.
Putting on my old hat, and looking back at my checkered
past, as Governor of Delaware and a colleague of Governor
Voinovich, I was always struck by how in our States we could
use CMAQ money for freight railroads, for highways, for
bridges, for roads, and for bicycle paths, but we couldn't use
it for passenger rail. I always thought that was peculiar. I
know the Senate has voted a couple of times by fairly wide
margins to change that. I don't think it has worked its way
through the House and dropped out in conference.
Do you have any thoughts on that proposal?
Mr. Frankel. Well, again, Senator, the projects have to
have Congestion Mitigation Air Quality benefits. I take to
heart what the chairman has said that there are some projects
perhaps that kind of sneak through that stretch a bit. But that
continues to be the requirement.
For example, grade separation projects--rail and road--I
think frequently CMAQ funds have been utilized for that. States
have made the decision to utilize that. Perhaps that is what
you have in mind. A freight-rail project in and of itself is
not appropriately fundable under CMAQ unless you can show the
benefits in terms of traffic movements at a place where there
was not grade separation. So I think one needs to look a little
bit more at the specific projects as opposed to the elements
that would be funded.
Senator Carper. Thank you. And then one last question if I
could, Mr. Holmstead, for you.
With respect to the Administration's budget request for
2004 for CMAQ funds, do you have any idea how CMAQ fares in the
Administration's proposal for funding?
Mr. Frankel. Actually, I guess I would let Mr. Holmstead
answer that but since it is our budget and our proposal, I will
try to be responsive. The funding--and I don't want to hold you
up--in the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 for CMAQ--
generally the highway core program is somewhat down from fiscal
year 2003 which was contained in the Omnibus Appropriations
bill.
But over the life of the Reauthorization bill, it is our
anticipation that the funding for the CMAQ Program will grow
consistent with the growth in the other highway core programs.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We look forward to the responses to the questions that we have
asked of you today.
Our next panel will come forward. While you are coming
forward, I am going to be introducing you.
On our panel we have Howard Maier, executive director of
the Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency. Howard, it is nice
to see you. Howard and I have worked with each other since my
days when I was mayor of the city of Cleveland and then
Governor. Howard, I think, represents many of the other people
that we are having here from various States.
Mr. Jerry Lasker is executive director of the Indian Nation
Council of Governments, Tulsa, OK. Annette Liebe is manager,
Air Quality Planning, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Marsha Kaiser is director of the Department of
Planning and Capital Programming, Maryland Department of
Transportation.
These are people that work for government. Many of them
have been at it for a long, long time. We thank you for your
service to your country. Thank you for coming a long distance
to testify today.
Our other witnesses are W. Gerald Teague, M.D., professor
and vice chairman of Pediatrics, and director, Division of
Pulmonary Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine. Mr.
Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense. Michael has been here
before, I think, to testify. We also have Ms. Diane Steed,
president, American Highway Users Alliance.
Because we have so many witnesses today, I am going to
stick to our 5-minute rule as fastidiously as I possibly can.
So if you could limit your remarks to 5 minutes, I would be
most grateful. I want you to know that we appreciate the
testimony that you have submitted for the record. They will be
looked at in terms of the decisionmaking that we are going to
have to make in terms of these two important programs.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make an
observation. If we had more witnesses, we would need a bigger
table.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. The second thing, the Banking Committee in
the Senate has jurisdiction over transit. We are having a
simultaneous hearing there on transit funding. I am going to
slip out. I don't mean to be rude. It is not a walkout or a
protest in anything that you are saying. But I need to be in
two places at once which is not uncommon here, as Senator
Voinovich knows.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Liebe, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF ANNETTE LIEBE, MANAGER, AIR QUALITY PLANNING,
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS AND
THE ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS
Ms. Liebe. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Carper.
As you know, my name is Annette Liebe. I am with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality. I am here today testifying
on behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, which are two national
associations of State and local air quality agencies in 54
States and territories, and over 165 major metropolitan areas.
We are here today because transportation remains a dominant
source of air pollution across the Nation, contributing
substantial amounts of smog-forming emissions, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, greenhouse gasses, and toxic air
pollutants, as well as to the formation of regional haze.
Although we continue to make great progress, as
Administrator Holmstead mentioned, in reducing emissions from
mobile sources, it is clear that the benefits from
technological advances alone will not keep pace with current
and foreseeable trends in the growth of vehicle miles traveled.
We firmly believe that the CMAQ and transportation
conformity programs are critically important to the goal of
achieving full integration of environmental and transportation
decisionmaking processes, and to ensuring that transportation
choices do not undermine efforts to achieve and sustain clean,
healthful air throughout the country.
For this reason, our associations have adopted a set of
CMAQ and transportation conformity principles for the
reauthorization of TEA-21. A copy of our principles is attached
to our written statement.
We strongly support the CMAQ program and believe it can be
strengthened in several ways. First, since CMAQ was originally
established, the scope and magnitude of transportation-related
emissions and their impact on air quality have expanded
significantly. As you know, EPA has adopted new health-based
standards for fine particulate and ozone, both of which will be
implemented in the next few years, and we have gained an
increased understanding of the phenomenon of transported
pollution.
Accordingly, we urge that areas eligible to receive CMAQ
funding be expanded to also include any area that faces air
quality challenges as a result of transportation-related
emissions. Specific recommendations are included in our written
testimony.
We strongly urge a substantially increased Federal
commitment of resources to the CMAQ Program to reflect the true
and very significant impact of transportation-related emissions
on air quality. This increase should be no less,
proportionately, than that to be provided for highway
investments.
In Oregon, for example, CMAQ funds have been critical to
the implementation of transportation control measure
commitments in our air quality plans. I have also cited those
examples in the written testimony.
However, to meet the challenges that lie ahead, continued
and additional CMAQ funding is necessary. With respect to
project eligibility, we urge that greater emphasis be placed on
projects that result in direct, timely, and sustained air
quality benefits.
Finally, we recommend that the concurrence of State and
local air quality agencies be required for CMAQ project
selection through a well-defined consultation and concurrence
process. In Oregon, for example, this concurrence has occurred
through an ongoing robust interagency consultation process that
we established under our own conformity rule.
With respect to transportation conformity, our associations
strongly believe that the purpose of the program, which is to
ensure that transportation plans and programs stay within the
allotted motor vehicle emissions budget, is absolutely crucial
to achieving clean air goals. Unless this purpose is achieved,
it will be necessary to call upon other source sectors,
potentially including small businesses, to further reduce
emissions.
We believe conformity is working well and strongly endorse
preserving the major conformity requirements and schedules that
are now in place. Therefore, we are deeply concerned with
recent proposals seeking changes. I would like to cite three
examples.
First, we are strongly opposed to proposals to shorten the
planning horizon for the transportation plan so that the plan's
conformity determination would be based on a 10-year rather
than a 20-year planning horizon.
In planning for clean air, we must not only chart a course
for achieving healthful air quality, but also for maintaining
it over the long term. Major transportation investments can
have huge air quality impacts, much of which may not occur for
several decades. These investments can also significantly have
growth and sprawl. Therefore, long-term planning, over at least
a 20-year planning horizon, is imperative to ensuring that the
potential growth in mobile source emissions is identified, the
impact on air quality is assessed, and appropriate adjustments
are made.
Second, we oppose proposals to reduce the frequency of
conformity determinations for transportation plans from 3 to 5
years. Continued timely analyses will ensure that sound data is
generated and allow for the timely improvement of motor vehicle
emission estimates.
Finally, we are concerned with the suggestion to lengthen
from 1 to 3 years the grace period before an area found to be
in violation of an air quality standard for the first time must
demonstrate conformity. To allow transportation planning in an
area with poor air quality to go unchecked for 3 years is a
substantial weakening of the conformity program and of public
health protection.
We believe that, as it is currently structured, conformity
provides ample flexibility to States to accommodate individual
needs and circumstances, while maintaining the integrity of the
program. Rather than statutory changes to such things as
planning horizons, analyses frequencies, and grace periods, we
believe that State and local officials should retain the
flexibility to work through a robust interagency consultation
process to resolve issues in a way that results in the best
solution for everyone.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to
answer any questions. I would ask that my testimony be included
in its entirety.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for your excellent testimony.
Dr. Teague.
STATEMENT OF DR. W. GERALD TEAGUE, M.D., PROFESSOR AND VICE
CHAIRMAN OF PEDIATRICS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PULMONARY
MEDICINE, EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Dr. Teague. Good morning and thank you. I am Gerald Teague,
a pediatrician and a professor at Emory University. I would
like to thank Senators Voinovich and Carper for having me here
today.
As many in the room know, outdoor air quality does affect
respiratory health. Studies that were done 10 years ago in
children showed a clear relationship between exposure to
unhealthy levels of ozone and asthma attacks. Other studies--
and these are also done in Atlanta--showed that apart from
ozone, suspended particles can increase respiratory symptoms in
children.
Today, as a practicing pediatrician, I regularly see and
care for children with asthma attacks due solely to air
pollution episodes. We have also known, since the 1950's, that
vehicle exhaust has a major role in the deterioration of air
quality in urban areas. The Clean Air Act, originated in 1970,
helped this a lot, and as a result, the air is cleaner today
compared to its levels in 1970.
During this same time, though, the prevalence of asthma in
urban areas has increased significantly. An estimated 62
million Americans live in areas where the air quality does not
meet health-based standards. At the same time as the
improvement in air, the United States has experienced a
staggering increase in traffic congestion. From 1982 to 1997,
traffic congestion increased by 45 percent in metropolitan
Atlanta.
This gets to the study that I did that was published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association. The study
basically looked at a simple question: What happens when a city
makes a well organized highly collaborative attempt to decrease
automobile traffic congestion? Would this have any impact on
the health of its residents?
The 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta provided an
opportunity to answer these questions. Atlanta was preparing to
be host to an additional 1 million visitors during the 17 days
of the games. The visitors would all be concentrated downtown.
To meet this challenge, the city of Atlanta, the Department
of Transportation, and the Atlanta Committee on the Games,
along with local business leaders, came today to enact a
traffic mitigation strategy. It consisted of five basic
efforts.
No. 1, we encouraged use of public transportation. We
promoted alternative commuting practices to the residents of
Atlanta, to shift travel away from rush hour periods, media
warnings of severe traffic congestion, specific highway
improvements, additional lanes, and widened lanes, and finally
traffic restrictions around the venue.
This brings me to the study. To study the effects of this,
what we did--colleagues with the Centers for Disease Control--
was to measure all acute care visits for asthma around the
city. We measured the air pollution variables--weather,
traffic, gasoline sales, and public transportation use. We did
this during the 17 days of the Olympics and compared all these
variables to a baseline period consisting of 4 weeks before and
4 weeks after the Olympic games. That would be a reasonable
scientific project.
This is what we learned. During the Olympic games, acute
asthma events around Atlanta decreased 42 percent for George
Medicaid recipients, 44 percent in a health maintenance
organization, 11 percent in two pediatric emergency rooms, and
for Georgia hospitals in the region, a 19 percent reduction in
asthma-related discharges.
Was the air cleaner? Peak daily ozone concentrations fell
28 percent from 81.3 ppb during the pre-Olympic period to 58.6
ppb during the Olympics. I will refer you to the figures in my
submitted written testimony. The peak weekday a.m. traffic
counts decreased 22.5 percent.
So based on our study we conclude that efforts to decrease
downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the Olympic games
resulted in reduced automobile use, particularly during the
critical morning rush hour period. These changes were
associated with a long period of low ozone pollution and
significantly lower rates of childhood asthma events.
This study provides direct evidence and supportive evidence
to reduce air pollution, and to improve the health of children
via reductions in motor vehicle traffic.
Thank you very much.
I would ask that my statement be included in the record in
its entirety.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Dr. Teague. It is wonderful
that you did that study during that period of time. We have
some good information. Thank you.
Mr. Replogle.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Mr. Replogle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Michael
Replogle, Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. I
am representing our 300,000 members. I also chair the Energy
and Environment Issue Team of the Surface Transportation Policy
Project. I speak on behalf of a dozen other groups this
morning, including the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Sierra Club, NRDC, Defenders of Wildlife, the
Oregon Environmental Council, the Tri-State Transportation
Campaign in New York, the Southern Environmental Law Center,
and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Conformity is vital to keeping transportation accountable
for effects on public health, air quality, and the environment.
Like balancing a checkbook, conformity keeps track of the
impacts of transportation spending. Conformity requires
transportation plans to respect the pollution limits that are
established in the State Air Quality Plans, the SIPs.
Conformity was strengthened by Congress in 1990 because for
two decades growth and motor vehicle use and related emissions
have been underestimated, leading to the failure of SIPs and
missed attainment deadlines. Although cars and trucks are much
cleaner than in 1970, their pollution will cause continuing
serious harm to the health of Americans in coming decades, even
with all the cleaner technologies that are coming down the
pike.
Although setbacks have delayed and hampered its
implementation, conformity has produced huge benefits. It has
been very effective behind the scenes, motivating actions to
curb pollution and to protect health.
Now grumbling from conformity's accountants has often
drowned out tales of conformity's successes. Yet, conformity
has spurred support for cleaner vehicles, fuels, and
maintenance, and strategies to curb traffic and pollution
growth with better travel choices. It has transportation and
air quality agencies finally talking to each other.
Some assert there is a timing mismatch that should be fixed
by having conformity look only at the first half of 20-year
transportation plans, or by allowing use of out-of-date
assumptions and data for conformity analysis, or by reducing
the frequency of conformity checks. These ideas would likely
cause regional air quality control strategies to fail for the
fourth time since the 1970 Clean Air Act.
I met this week with Federal highway officials who could
cite no examples where demonstrating conformity for all the
projects in the 20-year plan, rather than just the projects in
the first 10 years, had created a problem that States hadn't
fixed by committing to future emission controls. ``If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.''
Some propose that conformity disregard new data that would
show motor vehicle emissions will exceed the estimates that
have been used to demonstrate attainment in SIPs. This would
simply reenact the old broken pre-1990 system that conformity
was intended to fix. There would be no accountability for
excess emissions, no need to find solutions, and SIPs would
fail again.
Conformity is like balancing your checkbook. It is not a
fun way to spend time, but it is vital to your welfare. If you
do it frequently and routinely with current data, you avoid
surprises, bounced checks, and overdrafts that are due to bad
recordkeeping or bad arithmetic.
Most areas redo their conformity analysis annually
voluntarily as they add new road projects. This means timely
improvements in tracking vehicle emission assumptions. They get
updated when a change of vehicle mix, or parking fares, or
transit costs, development patterns, or the models get better.
Timely updates improve accountability and protect the integrity
of the transportation and the air quality planning process.
What is causing the timing mismatch? Well, it is the
failure of the air agencies and EPA to prepare required
milestone compliance demonstrations for SIPs every 3 years,
with corrective actions where necessary. This is parallel to
the current required transportation conformity schedule--every
3 years.
Rather than disconnecting the schedule for conformity
determinations from other schedules in the Clean Air Act, this
committee should compel prompt EPA action on compliance
demonstrations.
The 5-year conformity schedule that is proposed by some
would leave no mechanism to hold transportation accountable to
revised emission budgets or improved estimates of emissions
within the time between the approval of new SIPs and the
attainment deadlines. This means that the pollution cleanup
burden would fall alone on stationery and area sources or the
SIPs would fail again.
In Metro Washington, here in our home region, updated data
on the use of SUVs and light trucks show that emissions would
exceed the SIP emission budget. Officials in a timely way
solved this conformity problem with better accounting for
emission strategies that were already under way, by adopting
$42 million of clean buses and other measures to cut pollution,
and trimming $800 million from the region's road programs which
cut forecast traffic growth, congestion, and pollution. This
saved taxpayers $800 million.
In Charlotte, NC, conformity showed excess emissions in the
20-year transportation plan. Officials considered and adopted a
revised plan with better transit and smarter growth, trimming
the forecast traffic growth and pollution by almost a quarter,
and winning voter approval for that plan.
To conclude, Congress should reject the changes that have
been proposed to the successful Conformity Program that would
threaten these successes and harm public health and the
environment.
Thank you. I would ask that my prepared testimony be placed
in the record.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Lasker.
STATEMENT OF JERRY LASKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN
NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Lasker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
address this subcommittee. I am Jerry Lasker. I am the
executive director of the Indian Nations Council of Governments
in Tulsa, OK.
We have been very proactive in trying to make our air
cleaner in our region. We have taken many steps in this regard.
To give you a little bit of history, in 1990 the Tulsa area was
in non-attainment. We got in attainment before the Clean Air
Act Amendments came into effect. In 1991, we had two
exceedences of the 1-hour standard. We developed a program in 2
weeks called the Ozone Alert! Program. It is the fastest I have
ever seen Government act.
We established an Air Quality Committee which consisted of
public agencies, the private sector, environmental groups, and
just general citizens. We came up with the Nation's first
episodic voluntary control program. This was called the Ozone
Alert! Program. We went the rest of the summer and the next
year without having any exceedences of the standard.
The program was very successful. One of the major things
was our oil companies and our gasoline suppliers and
distributors volunteered to reduce the revapor pressure in
their gasoline. This helped out a lot. Our transit company gave
free bus rides on ozone alert days. Our health department
forecasted the days when there was a potential to exceed the
ozone standard. General citizens volunteered to do things that
would reduce emissions. As I said, this was a very successful
program.
We went from there into being the Nation's first flexible
attainment region. This was a program that the private sector,
the public sector, the State, the environmental agencies, and
the transportation agencies all agreed to. This was a program
that if we had problems, exceedences, or violations, we would
agree to undertake various measures to bring our emissions down
and to keep us in attainment.
With the FAR expired, we went into what is called the 0-3
Flex Program. Again, this was a program where we got into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA. Here, if we had an
exceedence of the standard, we would institute various measures
to again reduce emissions.
I am proud to say that from 1991 until the present, we have
been in attainment of the 1-hour standard. We did this for many
reasons. The first reason was health related. We were very
concerned about the air quality impacts on the health of our
citizens.
Second, we wanted to avoid the stigma of non-attainment.
When you are looking to develop a region and you need growth,
you do not want to be on EPA's Dirty Air List because that is
one of the things that if a company is looking to relocate they
are looking at certain factors. If you are on that list, it is
not going to help you.
The third thing was that we were very concerned about
conformity. We have never done conformity, but we had heard
that it takes a lot of work and, as Mr. Replogle said, it is
not any fun. So we have tried to avoid that.
We are in attainment for the 1-hour standard. When the new
8-hour standards came into effect, this was going to provide a
great challenge for the Tulsa area. Right now, two of our five
monitors are slightly above the 8-hour standard. Again, we are
being very proactive.
What we have done is that we have gotten into an agreement
with the EPA and the State to have an Early Action Compact.
What this Compact does is basically commits us to being in
attainment in the Year 2007, which would be 2 years earlier
than if we did nothing and just slipped into non-attainment in
this next season.
To do this we have agreed to undertake SIP modeling. We
have agreed to have our stakeholders agree on what emission
reduction measures we would implement to reach attainment in
the year 2007. In return, the Compact basically says that EPA
would defer the effective date of the designation of non-
attainment if we were to continue to be slightly above in our
monitoring.
The problem we are running into right now is that EPA has
told us that they have to make a designation of attainment or
non-
attainment. Since we are slightly above, they will probably, in
April 2004, designate us non-attainment. When DOT looks at
that, they say, ``Well, you are in non-attainment''. That means
that conformity will kick in 1 year from the date of
designation.
This makes no sense to us. We have signed an agreement with
EPA. We are doing all the things to come into attainment 2
years earlier than if we did nothing. It looks like we are
being penalized for getting into this Agreement and being
proactive. We are very concerned about that.
Our resolution to that problem is to take areas, like
Tulsa, that are doing proactive things like becoming an agent
in an early action compact, and classifying those areas as
unclassifiable. If we miss a milestone, if we don't meet it at
the monitors in 2007, we are going to go into non-attainment
anyway. But don't penalize us for doing things that are
proactive in nature.
That is our main concern right there. We believe that when
you do conformity that there should be some consistency in
terms of looking at the SIP and the transportation plan. Right
now, as much as I like my planning staff, what we have is a job
security act that keeps us going and doing things that can be
done more efficiently.
Flexibility in CMAQ--right now we are in attainment. We are
not eligible to receive CMAQ funds. We believe that areas that
are doing things proactively should be eligible.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. It is nice to hear from
someone who has been involved and has practical experience with
some of these things that we are talking about today. Thank you
for being here.
Howard, we are glad to have you here, as I mentioned.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD R. MAIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST
OHIO AREAWIDE COORDINATING AGENCY
Mr. Maier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Howard Maier,
executive director of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating
Agency. I will just refer to it as NOACA from now on. Thank you
for inviting me here to address air quality and the CMAQ
Program for our region and metropolitan planning organizations,
or MPOs, across the country.
I am representing NOACA in my national association today,
the National Association of Regional Councils, which is working
with MPOs large and small to better understand changes we can
make to CMAQ and to conformity to make them more
understandable, easier to implement, and more flexible.
NOACA is the regional voice for the Greater Cleveland area.
It represents the five counties of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,
Lorain, and Medina. Within these five counties are 170 units of
local government. NOACA is the one forum in which these
communities come together and make decisions from a regional
perspective. The five counties we represent have a population
of 2.1 million, which makes us the 14th largest metropolitan
area in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, like all major metropolitan regions, we are
concerned about growth, our business climate, and being an
active partner in national and international trade. NOACA is
not only in the business of encouraging economic development,
but also in trying to enhance the quality of our life.
I am sure, as the former mayor of Cleveland and former
Governor and former NOACA board member, you remember the
delicate edge we walk when we choose transportation investments
that provide accessibility, recreational, and employment
opportunities, and yet do not damage our natural and community
systems. NOACA, like all regional councils and MPOs, represents
the interests of the public through a comprehensive
transportation decisionmaking process.
Conformity is one piece of the overall process we use to
plan and program projects in our region. In 1992, the Federal
Government classified Northeast Ohio as a moderate non-
attainment area for ozone. This generated a planning challenge
for our region. We were required to reduce hydrocarbon
pollutants by 15 percent in a 4-year period. That amounted to a
reduction of 75 tons per day. That is a substantial amount.
The EPA requirement gave areas less than 4 years to
generate this considerable decrease. The reductions identified
had to be real, that is, the activities had to meet Federal
requirements. We used CMAQ funding to develop some projects
that were able to meet this verifiable reduction requirement.
The CMAQ Program, through its specialized focus, afforded
us the unique opportunity to pursue projects that helped us
meet this requirement. We used this money to purchase buses and
other transit improvements, construct park-and-ride lots,
develop traffic signal projects, and also to develop our public
education program, Ozone Action Days. Of course, there are many
other eligible activities, such as trails and intelligent
transportation systems. We hope to have projects along those
lines in the future.
It is likely that given the limited resources available,
these projects would not be completed with regular
transportation dollars. They would fall victim to the many
competing priorities for these funds.
For this reason, NOACA believes that the CMAQ Program
should be expanded to give life to these project opportunities.
A very real conformity challenge for us has been the fact that
our transportation plans, programs, and projects must be
conformed. In our case, it was an eight-county basis that
included not only the five counties of NOACA, but also the two
counties represented by the Akron Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study plus one other county not affiliated with
a MPO.
It was quite a challenge for governing bodies of two
independent MPOs to be required to establish transportation
schedules based solely on required conformity finding. It was
costly in terms of time and other factors. This was through
MPOs that get along just fine. We had some difficulties to work
through.
NOACA recognizes that its experience with CMAQ and
conformity analysis has been possibly different from other
MPOs. Many of our projects really emphasize the maintaining and
rebuilding of the existing infrastructure rather than adding
capacity. So that has given us a bit of an advantage in that
regard. We have to look at the entire totality of MPOs across
the country.
Let me mention some recommendations quickly. Congress
should make the planning horizons, the State implementation
plans, and transportation plans consistent. Furthermore, the
metropolitan transportation plans should only have to conform
every 5 years instead of every 3 years. Federal and State
Government, as well as the MPO modeling process, should be
consistent and help realize our regional transportation goals.
We had to see our transportation projects held hostage to
updates in computer programs.
Congress should allow the use of trading between point,
area, and mobile sources to allow us to meet cleaner goals.
Clean air is clean air and we can all collaborate to help make
that happen.
Mr. Chairman, the loss of highway funds as a penalty for
lack of conformity should be closely reexamined. Of course, I
think that Congress should increase CMAQ funding. It helps make
the existing system more efficient. We believe that locally
elected officials are best suited to make these decisions. I
have an exhaustive list.
Thank you for inviting me here. We will be available
through NOACA and through NARC to be helpful in any way we can.
I would ask that my statement, which is together with Mr.
Lasker's, be placed in the record in its entirety.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Steed.
STATEMENT OF DIANE STEED, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS
ALLIANCE
Ms. Steed. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to appear before
you today for the first time as the new president of the
American Highway Users Alliance. For 70 years the Highway Users
has represented both motorists and a broad cross-section of
businesses that depend on safe and efficient highways to
transport their families, customers, employees, and products.
Our members pay the user fees that finance the Federal
Highway Program, and they expect the Government to be good
stewards of their investment in our Nation's roads and bridges.
Highway Users members strongly believe that the user fees paid
on the Nation's roads should be rapidly returned to the roads
through projects that make their motoring safer and less
frustrating.
I use the term ``rapidly'' for a reason, Mr. Chairman. I
know that you have been a leader among those who want to
streamline the project delivery process. I want to thank you
for your attention to that issue and assure you that we want to
work with you and support your efforts to advance highway
projects quickly.
When I tell someone that I work for the Highway Users, the
frequent, joking reply is that he is she is one. Nearly every
American can claim to be a highway user regardless of race,
creed, or even political affiliation. Representing such a broad
group, I can say confidently that highway users, like all
Americans, care about the quality of the air we breath and we
want to see it getting cleaner.
But we have also lost patience with the increasing amount
of traffic that chokes up our roads, delays our trips, causes
accidents, strangles commerce, and even slows emergency
vehicles when time really matters. With that in mind, I am very
pleased to talk about the Clean Air Act and the CMAQ Program in
particular, a transportation program that should address both
the problems of congestion and pollution.
The good news is that we have a freer, more mobile society
than ever and our air is cleaner. The dramatic improvements in
air quality are truly a testament to the outstanding benefits
of the Clean Air Act. Incredibly, today's cars on the roads
emit less pollution than a 1960's car sitting in its driveway
with the engine off.
More progress has been made in mobile source pollution
reduction than any other source. For most metropolitan areas,
mobile source emissions are no longer the principal source of
pollution, and in many cases they aren't even second. The chart
I have here to my left depicts the huge gains that have been
made in reducing pollution at the same time we have seen
increasing population, more cars, more vehicles on the road,
and more vehicle miles traveled. Impressively, vehicle miles
traveled has increased nearly point-by-point with the gross
national domestic product, and that is no coincidence. Mobility
leads to economic growth.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush said,
regarding his fuel cell car initiative, that the greatest
environmental progress will come about through technology and
innovation. When contrasting the gross and vehicle miles
traveled with the reduction in Clean Air Act pollutants, it is
clear that technology and innovation have done far more to
clean the air than increased travel has done to sully it.
For example, today's diesel truck engine is eight times
cleaner than the engine built just a dozen years ago. With new
technology for dramatically cleaner fuels and engines coming
along, it is clear that technological advancement leading to
cleaner air is only gaining in momentum.
Last summer, this committee held a hearing on CMAQ and
conformity. One of the common conclusions reached by several of
the witnesses was that the biggest environmental bang for the
buck comes from traffic flow improvements, diesel engine
retrofits, and in vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
Yet according to EPA the highest priority for CMAQ funds is
the implementation of transportation control measures intended
to reduce VMT. The use of the word ``control'' I think is very
telling. TCMs are intended to control the so-called bad people
who either need or want to drive alone. Those measures are
advocated by some anti-car, anti-motorist planners and groups
who believe that Government should be in the business of
forcing people out of their cars. TCMs just don't sit well with
the population accustomed to basic freedoms.
However, even if that were not the case, TCMs are doomed to
failure for another reason, we believe. They are directed
mainly at commuters. Eighty percent of trips are not commutes.
It should be no surprise that TCMs have little or no proven
track record in causing measurable clean air progress or
congestion relief.
Many projects that would result in clean air progress and
congestion relief are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere is that
more clear than in a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits
of making modest improvements to unclog America's bottlenecks.
In 1999 we analyzed those bottlenecks and took a look at what
it would do to make a small improvement in those bottlenecks.
What we found was astonishing. If the worse 167 bottlenecks
were unclogged, the average emissions of volatile organic
compounds would drop 44 percent, and carbon monoxide would be
reduced 45 percent. Greenhouse gases would drop more than 70
percent and at the same time traffic delays would be reduced 71
percent, saving the average commuter 40 minutes per trip.
Clearly a comprehensive program to relieve bottlenecks is
an example of a program that should meet the logical
requirements for active congestion mitigation and air quality
programs. But currently it is ineligible because it would
provide capacity for single occupancy vehicle.
Although we clearly have concerns with the CMAQ Program,
the majority of problems can be remedied with only minor
statutory adjustments, we think. We believe the CMAQ Program
can be restructured to better meet the true pollution reduction
goals of the Clean Air Act and markedly reduce traffic
congestion. So we recommend the following:
First, allow all transportation projects that reduce
congestion and clean air act pollutants to be eligible for
funding. Next, focus on technological improvements instead of
trying to get people out of their cars. We think we have to be
realistic. TCMs just aren't convincing people to stop driving
and they never will.
When funding CMAQ projects, we believe that we should
measure the benefits and the costs of alternative strategies to
relieve congestion and clean air pollution. Based on those
criteria, engage in those projects that can be shown to do the
most good for congestion and air quality.
Finally, frustrated drivers stuck in traffic would really
appreciate targeted programs that fix the worse bottlenecks. We
need to give motorists a break from traffic jams and clean the
air.
In conclusion, since 1991, $41 billion, as you have already
heard, has been spent for the CMAQ program. But CMAQ doesn't
reduce congestion and clean the air just because of its name.
Changes in the way the account is administered could go a long
way toward realizing the transportation goals of the Clean Air
Act.
We look forward to working with you. I would be pleased to
answer any questions. I would ask that my testimony be placed
in the record in its entirety.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Kaiser.
STATEMENT OF MARSHA KAISER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
AND CAPITAL PROGRAMMING, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Ms. Kaiser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marsha
Kaiser. I am the director of Planning and Capital Programming
for the Maryland Department of Transportation. On behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, we thank you for your leadership in holding this
important hearing on transportation congestion and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program.
Just since 1977, over 80 non-attainment or maintenance
areas have gone into or barely missed going into a lapse,
putting billions of transportation dollars at risk or on hold.
Meanwhile, conformity has become a year-end and year-out
process consuming scarce staff and resources at a time when our
planning needs are growing and our funding for staff is
dwindling.
Our recommendations for legislative improvement include
four key areas: consistency, flexibility, consultation on new
standards, expanded flexibility and eligibility for the CMAQ
Program.
On consistency: The goal of conformity, as you know, is to
ensure that transportation plans are consistent with plans for
attaining air quality standards. But the two planning processes
have not been coordinated well. The result is a mismatch of
deadlines, timeframes, emission estimates, basic planning
assumptions, and penalties, resulting in a convoluted and
ineffective process.
I will give you an example in Baltimore. A couple of years
ago, as we were updating our long-range plan, we decided to
update some assumptions we were using in our traffic
forecasting process. However, we were using SIP, State
implementation plan assumptions, that were almost 10 years old.
What happened was that the huge change and the type of vehicles
manufactured and their attractiveness to the driving public
alone have resulted in a substantial increase in emissions, a
factor that we as a transportation department or metropolitan
planning organization, had no control over.
We are not asking that the transportation sector use
outdated assumptions. We are asking that the assumptions used
be coordinated between the air quality and the transportation
planning process. Achieving alignment and greater consistency
between these planning processes, including analytical tools
and planning assumptions is essential.
Flexibility is needed to help States achieve conformity,
greater flexibility is needed to adjust to changing
circumstances and chose cost-effective emission reduction
strategies. You may be surprised to learn that transportation
control measures that are included in State air quality plans
cannot be added, deleted, or changed, even if they are not
working without going through the cumbersome and very time
consuming task of revising the entire State air plan. If a
conformity lapse does occur, States are prohibited from
applying any off-the-road remedies, even if they reduce
emissions in a cost-effective way.
Let me give you two examples. In the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay area, they
were sued because one of their transportation control measures
from their 1982 SIP increased transit spending, and failed to
achieve the projected results and increased ridership. Since
the measure was not revised in the SIPs, the court ruled that
the MTC was still obligated to continue the provision and to
provide funding for this ineffective service.
Another example is in the Maryland-Washington Region of an
inadmissible emission solution. The Maryland DOT, with our
State air agency, came up with a creative solution. We found
that if we provided a million dollars of our transportation
funding to the State Air Agency for development of a gas can
replacement program, we could get reductions of emissions of
almost a ton per day. However, this kind of off-road emission
reduction, known as intersector trading, is not allowed to be
used in the conformity process.
TEA-21 should increase flexibility and allow TCMs
substitutions with equivalent emission reduction and to allow
trading emission savings from other off-road savings if the
goal is truly to clean the air.
In terms of consultation, the bad news is that things are
about to get worse. As a result of the new standards for ozone,
242 counties are likely to become new non-attainment areas
while another 150 counties will fail to meet new standards for
fine particulate matter. There is great uncertainty about what
requirements will be applied and how the process will work.
The Environmental Protection Agency should issue guidance
on the new standards in consultation with stakeholders prior to
the designations. We believe a 3-year grace period to
demonstrate conformity is needed once a non-attainment
designation is made in order to allow these new areas to
develop the tools to establish the consultation process, and to
obtain the resources they need, especially in non-urbanized
areas to do conformity analysis.
Expanded eligibility for the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Program is something we hope happens under the
reauthorization. This program has broad support, as you have
heard from most members of this panel. It should be continued
but with some added flexibility to allow us to address both air
quality improvements and the challenges of congestion.
For example, in California decisionmakers have found it
cost effective to provide cash incentives to owners to replace
older, heavily polluting diesel trucks and buses with cleaner
models that were built after 1994. This proven program for
reducing emissions is not eligible for CMAQ funding under
current restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, our detailed recommendations are presented in
our written testimony. We have engaged in a dialog with the
environmental councils of the State on these important issues.
I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
I would ask that my prepared statement be inserted in the
record in its entirety.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you all for your testimony.
When you are doing this work on conformity, do you rely
upon your own staff to do this, or do you do it in conjunction
with your State's environmental protection agency?
Ms. Kaiser. We do it with our staff.
Senator Voinovich. I would be interested in the comments of
all of you that are in the business.
Ms. Kaiser.
Ms. Kaiser. I have staff in the DOT that works on it. We do
it in consultation with the State air agency staff. The DOT, by
the way, provides funding to the environmental staff to pay for
it. We do it in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations.
Ms. Liebe. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would also like to
offer a few comments on that question.
I think one of the common misperceptions about the
conformity process is that the air quality agencies somehow
establishes an emission budget that then gets imposed on the
transportation community. Just to clarify, when the conformity
rule was originally established, it required our agencies to
work together on both transportation planning and on
development of the air quality plans.
When we develop an air quality plan, we use the regional
transportation plan for purposes of evaluating the mobile
source emissions that will go into an air quality plan. We also
then evaluate the regional transportation plan for what
elements are in that regional transportation plan that might be
instrumental to achieving that level of travel that is
predicted under the regional transportation plan. We look at
those elements for selecting our transportation control
measures.
So really the consultative process goes both ways. The
regional transportation plan becomes a very important source of
input in the air quality planning process, not only from the
travel data, but also the population and employment forecasts
that are used in that process.
Senator Voinovich. The question I have is in terms of
getting things done. So often what really stands in the way of
progress in dealing with some of these problems is the adequacy
of the people that you need to get the job done.
Ms. Liebe, you indicated that the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality oversees what the MPOs are doing. Do you
provide them any staffing? How does that work?
Ms. Liebe. Mr. Chairman, we work in partnership. Their
staff is responsible for running the travel model. They help us
with the emission estimates. We don't pay them. They provide
those resources to us.
Senator Voinovich. But in your State they do have the staff
to get that done; is that correct?
Ms. Liebe. That is correct.
Senator Voinovich. How about in Maryland?
Mr. Maier. The Metropolitan Planning Organization has the
staff. They have the resources to do it. The Maryland
Department of the Environment has staff that the Department of
Transportation pays for to do the conformity analysis and the
air quality planning.
Senator Voinovich. Do you feel that you have the adequate
staff combined to get the job done?
Mr. Maier. At the State level, the process is becoming more
complex. It's getting more difficult to stay on top. I have had
to add more staff to keep on top of the issues. My concern is
in some of the newer non-attainment areas. In some of our more
rural, less urban, non-attainment areas, MPOs, they don't have
the resources and the qualified staff to really deal with the
complexity of the conformity rule.
Senator Voinovich. Howard.
Mr. Maier. Thank you. At NOACA we are fortunate in that we
do have staff members who are well trained and quite able to
take care of the modeling process. We work with the Ohio EPA,
as you know, on that. We also work with our neighboring MPOs,
as well. I don't see any particular problem with the staff
work. They have to continually get upgraded and reeducated to
work with the models. But they do what they have to do.
Senator Voinovich. You all have concerns about conformity
and the different perspectives on it. We heard Mr. Holmstead
talk. They are trying to deal with this on a regulatory basis;
is that correct? It is not statutory. They have the authority
through regulation to deal with the conformity problems. Is
that your understanding?
The issue is: How much input do those of you who are on the
ground actually doing the work in your respective organizations
have? Have you been consulted, those of you that represent
national organizations that are professionals with the MPOs or
with the environmental agencies in their working on these
changes? Are they not that far along yet to share that
information?
Has there been any input from any of you in terms of these?
Mr. Holmstead said they were putting together some new
regulations dealing with conformity. Mr. Replogle, you
commented about some of the suggestions that they have?
Mr. Maier. I can start with that, Mr. Chairman. In a word,
no. We have not had much--maybe directives have been addressed
to staff members. I have not seen anything yet.
Senator Voinovich. So the people that are there where the
rubber hits the road haven't been involved? I want to find out
what the status is?
Mr. Holmstead. Mr. Chairman, the National Association of
Regional Councils is looking at the whole picture. We have
advisory committees made up of executive directors and others
that are making recommendations. I believe we do have a series
of recommendations that Howard has referred to that we are
willing to put forth.
Senator Voinovich. How about the environmental groups? Have
you had any input? Didn't you say, Mr. Replogle, that you were
over there?
Mr. Replogle. Well, we met earlier this week with Federal
highway officials to talk about some of conformity issues. We
do engage, on occasion, with EPA staff as well. EPA is familiar
with them.
Senator Voinovich. EPA has the conformity responsibility
though, right?
Mr. Replogle. Well, it's a shared responsibility between
the two agencies to jointly agree upon revisions to the
conformity rules. I understand from the testimony this morning
that they are working together on new guidance. They have been
working for some time on developing a new set of regulations
around conformity in the wake of various court decisions in
past years. That has been long in the works. I am not sure what
the status of it is.
Senator Voinovich. Here is the thing. I have a lot of
questions to the process. Maybe this is too simple.
Mr. Lasker, you say your organization has some
recommendations on what should be done on conformity.
Mr. Lasker. The National Association of Regional Councils
has developed a position which I will leave with you. Howard
has referred to those recommendations.
Senator Voinovich. Are there any other organizations that
have developed some recommendations?
Ms. Kaiser. Mr. Chairman, AASHTO has developed some
positions. I believe all of us probably have forwarded our own
positions to EPA and Federal Highway. I can't say there has
been any dialog with them.
Senator Voinovich. Here's a suggestion. I used to be
president of the National League of Cities and chairman of the
National Governors Association. When we had a major problem
that was involved with State and local governments, I was very
involved in what we called the ``Big Seven.'' These were the
mayors and the State legislators. We would try to get various
people in a room to start to talk with each other about what
various groups were recommending to see if there isn't some way
that you could come back to a Federal agency, for example, and
say, ``Here is what we really think ought to be done.''
Too often it seems here that your group is going to see
them, and then Mr. Replogle's group comes to see them, and
somebody else's group comes to see them. So they have all of
this on their table.
I am suggesting, Mr. Replogle, that Environmental Defense
be the responsible organization. Perhaps maybe you could work
with the regional groups and maybe try to get together and talk
about these things. You would share your point of view and they
share their point of view. There would be some coordinated
effort so that when you talk to the Agency there would be a
consensus to say, ``Hey, this is the way we think that this
thing should get done.'' This is rather than have you just
listen to us and then go off and do your own thing.
Mr. Replogle. That's is an excellent idea. In the last 4 to
6 weeks, environmentalists, including myself, have sat down and
met on several occasions with representations from the
Association of MPOs and AASHTO, trying to find some common
ground on some of these issues. We still have a long way to go.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to challenge you to get
back to me in a month's time. You represent a lot of the
environmental groups, the Sierra Club and so forth. I would
like to know what you have been able to do in a month's time
about what progress you have made in getting things done. I
would like you to do it on your own. If you don't, I may ask
you to come in.
We have some of these problems that confront us. It just
seems so often there is a lot easier way of getting some of
these things done. I would really encourage you to do that. I
am going to be in touch with you to see if it is happening.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, Ms. Kaiser?
Ms. Kaiser. Mr. Chairman, just last week, AASHTO, the
environmental councils of the States, STAPPA/ALAPCO, and AMPO
did spend a whole day discussing our different positions on
conformity and CMAQ. I have to say it was a very long day. I
can't say we reached much in the way of consensus, but we did
enter into a dialog. We have committed to continue that dialog
going.
Senator Voinovich. That would be good. There are different
perspectives on things. It is also to hear what they have to
say and if there is some compromise that could be made. There
are some practical things.
Mr. Lasker, I was impressed with you. You really tried to
move along and deal with problems. You have been very flexible.
What you are saying to me is that the Agency doesn't seem to
have any kind of flexibility in terms of some of these things.
It would seem if you have somebody that is consciousness and
not dragging their feet and they are moving forward, that that
should be recognized.
Mr. Lasker. Two key words--flexibility and common sense. If
that could prevail, everyone would be happy. The National
Association of Regional Councils works very closely with the
National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. We
will involve them in this discussion.
Senator Voinovich. It is really difficult. If you all came
to the Agency and said this is what you think, it would be very
difficult for them to say no to you. What you are saying is
that the environmental groups thinks that means dragging our
feet, delaying what needs to be done. I know from your
testimony that is not what you are doing. So there is this
commonality that I think can somehow be achieved.
Ms. Liebe, you have been trying to get in a word in.
Ms. Liebe. Actually, I just wanted to make you aware that
STAPPA/ALAPCO also has a position on some potential
improvements. There are a number of areas where we, in the
State of Oregon, have implemented this program with a great
degree of flexibility. I would be happy to provide those
examples to you and to the committee.
I also just want to make you aware of the effort that was
already mentioned with the environmental commissioners of
States and STAPPA/ALAPCO and AASHTO to try to come up with some
consensus position on conformity.
Senator Voinovich. That is good. The other one is the CMAQ
Program. I have been there. We worked the system. There is
nothing wrong with working the system in trying to get money
for projects that you think are very important for your
community.
Is there any consensus that we ought to review the CMAQ
Program to make sure that the dollars that we are providing are
more oriented toward things that are going to make a difference
and really help? Am I stepping on someone's toes? Any comment?
Ms. Steed. That's exactly what we would like to see done.
In fact, we would like to see cost effective measures be
developed. We know, for example, there has been some transit
projects that cost something like $272,000 per ton of pollution
removed while at the same time traffic signalization
improvements cost something like $23,000. And yet that year
most of the funding for CMAQ projects went toward the transit
area which is not as cost effective. That is why we are
recommending some cost effective measures be developed for the
program.
Mr. Replogle. Mr. Chairman, I think this area of evaluating
cost effectiveness is one that in principle everyone would
agree with that we ought to be looking at cost effective
strategies. Where the challenge comes is in getting agreement
on reasonable analysis methods to make that evaluation. Sadly,
we still have very deficient methods in use in many
metropolitan areas to evaluate. For example, what is the
effectiveness of making an area a safe and attractive place to
walk? More people then can walk and fewer people have to drive
their car just to go across the street because you can't get
across the street.
We have a difficult challenge getting good evaluations of
some transit projects in areas where if you implement it in one
place, it is highly effective and if you implement it in a
different context where everybody gets free parking and where
you can't walk anywhere, you will get very much less great
effectiveness.
The context is everything for implementation. The CMAQ
Program is a tiny fraction of the total Federal transportation
dollars which, in turn, is a small fraction of the total
transportation dollars. So we really can't evaluate small CMAQ
projects except within their larger context. If they are being
implemented in a region in an area where we are throwing
billions of dollars to subsidize car use and car dependence to
work against those alternatives, then it is hard to say whether
that investment in a bicycle project is ineffective or whether
it is simply being undermined by our spending.
Senator Voinovich. It is a difficult decision. To put in
some criteria might be very difficult because of the difficulty
in objectively evaluating it. You are leaving that up to the
local folks who are pretty conscientious about trying to do the
right thing.
The last point I am going to make is this. We don't have
enough money for highways. The challenge is that we need to
recognize that. Ms. Steed was talking about the bottlenecks.
There is no way with the current funding today that we are
going to be able to take care of the bottlenecks. I think we
had some other hearing here with Ms. Peters. I think it is $109
billion a year that is required between the Federal and the
State to take care of the issue of highways. We are only
spending about $67 billion for it.
So we have a big discrepancy here in what is needed. I am
lobbying you and your respective organizations to really look
at this issue and to come back to us with some recommendations
on what you think is a practical thing that we ought to be
doing to deal with this problem, recognizing that highway
funding is a partnership.
I know that in my State we have a very bad financial
situation, as we have in most of the States, but our Governor
is recommending that we increase the gas tax in the next 3
years, 2 cents, 2 cents, and 2 cents. He is trying to sell it
on the basis of environmental and economic development.
I think we need to face up to this situation. We need to do
it rapidly. We were able to get the Highway Trust Fund. Senator
Carper and I worked on that in 1998. We worked very hard to get
the Trust Fund money to be used exclusively for highways. We
were successful.
Unfortunately, the money coming into that is not adequate
to get the job done. Some of us that consider ourselves
conservative fiscal hawks do not want to borrow the money to do
it. That is where we are. We are borrowing money right now.
It has to be paid for if we are going to move forward. I
would be interested in your organization's position on this
issue.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Senator Voinovich, I need to be somewhere
else at 12 o'clock. So I am going to not ask you to respond
orally right now, but I am going to ask you to respond in
writing to this question, if you would.
When we have a big panel like this, one of the things I
often times look for, particularly when there are people from
diverse backgrounds and diverse points of view, is what do you
agree on? Senator Voinovich may have already asked this. But
what basic concepts or precepts do you agree on, that there is
broad agreement on?
That would be helpful to us as we approach our job
particularly in the months ahead in the area of transportation.
That makes our job so much easier. If you can help me with
that, I would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Maier.
Mr. Maier. If I may get started on this, one of the things
that I gather just from listening to the comments is that CMAQ
as a funding source is very well accepted, whether it is for
traffic signals, whether it is for transit, no matter what. It
does make the existing system more efficient. It allows for us
to conserve the funds that we do have and have some opportunity
to fund projects that can help all of us, no matter what our
points of view might be.
Mr. Lasker. Let me add to that. CMAQ is a good program. But
if you are in attainment, you do not get any CMAQ. So what you
are doing is that you are getting penalized for being good. If
you fail, we will give you money. If you don't fail and you
want to do good things, we won't give you any money for that.
I think that you have to look at those areas that are doing
something, that have a proactive program. You should get
something to try to continue to reduce emissions. I will leave
it at that.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Replogle.
Mr. Replogle. I sense a general agreement across the
community about expanding the CMAQ Program and expanding its
eligibility so that communities can spend those funds in ways
that help reduce pollution and address pressing community
needs.
Recognizing that we are going to have a lot more people
living in non-attainment areas with the new designations, that
we have air toxics problems, and fine particulate problems that
need to be addressed--the additional population and the
additional problems to which we need to apply that program, are
things that justify significant program growth over and above
the baseline.
Another area where I think there is a general consensus, or
a good potential to get one, is that we are all well served by
investing more in better analysis tools and strategic planning
systems that help us to better understand that the traffic
consequences, air pollution consequences, and growth
consequences are of different policies. We can then spend less
time fighting about the numbers and spend more time talking
about what is the most sensible set of policies that gets us
the best performance for the taxpayer dollar.
Ms. Steed. I should also add that there is an EPA/DOT
program called ``It All Adds Up to Clean Air'' that the highway
users are participating in. That is exactly what it is trying
to, is to come to agreement on some of the things that could be
done that has broad agreement across the spectrum. So we will
be happy to get back to you on that as well.
Senator Carper. One more comment. I will just ask you to
flesh this out a little more in writing, please.
Ms. Liebe. This will be short. Just as a final comment, I
do think that we all very much support the goal of achieving
public health objectives. One very important way of doing that
is integrating transportation and environmental planning.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Teague, you were left out. I would
be real interested if you have some material on asthma, in
light of the fact that we have been reducing emissions overall,
what you attribute that increase in asthma. What specifically
has the most impact on it?
We have a study down at the University of Cincinnati, Dr.
James Lacky. He is looking at diesel fuel and how the
particulates from diesel are impacting on children. I would be
interested in this whole area of asthma and really what is the
culprit here?
Dr. Teague. Thank you. The growth of asthma in the United
States population has become a staggering problem, and is close
to epidemic proportions. The reason is not known. It is
complex. There are many, many factors.
Clearly there are more allergies among the general
population. Thirty years ago, 30 percent of people were
allergic. Today 60 percent are.
There is something in our lifestyle. It may be a more
sedentary lifestyle, staying indoors more, not enough exercise,
and maybe dietary patterns related to saturated fat intake.
Something has created this asthma epidemic. It has also
occurred in other civilized nations while the air has gotten
cleaner.
The role of air pollution in asthma was pretty clear, I
think, from our study. You come with asthma as a child. Your
airways are sensitized. They are inflamed. Then the pollution
event occurs. It triggers an attack. That seems to be the role.
We just found by reducing pollution in Atlanta during the
Olympics, there was less asthma in the children in Atlanta.
Senator Voinovich. Well, anything you have on that, I would
really like the best stuff that's out there and the best
research work. It seems to me that because it is growing there
ought to be the best and brightest looking at it to come up
with some recommendations.
I would like to thank all of the panelists for coming. This
has been very, very informative for me. I look forward to
hearing back from you. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
----------
Statement of Hon. Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator Office of
Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program and the transportation
conformity program in the context of the new health-based air quality
standards for ozone and fine particulate matter.
There has been considerable progress in achieving better air
quality for Americans since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments
in 1990. As we move forward with the implementation of the new air
quality standards, the continued integration of transportation and air
quality planning will be important for meeting these new standards.
Achieving and maintaining healthy air quality remains an important
national priority. EPA sees the reauthorization of TEA-21 as an
opportunity to employ all tools available to improve air quality,
including transportation, in ways that could help cities across the
country make progress toward attainment under both the pre-1997 and the
new ozone and particulate matter standards.
According to EPA's latest air quality trends report, air quality
monitoring data show that from 1992-2001, concentrations of all six
criteria pollutants have declined, including the four criteria
pollutants that are most affected by the transportation sector: carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone (smog), and particulate matter
(soot).
These air quality data are good news, and are attributable to the
transportation and air quality programs currently in place. However,
there are approximately 51 million Americans living in 77 counties that
are measuring violations of the current 1-hour ozone ambient air
quality standard, and 11.1 million people living in 17 counties that
are measuring violations of the current standard for particulate
matter. Furthermore, when we begin to implement the new, health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter and designate the areas that
are not attaining the standards, the number of people living in areas
with air quality considered unhealthy will increase.
The criteria pollutant emissions have a significant impact on the
health of Americans. Particulate matter is linked to aggravation of
pre-existing respiratory ailments, reductions in lung capacity, and a
significant number of premature deaths. Ozone can impair lung function,
cause chest pain and coughing, and worsen respiratory diseases and
asthma. Carbon monoxide can aggravate angina (heart pain).
Even though overall emissions have been reduced, on-road mobile
sources continue to be a significant contributor to pollution problems.
EPA estimates that in 2001, motor vehicles accounted for 62 percent of
the total U.S. carbon monoxide emissions, 27 percent of the ozone
precursor of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 37 percent of the ozone
precursor nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 6 percent of the traditionally
inventoried direct emissions of particulate matter nationwide. On a
regional scale, motor vehicles can be an even larger portion of an
area's inventory. For example, in 1999, motor vehicles accounted for 48
percent of NOx in Atlanta, Georgia. According to State air quality
plans, on-road vehicles account for 63 percent of total NOx in the
Springfield, Massachusetts area; 56 percent of the total NOx in the Los
Angeles region in California; and 80 percent of the total carbon
monoxide and 53 percent of the total coarse particulate matter in the
Las Vegas, Nevada area. Although emissions reductions from stationary
sources are important in many areas throughout the country, the
continued high incidence of health problems related to these pollutants
demonstrates the continuing need to reduce air pollution from motor
vehicles. As a Nation, our techniques for reducing motor vehicle
emissions have to encompass both technology improvements to vehicles
and fuels, as well as programs that encourage other, less polluting,
transportation choices and practices.
Technology has provided significant air quality benefits in the
past and will continue to do so into the future. Emissions from today's
new cars have been reduced by more than 95 percent per vehicle relative
to new cars 35 years ago. EPA's new Tier 2 vehicle standards are
designed to reduce the emissions of new passenger cars and light trucks
even further. The rule combines these requirements with requirements
for much lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. We estimate by 2020, NOx
produced by vehicles will be approximately 70 percent lower as compared
to what the levels of NOx would have been without the Tier 2 program in
place.
EPA's new clean diesel program for large trucks and buses is
another technology-based program. It will achieve emissions reductions
based on the use of high-efficiency exhaust emissions control devices
coupled with changes in diesel fuel sulfur levels. Testing indicates
that this program will result in particulate matter and NOx emissions
levels that are as much as 90 and 95 percent below the current
standards for heavy duty engine emissions in effect today.
A third example of emissions-reducing technologies is EPA's
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program, which is designed to help owners of
trucks, buses, and off-road equipment install innovative and cost-
effective emission control technology on existing diesel engines. These
technologies can result in reductions of particulate matter and
volatile organic compounds.
But technology may not be able to achieve all the necessary
emission reductions from transportation sources alone. Although
emissions per vehicle have declined dramatically, the number of miles
Americans are driving continues to increase. In 1970, Americans
traveled just over one trillion vehicle miles per year; in 2000 it was
almost 2.8 trillion. Growth in vehicle miles traveled (or VMT) has far
outpaced population growth. From 1970 to 2001, population grew 39
percent, but VMT grew 149 percent. These trends are continuing. A
conservative national estimate of VMT growth is approximately 2 percent
per year. However, in many cities, particularly in the southern and
western States, VMT is growing much faster than this average. For
example, in the early 1990's, Charlotte's VMT grew about 4.9 percent
per year, Denver's VMT grew 4.5 percent per year, and Salt Lake City's
VMT grew by 4.3 percent per year. Las Vegas projects that its VMT will
increase more than 4 percent per year through the year 2020. The
continued integration of transportation planning and air quality
planning is a means to preserve and continue the progress we have made
in ensuring that Americans breathe healthy air.
In addition to technology-based programs, programs that are based
on providing travel choices are also important in achieving better air
quality. For example, the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a
new and successful non-regulatory approach to achieving emission
reductions. Built around the tax-free commuter benefits in TEA-21 and
modeled after the Energy Star partnership programs, the Commuter Choice
Leadership Initiative is an EPA-DOT voluntary partnership program with
business to reduce traffic and traffic-related emissions. In the first
year and a half of the program, over 1,300 companies from 28 States and
Washington, DC, have signed voluntary agreements to offer 640,000
employees commuter benefits meeting a national standard of excellence.
EPA projects that if half of U.S. employees worked for employers that
offered commuter benefits at the national standard of excellence
promoted by the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative, air pollution
and traffic would be cut by the equivalent of taking 15 million cars
off the road every year.
In January of this year, EPA launched another innovative, non-
regulatory clean air program, SmartWay Transport--a voluntary
partnership program that aims to reduce ground freight sector energy
use by promoting the use of energy-efficient technologies and improved
management practices. Over a dozen top companies representing a diverse
group of ground and freight shippers and carriers have already joined
EPA as Charter Partners and are helping the Agency to develop
performance measures for the program. Although the SmartWay Transport
program was created primarily to reduce carbon emissions, the program
will also result in voluntary reductions of NOx (a precursor to ozone)
and particulate matter that could assist areas in achieving the new air
quality standards.
the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
The CMAQ program, initially begun under ISTEA and reauthorized in
TEA-21, provides funding for transportation projects to improve air
quality and reduce congestion. EPA views the program as a valuable
transportation funding tool for air quality improvement because the
pool of potential projects is largely restricted to areas with poor air
quality, (non-attainment areas), or those that had poor air quality in
the past (maintenance areas). The CMAQ funds are not restricted to just
traditional highway or transit projects. The funds can be used for
Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs such as park and ride lots, car
and van pool programs and public education, or for other unique
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). There is increasing interest in
using CMAQ funds for other measures, such as diesel engine retrofit
programs and anti-idling equipment.
An EPA analysis of the benefits of TCMs, such as those funded by
the CMAQ program, documents the emission reductions from 22 different
shared ride, bicycle and pedestrian, traffic flow, transit and demand
management programs. The CMAQ program has funded projects that:
contribute to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS;
produce long-term emission reductions and support
sustainable growth;
fund innovative transportation options (enabling projects
such as public education, technology, and support services); and,
provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel and
reduce congestion through, for example, regional rideshare programs.
While some of the projects may produce small emission reductions,
cumulatively these projects can add up to significant reductions over
the life of the attainment plan. In many cases our stakeholders
indicate that CMAQ projects are important for helping a State to meet
Clean Air Act air quality planning and conformity requirements. The
benefits of the CMAQ program, and particularly projects that reduce VMT
or manage system capacity, extend beyond emissions reductions. Other
benefits include roadway congestion relief, energy conservation,
greenhouse gas emission reductions, as well as economic development and
community livability. By requiring the project to be implemented in
nonattainment areas, more local government and public involvement in
transportation investment decisions is encouraged.
EPA and DOT have documented CMAQ's numerous benefits in reports,
brochures and fact sheets available to transportation and air quality
planners. From EPA's perspective, there is little doubt that the
program is beneficial for air quality and is an important program for
nonattainment areas and maintenance areas that want to address
transportation emissions. Air quality agencies have told us how
important it is to have a transportation funding program that is
dedicated for air quality purposes. We have been told that many
projects that have been highlighted as examples of innovative and
effective emission reduction programs would not have been implemented
without the availability of CMAQ funds. A National Academy of Science
study mandated by Congress and undertaken by the Transportation
Research Board draws similar conclusions. The findings of ``Special
Report 264. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience'' are favorable and include
recommendations to reauthorize and expand the program.
While EPA generally agrees with the NAS recommendations, there are
some important issues to consider. These issues fall into two main
categories apportionment and eligibility. At a time when implementation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS may change the nonattainment landscape based
upon our most advanced understanding of how air pollution affects
public health, EPA, as well as other stakeholders, are concerned that
the eligibility criteria and apportionment formula in TEA-21 are based
upon the old standards and nonattainment classifications.
Under the current program, a change in the classification of
nonattainment areas, or the number of areas, will likely change both
the amount of CMAQ funds apportioned to each State and the amount
available to nonattainment areas. Given the current statutory language
in TEA-21, nonattainment areas designated under the 8-hour ozone
standard would be eligible for CMAQ funding, but the funds apportioned
to the States would not account for the new areas unless they were
classified under the system for the 1-hour standard. EPA is working
with the Department of Transportation to evaluate this issue and
possible solutions.
Like 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas, areas that are designated
nonattainment for particulate matter are eligible to receive CMAQ
funding under the current program, but the apportionment formula does
not explicitly account for them. Just as our knowledge of the health
risks of particulate matter has grown, programs to reduce the very
small but hazardous particulates known as PM2.5 will likely
increase in importance. Generally, both diesel and gasoline powered
vehicles emit fine particulate matter as well as NOx and VOCs that lead
to its formation. Since the emphasis of most TCMs over the past two
decades has been to reduce VOCs and to a lesser degree NOx, the degree
to which TCMs can reduce PM2.5 is not as well understood.
However, there is optimism that new programs for heavy-duty diesel
retrofits, anti-idling devices, cleaner fuels and travel demand
strategies can produce significant reductions in concentrations of
PM2.5. The CMAQ program offers the opportunity for regions
to explore innovative strategies to address this pollutant.
Consideration should be given to amending the apportionment formula to
account for the importance of this emerging air quality issue.
TEA-21's flexible guidelines allow DOT to issue project eligibility
guidance that cuts across traditional modal boundaries and makes the
funds available for highway, transit and some non-traditional program
areas that are more difficult to categorize. EPA and DOT continue to
work collaboratively within those guidelines, to make the CMAQ program
a more effective air quality resource for State and local government
agencies. State and local transportation and air quality agencies need
to work together to get the most out of the program as well. Some
stakeholders have indicated that consultation between transportation
and air quality agencies is not taking place on an ongoing and
consistent basis. We believe that more consultation between State and
local transportation and air quality agencies would make the program
more effective.
transportation conformity and the new ozone and fine particulate
matter standards
Transportation conformity was established by Congress in the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and was designed to help ensure that an
area's transportation activities are consistent with its air quality
goals. EPA is responsible for writing the conformity regulations and
the Department of Transportation (DOT) must concur with all conformity
rules, as DOT is our Federal partner in the implementation of the
program. EPA first published the conformity rule in November 1993. We
subsequently streamlined and clarified the rule in August 1997, based
on extensive discussions with State and local air pollution officials,
transportation planners, and other stakeholders, as well as the
experience of both DOT and EPA in the field.
In March 1999, however, a decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals changed several aspects of the 1997 conformity rule. Shortly
after that decision, EPA and DOT published guidance that addressed
issues affected by the court. Nonattainment and maintenance areas have
been operating under this existing guidance since it was published in
1999. On August 6, 2002, we finalized a rule to provide flexibility in
implementing conformity, consistent with the court decision. We also
plan to incorporate EPA and DOT's existing guidance implementing the
court decision into the conformity regulations.
The transportation conformity program requires State and local
agencies to evaluate the impact of new transportation activities on air
quality on a regular basis. Areas that have air quality worse than the
national standards (nonattainment areas) or that have violated the
standards in the past (maintenance areas) are required to examine the
air quality impacts of their transportation system to ensure that such
systems are compatible with clean air goals. In the simplest terms,
conformity serves as an ``accounting check'' to assure that a
nonattainment or maintenance area's future transportation network
conforms to the area's air pollution reduction plan.
A benefit of conformity accounting is that it requires State and
local governments, and the public, to consider the air quality impacts
of the planned transportation system as a whole, before transportation
plans are adopted and projects are built. Billions of dollars every
year are spent on developing and maintaining our transportation system.
Conformity helps ensure that these dollars are not spent in a manner
that would worsen air quality, as that outcome would only necessitate
spending additional money to reverse the air quality impact.
Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act, transportation planners and air
quality planners often did not consult with one another or even use
consistent information regarding future estimates of growth. To address
these problems, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments explicitly linked the
air quality planning and transportation planning processes in a manner
that had not previously existed. Above all, transportation conformity
has compelled the two types of planning agencies to work together
through the interagency consultation process to find creative and
workable solutions to air quality issues. Most everyone agrees that
consultation is an important benefit of the conformity program. A 1999
Harvard study on the program, which was jointly funded by DOT and EPA,
confirmed that the program has improved consultation between
transportation and air quality planners, and made that consultation
more effective.
Consultation is meaningful because air quality and transportation
planners have a common goal: transportation activities that are
consistent with the State's air quality goals. A State's air quality
plan (a State implementation plan, or SIP) establishes emissions
ceilings, or budgets, for the various types of sources that contribute
to air pollution problems. Transportation conformity makes State and
local agencies accountable for keeping the total motor vehicle
emissions from an area's current and future transportation activities
within these air quality plan budgets. We believe that the interagency
consultation that occurs as areas work to ensure that their planned
transportation activities conform to their air quality plan budgets
will continue to play a critical role in States' efforts to meet the
new ozone and particulate matter standards in the future.
EPA is currently working on an implementation strategy for both the
new ozone and fine particulate matter standards and intends to finalize
the strategies prior to designating areas for these standards. Under
the Clean Air Act, newly designated nonattainment areas must start to
comply with the conformity requirements beginning 1 year after the
effective date of EPA's designation. Because most areas already know
whether they are likely to be designated nonattainment under the new
standards, we strongly encourage them to prepare themselves for
implementing the conformity program by establishing interagency
consultation roles, assessing modeling capabilities and updating
planning assumptions as soon as possible. Engaging in these activities
now will greatly ease their transition to conformity under the new
standards.
Before making designations under the new ozone standard, EPA will
provide clarification to States and local government about several
broad issues that relate to the conformity program. For example, some
areas that will be designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour standard
already designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard and we are
working to ensure a smooth transition from the 1-hour standard to the
8-hour standard. This issue is relevant for conformity because the
Agency believes that States should not be required to demonstrate
conformity for both ozone standards at the same time. We will address
this important issue in our 8-hour implementation which will be
finalized before areas are designated under the 8-hour standard.
Along with our 8-hour implementation rule, EPA also plans to issue
guidance and conformity regulations so that areas are fully aware of
the specific criteria and procedures for meeting conformity under the
new standards. Through this process, EPA will address questions such
as: what options does an area have for demonstrating conformity before
a State implementation plan for the new air quality standards is
submitted? The current conformity rule provides for alternative
conformity tests when an area has not yet submitted a State air quality
plan. EPA plans to make these alternative conformity tests available to
newly designated areas. We will be answering specific questions about
how to apply these tests in our upcoming conformity guidance and
rulemaking. We understand that providing areas with adequate and timely
guidance is imperative and are working with the Department of
Transportation to ensure a smooth transition to implementing conformity
under the new air quality standards.
Under the conformity program, there are consequences for an area
that does not meet a conformity deadline. However, there may be some
misconceptions about these conformity consequences and how they affect
a State's highway and transit funding. Under the new air quality
standards, for example, if a metropolitan area does not have a
conforming transportation plan in place by the expiration of its 1-year
grace period, the area would not lose its Federal funding for highway
and transit projects. Rather, the area's conformity status would
``lapse.'' During a conformity lapse, additional project funding and
approvals are restricted to certain types of projects. These types of
projects that can proceed during a lapse include: exempt projects such
as safety projects, projects in an approved State air quality plan,
traffic signal synchronization projects and Federal highway and transit
projects that received funding and approval prior to the lapse. Once a
metropolitan area resolves its conformity issue and establishes a
conforming transportation plan, the lapse ends and all Federal funding
and approvals can resume.
EPA has no knowledge of any State that has lost its highway funding
due to an area's inability to demonstrate conformity, but recognizes
that even short term conformity lapses can cause disruptions to the
transportation planning and project development processes. However, in
some cases, lapses have no effect on an area's transportation projects
because the area has no new non-exempt projects pending. Most
conformity lapses that have occurred over the past 5 years have been
relatively short. There have been few instances during this time period
where lapses have occurred for more than 6 months.
When communities face difficulties demonstrating conformity, they
can choose from several options. When a transportation plan's emissions
are greater than the allowable budgets in the air quality plan, areas
can decide whether to revise the transportation plan or revise the air
quality plan. For example, some areas have added transit programs to
reduce the emissions of their transportation plan, while others have
gone back to the State air quality plan to see if other sources of
pollution could be further controlled to allow the transportation
sector's emissions budget to grow. An area can choose to build
transportation projects that increase emissions, as long as the net
effect of the total transportation system is consistent with the State
air quality plan. Due to continued improvements in vehicle emission
performance, most areas have been able to continue adding to their
transportation network and still stay within their clean air budgets.
Consultation between transportation and air quality agencies has played
a critical role in developing such solutions that have allowed areas to
meet both transportation and air quality goals.
EPA estimates the number of areas that will possibly be designated
as nonattainment for the new ozone and particulate matter standards
will be less than 150. Of these, around 50 areas will not have had
prior experience with demonstrating conformity. EPA and DOT, as well as
stakeholders across the United States, have gained a wealth of
experience in implementing conformity over the past decade. Newly
designated areas with no prior experience with conformity will benefit
from our collective experience and implementation guidance.
We also expect that several recent EPA actions will make it easier
for States and local governments to meet their emissions targets and
demonstrate conformity. For example, the emissions reductions from
EPA's Tier 2 and clean diesel standards will greatly benefit all areas
that are designated under the new standards in their efforts to achieve
those standards and ensure conformity. In addition, the President's
Clear Skies legislation will reduce emissions of SO2 by 73
percent, and NOx by 67 percent. These substantial reductions from the
power sector will provide great flexibility for many counties by
reducing the need for reductions from other sectors. We have learned a
great deal about the conformity program and how we can make it less
cumbersome while still preserving its benefits. We are pursuing several
actions to simplify the conformity process, which should help the areas
designated under the new standards.
As part of this effort, EPA is exploring options that would
specifically address two aspects of the conformity process that have
been of concern to many stakeholders. The first issue pertains to how
often conformity is required. Some air quality planners believe that
any change in the minimum frequency of conformity would delay the use
of new information in the transportation and conformity process. On the
other hand, many transportation planners believe that conformity is
required too often, leaving them with little time to focus on planning.
These stakeholders claim that increasing the minimum 3-year conformity
and transportation plan updates would give transportation planners the
ability to develop better plans that focus on other environmental and
planning issues, such as environmental justice, in addition to air
quality.
In coordination with the Department of Transportation, we are
evaluating options that might be able to improve the current conformity
frequency requirements.
The second aspect of conformity that is of concern to some
stakeholders is the timeframe over which conformity must be
demonstrated. The transportation community believes that the current
20-year timeframe for which transportation plans must demonstrate
conformity is unfair. Since State air quality plans typically cover a
shorter timeframe (typically 10 years or less), they claim that the
burden of growth in the years past the timeframe of the State air
quality plan rests on the transportation sector. However, environmental
stakeholders see a need for long-term planning to ensure that both
transportation and air quality goals are achieved.
In response to these stakeholders, EPA is working with DOT to
examine the current conformity timeframe requirement to determine
whether there is a compromise that would address the issues raised by
the transportation community and the long-term air quality concerns
held by environmental agencies.
In conclusion, EPA is committed to partnering with DOT to continue
our progress in meeting both transportation and air quality goals. EPA
has been actively working with the Department of Transportation in
developing the President's proposal for the reauthorization of TEA-21,
and that proposal will be submitted to Congress soon. Based on our
collective experience in implementing the CMAQ and transportation
conformity programs, we believe the Administration's proposal will
build on the success of TEA-21 and will further assist areas in their
efforts to achieve clean air now and in the future, as we move forward
with implementing the new ozone and fine particulate matter standards.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today and discuss our
programs with you. I would be happy to respond to any questions that
you may have.
______
Response of Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Please describe the resources and the guidance that
your agency is going to provide in fiscal year 2004, assuming the
budget request is satisfied, to States and communities to help them
demonstrate conformity with the PM2.5 standard.
Response. A top priority for the EPA is to ensure that newly
designated 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are
provided with adequate guidance for implementing these new health-based
air quality standards. With regard to the PM2.5 standard,
EPA is currently working on a broader implementation strategy proposal
to provide States with the procedures and criteria for PM2.5
area designations and compliance to the Clean Air Act requirements for
that standard. We plan to propose this broader implementation strategy
in December 2003, with a final rule expected later in 2004.
EPA is also working on another rulemaking that would amend the
conformity regulations to provide clear guidance and rules for
implementing conformity for the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
air quality standards. EPA plans to publish a proposal (the ``new
standards proposal'') for this conformity rulemaking this summer, and
will hold a public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, soon
after it is published. We anticipate taking a final action on the new
standards proposal by April 2004. We will also be releasing guidance
documents, as needed, to implement the conformity program for the new
standards.
In addition, EPA has supported and will continue to support
throughout fiscal year 2004 specific training opportunities to assist
areas in meeting the conformity requirements for the new air quality
standards. These training opportunities include:
NTI Conformity Course: The National Transit Institute has
been offering a course called, ``Introduction to Transportation/Air
Quality Conformity'' in locations across the country. This course was
developed by the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with
the Federal Highway Administration and EPA. This 2.5 day course offers
an in-depth overview of the criteria and procedures for implementing
conformity and is designed for Federal, State and local agencies
involved in the conformity process. This course is offered free of
charge.
MOBILE6 training: MOBILE6 is EPA's latest motor vehicle
emissions factor model for official use by State and local governments
to meet Clean Air Act requirements outside of California. EPA announced
the availability of MOBILE6 in the Federal Register on January 29,
2002, (67 FR 4254). EPA and DOT jointly sponsored seven MOBILE6
training courses across the country in 2002. These courses were open to
the public and were offered free of charge. The training materials for
these courses are on the MOBILE6 website and can be downloaded at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm Other training materials prepared by EPA
are also available on this website.
EPA is also considering other potential training and
outreach mechanisms and tools that could be developed and made
available, within current budget constraints, to State and local
transportation and air quality agencies affected by the designations
for the new standards.
Question 2. As has been discussed, the purpose of conformity is to
ensure that transportation plans achieve the motor vehicle emissions
levels set in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for air quality. Would
the Agency agree this coordination is needed for all national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS), including the new ozone and PM2.5
standards?
Response. Yes. EPA would agree that linking transportation and air
quality planning through the conformity process is necessary for all
pollutants and standards for which on-road motor vehicles are
important. The purpose of conformity is to ensure that emissions from
transportation sources stay within the air quality targets or
``budgets'' established by the SIP so that public health is protected.
Therefore, we believe that it makes environmental sense to have
conformity apply for those criteria pollutants, including ozone and
PM2.5, for which transportation sources are a major
contributor.
Question 3. As I understand the responses you provided last fall to
the Committee on this subject, many States have not demonstrated
compliance with their 1999 milestones--that is the showing of
reasonable further progress in reducing V.O.C.'s and NOx as required by
section 182(g) of the Act. What is EPA doing to correct that situation?
Response. Under sections 182(c), (d) and (e) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) as amended in 1990, State plans for serious, severe, and extreme
ozone nonattainment areas are required to demonstrate attainment of the
1-hour ozone standard no later than specific dates in the CAA. The
dates are 1999 for serious areas, 2005 or 2007 for severe areas, and
2010 for the single extreme area.
In addition, subsections 182(a)-(e) of the Act requires States to
show that their clean air plans provide for ``rate-of-progress'' (ROP)
emission reductions. The Act requires a rate of progress of 15 percent
reduction in an area's volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by
1996 and a 9 percent reduction of VOC or equivalent oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emission reductions every 3 years thereafter until the attainment
date. A progress report, called a ``milestone compliance
demonstration'' is due from affected States, in accordance with EPA
regulation, after the applicable milestone is to have been met. If a
milestone is not met or the milestone compliance demonstrations are not
submitted, the State, under section 182(g)(3), has three options: it
can request that the area be reclassified to a higher classification,
it can implement specific additional measures adequate to meet the next
milestone, or it can adopt an economic incentive program.
In the late 1990's, EPA began to draft a rule suggesting to States
two possible approaches to performing the milestone compliance
demonstration: (1) emission inventory updates (where possible) and/or
(2) indicators of compliance such as growth rates, VMT change
information, regulations planned and adopted, etc.
As it analyzed the issue, EPA recognized that technical problems,
centering upon the timeliness of State emission inventory updates and
associated growth projections, would arise in many States when the
control agencies attempted to develop complete milestone
demonstrations. In other words, many States would have problems
synchronizing the periodic inventories with the milestone compliance
time period. For States with this problem, it would have been
prohibitively expensive to implement a revised emissions inventory
program, or a separate new inventory program, that matched the
compliance milestone demonstration period. Additional costs to States
and industry would have resulted from condensing the process of
collecting and quality assuring emissions data, which could take from
12 to 18 months, into a 90-day period.
Consequently, EPA did not finalize the draft rule because there
were no reliable, readily available methods to evaluate compliance with
the milestones. Under the terms of section 182(g)(2), States are not
obligated to submit milestone compliance demonstrations until EPA
promulgates the rule. Although not required, some States did submit
specific milestone compliance demonstrations. While New Jersey did not
submit a milestone compliance demonstration, information submitted with
its emission inventory update showed that the milestone target were
met.
To assist States, the EPA has issued a series of guidance documents
that outline how to calculate the many different inventories and how to
prepare rate-of-progress SIP revisions. These were made available to
States for use in their individual efforts:
1. Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Inventory and the 1996 Target
for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA-452/R-92-005, October
1992.
2. Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies
for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA-452/R-93-002, March
1993.
3. Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-
Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments,
EPA-452/R-93-007, May 1993.
4. Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and Compliance
Programs for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA-452/R-93-005,
June 1993.
5. Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and Attainment
Demonstration, EPA452/R-93-015, January 1994.(Erratta 2-18-94)
The EPA intends to complete rulemaking for the milestone compliance
demonstration associated with the rate of progress requirements for
implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the near future. Our rule and
guidance will address a number of issues concerning this requirement,
including the mismatch of deadlines between the emissions inventory
cycle and the milestone compliance demonstration deadlines.
Question 4. Please provide the Committee with an update to the
information requested last summer regarding the status of milestone
compliance demonstrations that were required to be filed by the States
in February 2003 with respect to the 2002 milestones.
Response. The EPA has received documents relating to the 2002
milestone compliance demonstrations for the Illinois portion of the
Chicago nonattainment area; Ventura Co., CA and from Sacramento, CA.
Question 5. Would the Agency agree that the purpose of
transportation conformity is to ensure that motor vehicle emissions
will be reduced to stay within the emissions budgets established in the
State Implementation Plans for the most recent milestone and the
attainment years, and then the 10-year maintenance year once an area
has attained? And that that should be the case even after those
milestones or dates have passed?
Response. Yes. The purpose of transportation conformity is to
ensure that emissions from on-road motor vehicles stay within the air
quality limits or ``budgets'' established by the State air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments emphasize
reconciling the estimates of emissions from transportation plans and
programs with the SIP. This integration of transportation and air
quality planning is intended to protect the integrity of the SIP by
ensuring that: (1) its growth projections are not exceeded without
additional measures to counterbalance the excess growth; (2) progress
targets are achieved; and, (3) air quality maintenance efforts are not
undermined.
To achieve the purpose of conformity and ensure that the SIP's
goals are achieved and maintained, EPA has always required
transportation plans, programs and projects to demonstrate conformity
to the most recent applicable budget in a control strategy SIP
(attainment plans and reasonable further progress plans) or maintenance
plan for the year that budget is established and for all future years.
In the original 1993 transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62194) we
state: ``The emissions budget applies as a ceiling on emissions in the
year for which it is defined, and for all subsequent years until
another year for which a different budget is defined or until a SIP
revision modifies the budget.'' The budget represents an emissions
target that is established to make progress toward, attain or maintain
the respective air quality standard by a given date.
Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that if an
area's planned transportation activities continue to meet that
emissions target in future years, such activities will not cause or
contribute to any new violations, increase the frequency of existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the air quality standard.
Question 6. EPA has proposed changes to the conformity provisions
of the Clean Air Act or the CMAQ program as part of the
Administration's pending proposal for reauthorization of TEA-21. What
outside groups were consulted in the process of developing your
proposal?
Response. Proposed Changes to Transportation Conformity and CMAQ
Programs: The U.S. Department of Transportation took the lead for the
Administration in developing the Administration's proposal for the
reauthorization of TEA-21, including the proposals concerning
conformity and CMAQ. EPA was one of many Administration participants in
this process and did not hold a formal stakeholder process. However, we
have heard from a number of stakeholders through various forums about
their views on potential changes to various aspects of the current
conformity and CMAQ processes.
Question 7. Please provide a quantitative and qualitative air
quality and emissions analysis and a justification for the statutory
changes in the Clean Air Act, or in other laws affecting that Act's
implementation, that the Administration proposes to make as part of
reauthorization of TEA-21, at whatever time that proposal is submitted
to Congress.
Response. Transportation Conformity: The Administration has
included in its proposal for the reauthorization of TEA-21 four changes
that will affect the transportation conformity program. Those changes
include: (1) defining the ``transportation plan'' for the purposes of
conformity to be, at a minimum, the first 10 years of the plan; (2)
combining the transportation plan and transportation improvement
program (or TIP) into one planning document; (3) extending the minimum
conformity frequency and transportation plan updates requirements in
nonattainment and maintenance areas to 5 years; and (4) streamlining
the Clean Air Act's requirements for State conformity SIPs, so that
such SIPs only include the interagency consultation procedures for a
given nonattainment or maintenance area.
EPA did not perform a quantitative analysis for each of these
proposed legislative changes, as we do not have the specific local area
information that is required to perform such analyses. In addition, EPA
believes it is reasonable to assume that results from individual area
analyses, if conducted, would greatly vary. When considering these
targeted improvements to the conformity program, however, EPA did
consider a wealth of qualitative information.
For example, when considering the proposed change to the conformity
timeframe horizon we considered whether prohibiting the implementation
of transportation projects today because of emissions that may exceed
an emissions budget 20 years into the future is a reasonable and
equitable approach to implementing the conformity program. For the
Administration's proposed changes to conformity frequency and other
planning requirements, EPA primarily considered the need to develop
good, comprehensive transportation plans with the need to incorporate
new planning information into the conformity process. EPA understands
that transportation planners need time and resources to develop
comprehensive transportation plans that adequately address many
planning and environmental factors including air quality. On the other
hand, EPA believes it is important to incorporate the most recent
planning information into the conformity process in a timely manner so
that good transportation and air quality decisions can be made. From
our experience implementing the conformity program, we believe the
Administration's proposals strike this balance.
EPA considered the resource burden that the current conformity SIP
requirements place on States. Under the current Clean Air Act section
176(c)(4)(C), States are required to submit a conformity SIP that
establishes State and local rules for implementing conformity, much of
which mirrors the Federal transportation conformity rules verbatim. The
Act also requires areas to revise their conformity SIPs each time EPA
amends the conformity regulations to reflect such changes in their
State rules. Under the Administration's proposal, however, States would
be required to establish conformity rules that include only the area-
specific interagency consultation procedures required by the Federal
regulations. This streamlined proposal would result in fewer required
SIP revisions, as States could rely on the Federal rules for most
conformity provisions and would no longer have to revise their SIPS
each time EPA amends the Federal conformity rule. Furthermore, this
proposal would ensure that all States can take advantage of regulatory
changes to the conformity program as soon as they are promulgated. EPA
believes it can offer this flexibility in the conformity SIP
requirement without any adverse impacts on the environment.
Question 8. Do you agree with Mr. Frankel or with the State and
local air directors who disagree with him on the so-called ``mismatch''
between air quality and transportation planning cycles?
Response. There are two different ``mismatch'' issues in the
conformity process. The first is the difference between transportation
and air quality planning timeframe horizons. The second is the
difference between transportation plan and SIP updates.
To address the difference between transportation and air quality
planning horizons, the Administration has included in its proposal for
the reauthorization of TEA-21 to define the ``transportation plan'' for
the purposes of conformity to be, at a minimum, the first 10 years of
the plan. The proposal would also require a ``For Informational
Purposes Only'' regional emissions analysis for the last year of the
transportation plan. Transportation plans are required to cover a
planning horizon of at least 20 years. However, SIPs are typically
developed for a timeframe of 10 years or less. The Administration's
proposal would address this discrepancy in the timeframe horizons for
the two different planning processes.
In the past, areas have had difficulty demonstrating conformity of
the last 10 years of the plan to a budget that is established for a
year in the near future (e.g., demonstrating conformity of a 2003-2023
transportation plan to an attainment budget established for 2010). Such
difficulties arising from emissions projected 10 to 20 years into the
future could cause delays in the implementation of transportation
projects that are presently scheduled. EPA believes that the
Administration's proposal for adjusting the transportation plan
timeframe horizon would provide a reasonable and equitable approach to
implementing the conformity program. In addition, the information only
analysis would ensure that emissions in the last year of the plan are
considered for future conformity determinations.
With regard to the difference in transportation plan and SIP update
cycles, EPA believes that the current flexibility provided by the Clean
Air Act allows States to decide for themselves whether a SIP revision
to incorporate new data or additional control measures justifies the
costs of conducting an update to the SIP. States are in a better
position to decide whether a revision to their existing SIP is
necessary. Since the SIP is based on a demonstration of how to achieve
clean air, the motor vehicle emissions budgets within the SIP are also
representative of a level of transportation emissions that can protect
public health. Therefore, although transportation mobility goals and
the models and assumptions on which a SIP is based may change over
time, in many cases the SIP's public health goals can be appropriate
even without regular SIP updates. Furthermore, most SIP revisions
require a great deal of time and resources from State and local
agencies and EPA to complete. Therefore, EPA would not want to require
regular SIP updates in areas where air quality improvements are
occurring as anticipated by the SIP and conformity determinations are
being made without difficulty.
Although the CAA does not mandate regular SIP updates, some areas
have updated or are in the process of updating their SIPs and as a
result, may have more recent mobile source emissions budgets available
for conformity purposes. In particular, areas that have had conformity
difficulties have often addressed such issues by revising their SIPs to
incorporate new planning assumptions and data and/or additional control
measures to allow for growth in transportation (e.g., Baltimore MD, New
Jersey, Salt Lake City, UT, Albuquerque NM). In addition, many 1-hour
ozone areas are revising their current SIPs to accurately reflect
estimates of EPA's Tier 2 emissions standards (e.g., New York City,
Philadelphia PA, Baltimore MD, Houston, TX). Also, after area
designations have been made for the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
standards, many areas that are designated nonattainment for these
standards will be submitting new SIPs to address these standards.
Question 9. How many premature deaths could be avoided starting in
2010 as a result of implementation of the so-called ``straw'' proposal
prepared by the Agency in 2001 and its emission reductions?
Response. Although for internal discussion EPA did some preliminary
and incomplete analysis of some benefits in the year 2020 of emissions
reductions at the levels of the `straw' proposal, the analysis did not
include any of the more detailed and necessary analysis that we have
performed for the Clear Skies Act of 2003. Thus, neither the `straw'
proposal emissions caps nor our preliminary benefits analysis were
based on adequate analysis of technology and engineering feasibility,
nor of the ability of capital and labor markets for the power sector to
meet the levels and timing of the proposal.
Question 10. In your testimony, you claimed that the Clean Air Act
gives the Agency limited ability to do anything [to reduce the number
of people dying prematurely from power plant pollution] until the
Agency goes through the process of designating [nonattainment areas].
What specific regulatory steps, using sections 176A, 184, 111(d),112,
etc. or other parts of the Act that provide useful authorities, has the
Agency taken since January 2001 to reduce power plant pollution that
contributes to premature deaths?
Response. EPA has promulgated rules under sections 110 and 126 to
reduce regional NOx emissions to reduce interstate ozone pollution in
the East. NOx reductions can help reduce fine particle pollution as
well.
Section 110: In 1998, EPA issued the NOx SIP Call under section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requiring 22 States and the District of
Columbia to revise their SIPs to impose additional controls on NOx
emissions. The NOx SIP Call required statewide NOx emissions reductions
by an average of 28 percent (over emissions projected to occur in
2007). EPA recommended that States could meet their NOx emission
budgets, in part, by establishing a cap-and-trade program for NOx
emissions from large power plants and large industrial boilers and
turbines. Under the NOx SIP Call EPA expects these sources to achieve
an average reduction of 64 percent (over emissions projected to occur
in 2007). Since January 2001, EPA has completed rulemaking to approve
State implementation plan revisions which meet the NOx SIP Call
requirements for the following areas: AL, the District of Columbia, DE,
IL, IN, KY, MD, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, and WV. Eight of these States and
the District of Columbia began implementation of the NOx emission
reduction requirements in May 2003.
This program is the single most important measure to reduce
interstate ozone pollution from power plants in the short term.
Reductions of NOx emissions from the program will enhance the
protection of public health for over 100 million people in the Eastern
half of the United States. It is a centerpiece of the clean air plans
for many cities.
Sec. 126: In 2000, EPA issued a rule to control NOx emissions under
section 126 of the CAA (the Section 126 Rule). This rule required large
power plants and large industrial boilers and turbines located in 12
Eastern States and the District of Columbia to reduce NOx emissions. It
established a cap-and-trade program that was essentially the same as
that suggested by EPA for State implementation in the NOx SIP Call.
Both the Section 126 Rule and the NOx SIP Call are intended to reduce
interstate ozone pollution. When EPA approves a State implementation
plan revision as meeting the NOx SIP Call requirements, the Agency
withdraws the Section 126 rule requirements for that State.
In addition, EPA has published two additional actions related to
the NOx SIP Call and the section 126 rulemakings which affect power
plant pollution. On February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8396), EPA proposed to
amend these rules in response to court remands. On May 1, 2002 (67 FR
21868), EPA responded to two court decisions directing EPA to
reconsider heat input growth rates projected and used in setting NOx
emission budgets in the two rules. After reviewing the heat input
growth rates and considering the court decisions and additional
comments, EPA decided to continue to use the heat input growth rates
developed in the rules.
Question 11. What is the status of the implementation rules and
guidance necessary for the areas that will soon be designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone or fine particulate matter
standards?
Response. On June 2, 2003, EPA published proposed rulemaking on
alternative approaches to implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA held three public hearings: Irving, Texas (Dallas area), on June
17, 2003; San Francisco, California on June 19, 2003; and Alexandria,
Virginia on June 27, 2003. The public comment period runs to August 1,
2003. EPA plans to publish a final rule by the end of December 2003.
Supplemental guidance on specific technical aspects related to
preparation of State implementation plans for the 8-hour standard are
either available in draft for comment now or are under preparation.
PM2.5 designations are scheduled to be finalized in late
2004 or early 2005. State implementation plans would be due no later
than 3 years after designations. EPA is in the process of developing a
proposed rule outlining the requirements for State implementation plans
designed to attain the standards. We intend to issue the proposal in
the fall or early winter 2003 and to finalize the rule in the fall or
early winter of 2004.
EPA is also conducting another rulemaking that will revise the
transportation conformity regulations to address conformity for the new
8-hour and PM2.5 standards. EPA plans to publish a proposal
(the ``new standards proposal'') for this conformity rulemaking this
summer, and will hold a public hearing on the proposal in Washington,
DC, soon after it is published. We anticipate taking a final action on
the new standards proposal by April 2004. This proposal will provide
clear guidance for when conformity will first apply in areas that are
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
standards. Specifically, the proposal will discuss the implementation
of the 1-year conformity grace period and revocation of the 1-hour
ozone standard.
The conformity rulemaking will also describe the general
requirements for conducting transportation conformity determinations
for the new standards. It will include the conformity test(s) that
would apply during the time period before newly designated
nonattainment areas submit an initial 8-hour ozone or PM2.5
SIP that establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets. In addition, the
rulemaking will address PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant
subject to transportation conformity and will outline the specific
conformity requirements that would apply in newly designated PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
Question 12. At my and Senator Lieberman's request, the GAO has
been doing a survey of all the States' air quality and transportation
planners on conformity. The final report should be available by the end
of April. It will cover many of the topics discussed at the hearing, in
plenty of time to factor into reauthorization. But so far, it appears
that GAO has found that most of the conformity lapses are a result of
administrative or procedural issues, unrelated to emissions budgets
constraints. Is that EPA's experience?
Response. EPA agrees with the GAO report that in some cases areas
lapse because of administrative or procedural issues such as delays in
the planning process. EPA also agrees with the GAO report that most
lapses are relatively short (less than 6 month). Although the GAO
report does not provide information on the impact of these
administrative or procedural lapses that in most cases did not persist
for a significant amount of time, EPA believes that most of these
short-term administrative lapses had no significant impact on
transportation projects or the planning process. However, EPA believes
it is important to ensure that the final mix of projects in the plan
and TIP conform to the area's SIP before such projects are allowed to
proceed, especially in areas where lapses are due to an area not
meeting its emissions budget.
We would also like to note that the GAO report did not discuss the
number of nonattainment and maintenance areas that have and continue to
meet their conformity deadlines on time. There are currently well over
a hundred nonattainment and maintenance areas that are meeting the
frequency requirements for demonstrating conformity. At any given time,
typically no more than 8-10 areas experience a conformity lapse, some
of which have no consequences on projects. In those areas where
emissions increases from transportation activities exceed the limits
established in the SIP and a conformity lapse occurs, EPA believes it
is important for air quality and the public health to limit those
projects that can proceed during the lapse since the emissions from
such projects could cause violations or worsen existing violations of
the air quality standard.
Question 13. Would the Agency agree that a transportation plan and
TIP may not be found to conform to the SIP if it fails to reduce motor
vehicle emissions to the level of the motor vehicle emissions budget
for an attainment year?
Response. Yes. EPA generally agrees that if the projected emissions
from an area's transportation plan and TIP are not at or below the
motor vehicle emission budget in the applicable SIP by a specific
conformity deadline, the plan and TIP do not conform and the area
enters into a conformity lapse. Motor vehicle emissions budgets can be
established for several different years in an area's SIP, including the
attainment year, rate-of-progress (or milestone) years, maintenance
years, and any other year for which the area chooses to establish a
conformity budget. Therefore, to satisfy the conformity requirements
the plan and TIP must conform in all years that establish an adequate
or approved budget that are within the timeframe of the transportation
plan and TIP.
If an area conducts a conformity determination and discovers that
emissions from the transportation plan and TIP exceed the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the SIP, such a result is a clear indication that
air quality and public health goals are not being met. In this case,
the area will need to make changes to either the plan/TIP and/or the
SIP. Options that many areas have considered to address such conformity
issues include adding air quality beneficial projects to the plan/TIP,
delaying capacity increasing highway projects, and revising the SIP to
incorporate new information or additional control measures. Other
areas, however, have not had to make any adjustments to their plan and
TIP or SIP because emissions from their transportation activities have
routinely been at or below the budgets in the SIP.
Question 14. Would the Agency agree that a transportation plan and
TIP may not be found to conform to the SIP if it fails to reduce motor
vehicle emissions to the level of the motor vehicle emissions budget
for a number of years following the attainment years?
Response. Yes. It is important that areas continue to maintain
clean air to protect public health after the attainment year. EPA has
always believed it was reasonable to require conformity of planned
transportation activities for some time into the future, since the full
emissions impact of projects that are built today may not be fully
realized until some years later. Therefore, for nonattainment areas
that only have an adequate or approved attainment year budget, EPA's
policy has always been that conformity of transportation plans,
programs and projects be demonstrated to that attainment budget for the
year for which it was established and for all subsequent years that
require a regional emissions analysis and budget test.
Question 15. Would you support a rollback of the conformity lapse
enforcement provisions so that metropolitan areas failing to comply
with transportation planning requirements face no mandatory
consequences?
Response. No. EPA believes that allowing areas to implement an
existing plan and TIP during a conformity lapse could worsen air
quality since all projects in that plan and TIP could still proceed,
even though the emissions impact from those projects no longer conform.
The purpose of conformity is to ensure that an area's planned
transportation activities are consistent with or ``conform to'' the
motor vehicle emissions level established by the SIP before such
activities can be federally funded or approved. Conformity ensures that
future funding for additional air pollution control measures won't be
needed to offset emissions from previously approved and funded
projects.
Furthermore, EPA does not believe that allowing areas to continue
to implement their existing planned transportation activities during a
conformity lapse is necessary. Lapses are not frequent; only about 56
lapses have occurred since 1997 and the majority of these lapses have
been brief. However, there have been other areas where lapses created a
forum to consider significant air quality concerns. EPA believes that
removing the incentive to determine conformity by specific deadlines in
areas that have difficulty keeping emissions from planned
transportation activities within the limits established in the SIP
would not be protective of air quality or public health in those areas.
Question 16. In the case of Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional
Commission decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October
2002, the Court held that the transportation plan could be found to
conform even though motor vehicle emissions had not been reduced to the
level required by the SIP for attainment year 1999, and the emissions
analysis performed by the metropolitan planning organization
demonstrated that if the proposed long-range transportation plan and
TIP were adopted motor vehicle emissions in the Atlanta area during
2000 would exceed the NOx emissions budget for 1999 by 50 tons per day,
and would likely not be reduced to the budget levels during any year
prior to 2004. Is this a correct interpretation of the conformity
requirements of the Act?
Response. In Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the analysis years for
which ARC chose to demonstrate conformity for the Atlanta 2001-2025
transportation plan were consistent with the Clean Air Act and existing
conformity regulations. EPA agrees with the court decision and its
interpretation of the statutory and regulatory conformity requirements.
The conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118) outlines the budget test and
regional emissions analysis years required of areas that have an
applicable motor vehicle emissions budget. Specifically, the rule
requires a regional emissions analysis for the attainment year (if it
is in the timeframe of the transportation plan), the last year of the
transportation plan and any interim years so that analysis years are no
more than 10 years apart. The rule contains similar requirements for
the budget test, but in no case has EPA ever required the budget test
or a regional emissions analysis for a year outside the timeframe of
the transportation plan. EPA structured the conformity rule in this
manner for two primary reasons.
First, EPA believes that to require a conformity determination for
every year within the timeframe of a transportation plan would be a
tremendous resource burden on transportation agencies. Describing the
transportation system envisioned for future horizon years and running a
regional emissions analysis for those years requires a great deal of
time and technical capability. Therefore, EPA believes that requiring
such analyses for a few select years provides a workable approach for
meeting the conformity requirements for the entire transportation plan.
Second, the purpose of conformity is to be an iterative and
prospective evaluation of the emissions impact of planned
transportation activities. Therefore, EPA has never required areas to
look backwards and demonstrate conformity for years that are now in the
past. At the time that ARC demonstrated conformity for its 2001-2025
plan, the only applicable budgets in Atlanta's SIP were the 1999
attainment year budgets. In this case, EPA saw no environmental value
in having ARC run a regional emissions analysis for 1999, since 1999
was in the past and any projects scheduled to advance during that year
were already approved and funded. Under the conformity regulation, ARC
had the option of choosing any analysis year within the first 10 years
of the 2001-2025 plan (since analysis years can be no more than 10
years apart for the entire timeframe of the transportation plan). EPA
believes ARC's decision to select 2005 as its first analysis year was
consistent with the Clean Air Act and conformity rules requirements.
Our position is supported by the Eleventh Circuit Court's ruling.
Question 17. Does EPA intend to apply this interpretation to other
nonattainment areas, or does EPA intend to clarify its rule to require
that transportation plans and TIPs achieve the emissions budgets
established by a State Implementation Plan for the attainment year and
each year thereafter?
Response. EPA sees no discrepancy between its interpretation of the
Clean Air Act and conformity regulation for Atlanta and for other
nonattainment areas. As previously stated, an adequate or approved
motor vehicle emissions budgets (e.g., an attainment budget) is
applicable for the year for which it is established and for any future
analysis year as required by 40 CFR 93.118. EPA does not intend to
require nonattainment or maintenance areas to demonstrate conformity
for every individual year within the timeframe of the transportation
plan due to the tremendous resource burden of such a requirement, nor
does EPA intend to require areas to analyze years outside the timeframe
of the transportation plan.
The Atlanta situation was unique in that the area had failed to
attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its Clean Air Act deadline and
controversy arose over how the conformity rule would apply due to the
missed attainment date. However, consistent with our implementation of
the conformity rule in other nonattainment areas, ARC chose analysis
years and made a conformity determination using the most recent
applicable budgets available to them (i.e., the 1999 attainment budget)
that met the rule's minimum requirements.
Question 18. Given the current growth rate of VMT, projections on
vehicle fuel efficiency, and any other relevant factors, please provide
the Committee with an estimate of mobile source emissions of greenhouse
gases in 2020.
Response. The Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy
Outlook 2003 projects transportation carbon dioxide emissions of 767
million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in 2020. (This is
equivalent to 2,813 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.) This
compares to emissions of 514.5 MMTCE in 2001, and projected emissions
of 530.1 MMTCE in 2003. These estimates do not include other greenhouse
gas emissions--nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4), or hydrofluoro-
carbons (HFCs). In 2001, carbon dioxide accounted for roughly 95
percent of transportation greenhouse gas emissions, with the other
gases accounting for the remaining 5 percent.
Note that the EIA projections of CO2 emissions in 2020
are based on the continuation of current trends in VMT growth and a
limited increase in vehicle fuel economy through technology improvement
and through increases in CAFE. Successful introduction of advanced
automotive technologies has the potential to improve fuel efficiency
and lower CO2 emissions more than the ``business as usual''
case currently projected by the EIA. Development of clean and efficient
technologies are a major focus of the Bush Administration. One key
program is the FreedomCAR Partnership, a joint effort between DOE and
the automotive industry to develop fuel cell and other technologies.
Another is the 21st Century Truck Partnership that has as its goal to
accelerate technologies that can improve the efficiency of heavy
trucks.
EPA's Clean Automotive Technology program is also developing
technologies that have the potential to provide cost-effective
improvements in fuel economy and reductions in CO2
emissions. EPA engineers are the world's leading experts in hydraulic
hybrids and now have cooperative research and development agreements
with Ford Motor Company, Eaton Corporation, and Parker-Hannifin.
Because hydraulic hybrids are particularly efficient at recapturing the
energy otherwise lost in vehicle braking, the Agency is currently
working with several automotive companies interested in developing and
demonstrating hydraulic hybrids in urban delivery truck applications.
EPA has also developed Clean Diesel Combustion, a diesel engine design
that retains the diesel engine's high efficiency while reducing engine-
out emissions of oxides of nitrogen to levels that could potentially
meet future stringent emission standards without the need for oxides of
nitrogen after treatment. EPA is actively discussing Clean Diesel
Combustion with industry partners who could commercialize the
technology.
In addition, EPA has initiated voluntary programs that will reduce
CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. One is the Best
Workplaces for Commuters Program (formerly known as Commuter Choice).
As a result of this program, 3500 employers around the country
currently offer their 900,000 employees commuter benefits, such as
transit subsidies, van pools, and tele-commuting, as incentives to
driving alone to work. Another is the SmartWay Transport Program, in
which EPA and 15 charter partners (including major trucking firms,
railroads and shipping companies) are developing specific performance
goals to improve efficiency, reduce fuel consumption and lower
emissions from the U.S. freight industry.
______
Responses by Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that 30 of Ohio's 88
counties are projected by EPA to be designated as nonattainment in 2004
when the new ozone NAAQS is implemented, along with 15 additional
counties in 2005 when the new PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented. I
was glad to hear in your opening remarks that you are currently working
with States, like Ohio, that will be affected by these new NAAQS.
What specifically are you doing to help these States and counties
so that they do not have their highway funding cutoff when these new
NAAQS standards get implemented?
Response. A top priority for the EPA is to ensure that newly
designated 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are
provided with adequate guidance for implementing transportation
conformity under these new health-based air quality standards. EPA is
currently working on a rulemaking that would amend the conformity
regulations to achieve this goal. EPA plans to publish a proposal (the
``new standards proposal'') for this conformity rulemaking this summer,
and will hold a public hearing on the proposal in Washington, DC, soon
after it is published. We anticipate taking a final action on the new
standards proposal by April 2004. We will also be releasing guidance
documents, as needed, to implement the conformity program for the new
standards.
Every area that is designated nonattainment for the new air quality
standards will receive a 1-year grace period for conformity to the new
standards upon the effective date of their designation. Areas should
use the conformity grace period and the time prior to designations to
prepare themselves for demonstrating conformity. EPA has and will
continue to support specific training opportunities to assist areas in
meeting the conformity requirements for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
standards by the 1-year grace period deadline. These training
opportunities include:
NTI Conformity Course: The National Transit Institute has
been offering a course called, ``Introduction to Transportation/Air
Quality Conformity'' in locations across the country. This course was
developed by the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with
the Federal Highway Administration and EPA. This 2.5 day course offers
an in-depth overview of the criteria and procedures for implementing
conformity and is designed for Federal, State and local agencies
involved in the conformity process. This course is offered free of
charge.
MOBILE6 training: MOBILE6 is EPA's latest motor vehicle
emissions factor model for official use by State and local governments
to meet Clean Air Act requirements outside of California. EPA announced
the availability of MOBILE6 in the Federal Register on January 29,
2002, (67 FR 4254). EPA and DOT jointly sponsored seven MOBILE6
training courses across the country in 2002. These courses were open to
the public and were offered free of charge. The training materials for
these courses are on the MOBILE6 website and can be downloaded at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm Other training materials prepared by EPA
are also available on this website.
EPA is also considering other potential training and
outreach mechanisms and tools that could be developed and made
available, within current budget constraints, to State and local
transportation and air quality agencies affected by the designations
for the new standards.
No metropolitan area's highway funding will be adversely affected
once the new standards are implemented unless the area fails to
demonstrate conformity by the time the 1-year grace period expires, and
as a consequence, enters into a conformity lapse. Of course, highway
funding could also be restricted if an area fails to submit a new State
implementation plan (or SIP) for the new standards on time and highway
sanctions are imposed 24 months later. Under EPA's anticipated
implementation rules for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
standards, areas will have no more than 3 years after nonattainment
designations to develop and submit SIPs for the new air quality
standards. Under these anticipated rules, some areas may also need to
submit plans within 2 years after nonattainment designations that
provide for reasonable further progress toward attainment. EPA intends
to work with areas over the next several years to insure that all areas
complete their transportation and air quality planning in a timely
manner to avoid any potential adverse impacts on highway funding.
Question 2. As you know, Senator Inhofe and I introduced the
President's Clear Skies bill last month, and this subcommittee is going
to hold hearings on that legislation next month.
What effect would Clear Skies have on this situation where the
NAAQS are being made even more stringent than they have been for the
last several years?
Response. Clear Skies combined with existing and proposed Federal
rules would dramatically bring most of the Eastern United States into
attainment with both the fine particle and 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see
chart below). According to 1999-2001 measured air quality data, there
are 129 counties nationwide that are currently exceeding the level of
the annual fine particle standard and 290 counties that are currently
exceeding the level of the 8-hour ozone standard. Our modeling projects
that, in 2020 with Clear Skies, in combination with existing air
quality control programs and the proposed non-road diesel rule, only
eight counties in the Eastern United States would be out of attainment
with the national standards for fine particles and only 20 eastern
counties would be out of attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. In
the West, 10 counties (all in California) are predicted to remain out
of attainment for the fine particle standard and 7 counties (all in
California) are predicted to remain out of attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
Clear Skies Would Help Areas Attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties Projected to Exceed the NAAQS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Particle Standards 8-Hour Ozone Standards
-------------------------------------------------------
Existing Clear Skies Existing Clear Skies
Control and Existing Control and Existing
Programs Control Programs Control
(Base Case) Programs (Base Case) Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored Data 1999-2001................................ 129 129 290 290
Projection: 2010........................................ 80 38 59 56
Projection: 2020........................................ 53 18 30 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. I understand that the Administration has been working
on some new proposals to reform the Conformity program. Can you tell me
what you are considering and what your timetable is for them?
Response. EPA has and continues to develop both legislative and
regulatory proposals to improve the conformity program. In May 2003,
the Administration unveiled its proposal for the reauthorization of
TEA-21. This legislative proposal contains four changes that will
affect the transportation conformity program, including: (1) defining
the ``transportation plan'' for the purposes of conformity to be, at a
minimum, the first 10 years of the plan; (2) combining the
transportation plan and transportation improvement program (or TIP)
into one planning document; (3) extending the minimum conformity
frequency and transportation plan updates requirements in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to 5 years; and (4) streamlining the Clean Air
Act's requirements for State conformity SIPs, so that such SIPs only
include the interagency consultation procedures for a given
nonattainment or maintenance area. EPA believes that, if enacted, these
proposed changes would provide a more flexible and practicable approach
to implementing the conformity program.
EPA is also working on two rulemakings that will change the
transportation conformity program. First, EPA is developing a
rulemaking to incorporate into the conformity rule EPA and DOT's
current guidance that implements the March 2, 1999, U.S. Court of
Appeals decision affecting EPA's 1997 amendments to the conformity
regulations. We recently published a proposal for this rulemaking in
the Federal Register on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38973), and we anticipate
a final action on the proposal by April 2004. Specifically, the
proposed rulemaking addresses two major issues affected by the court
regarding projects that can proceed during a conformity lapse and EPA's
process for finding newly submitted SIP budgets appropriate to use in a
conformity determination (i.e., the ``adequacy process''). The proposal
would also make a few additional changes to the conformity regulation
that would streamline and improve implementation of the program. Of
particular interest are EPA's proposals to streamline the number of
triggers that require a new conformity determination, and to allow
transportation planners to base regional emissions analyses on
assumptions available at the beginning of the conformity process.
The second conformity rulemaking that EPA is conducting would amend
the conformity rule to address the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
air quality standards. EPA plans to publish a proposal (the ``new
standards'' proposal) for this conformity rulemaking this summer, with
a final rule expected in April 2004. This proposal will provide clear
guidance for when conformity will first apply in areas that are
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
standards.
The new standards proposal will also describe the general
requirements for conducting transportation conformity determinations
for the 8-hour and PM2.5 standards. It will address the
conformity test(s) that would apply during the time period before newly
designated nonattainment areas submit an initial 8-hour ozone or
PM2.5 SIP that establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets.
In addition, the rulemaking will address PM2.5 as a criteria
pollutant subject to transportation conformity and will outline the
specific conformity requirements that would apply in newly designated
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
__________
Statement of Hon. Emil H. Frankel, Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss transportation conformity and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.
Meeting the dual challenges of congestion relief and air quality
improvement is a high priority for all of us at the Department of
Transportation, as I know it is for members of this Committee. In the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), you gave us
new tools and authorities to assist us in achieving this goal, and we
are proud of the progress that has been made. In reauthorization, the
Department wants to continue to buildupon the successes of TEA-21 and
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
Five key performance goals, including the protection of the human and
natural environment, form the basis for the fiscal year 2004 budget
request. Under Secretary Mineta's leadership, these goals will help us
develop a safer, simpler, and smarter national transportation system
for a strong America.
We are developing the President's proposal for surface
transportation reauthorization, and expect that the Secretary will
submit it to the Congress soon. The Department has articulated a set of
core principles and values that have guided development of our
proposal. We plan to build on the successes and lessons of TEA-21. We
seek to enhance the safety and security of all Americans, even as we
increase their mobility, reduce congestion, and strengthen the economy.
We want to ensure an efficient infrastructure while retaining
environmental protections that enhance our quality of life.
In my testimony today, I will address three main points. First, I
want to assure you that progress has been made in reducing
transportation-related emissions of pollutants, and that the Department
of Transportation is committed to doing its part to ensure progress
continues. Second, I will describe how the CMAQ program has assisted
States and localities in addressing their mobility, air quality, and
quality of life concerns. Finally, I want to restate the commitment of
the Department to work with our transportation planning and air quality
planning partners for effective coordination of the transportation and
air quality planning processes.
continued focus on air quality improvements
As a Nation, we have made remarkable improvements in reducing air
pollution, especially pollution that comes from transportation sources.
Where transportation is a significant source of pollutants, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that ozone (formed by the
reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM), have all
decreased substantially since 1970. A majority of the areas designated
as nonattainment (that is, areas that do not meet air quality
standards) since 1990 now meet national air quality standards. Air
quality monitoring data through 2001 shows that 77 out of 78 carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas, 73 out of 85 coarse particulate matter
(PM10) areas, and 69 out of 101 ozone areas no longer show
air pollution levels that exceed the national ambient air quality
standards.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) has led to reduced pollutant emissions from
all air pollution sources, the greatest success can be found in the
reduction of motor vehicle emissions: CO emissions have been reduced by
45 percent since 1970, PM10 emissions reduced by 38 percent,
and VOC emissions by 61 percent from motor vehicles (see Attachment A).
While NOx emissions increased by 10 percent over the period, the rate
of increase was less than the increase from all sources (19 percent).
And, NOx emissions from automobiles (excluding sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) and light trucks) decreased by 33 percent. For VOC and CO, motor
vehicle emission reductions were greater than the reductions from all
other sources. Thus, motor vehicle emissions now make up a smaller
percentage of total emissions. In 1970, motor vehicles contributed 59
percent of total emissions of carbon monoxide, NOx, VOCs, and
PM10, when compared to stationary, area, and non-road mobile
sources. However, by 2000, the motor vehicle portion of emissions of
these pollutants dropped to 46 percent. Most of these emissions
reductions have resulted from stricter emissions standards, improved
engine technology, and cleaner fuels.
It is especially important to note that these reductions in
emissions were accomplished during a period of 38 percent increase in
population, 157 percent growth in gross domestic product (GDP), and 148
percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. The automotive, fuels,
highway, and transit communities have managed to achieve this success
in improving air quality while at the same time working to address
increasing demands to improve mobility.
The downward trend achieved in emissions is expected to continue
into the future. Engines and fuels are to become even cleaner under
recent EPA-issued regulations for emissions standards and cleaner fuel
requirements. Between 2004 and 2007, more protective tailpipe emissions
standards will be phased in for all passenger vehicles, including SUVs,
minivans, vans, and pick-up trucks. This regulation marks the first
time that larger SUVs and other light-duty trucks will be subject to
the same national pollution standards as cars. In addition, the EPA
tightened standards for sulfur in gasoline, which will ensure the
effectiveness of low-emission control technologies in vehicles and
reduce harmful air pollution. When the new tailpipe and sulfur
standards are implemented, Americans will benefit from the clean-air
equivalent of removing 164 million cars from the road. These new
standards require all passenger vehicles sold after the phase-in period
to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner than those on the road today, and will
reduce the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent.
We expect that motor vehicle emissions will be reduced as new
heavy-duty vehicles that meet the 2004 emissions standards for heavy-
duty engine standards enter the fleet. Beginning with the 2007 model,
heavy-duty engines for trucks and buses must meet even tighter
emissions standards, and the level of sulfur in diesel fuel must be
reduced by 97 percent by mid-2006. As a result, after a phase-in
period, each new truck and bus will be more than 90 percent cleaner
than current models. In addition to tighter standards, the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) has been working with industry to develop
and demonstrate low-and zero-emissions advanced propulsion technologies
for transit buses, including hybrid-electric, battery electric, and
fuel cell-powered buses. UUnder FTA/DOT leadership, a national program
is underway to accelerate the development and commercial viability of
these advanced technologies. Projects to purchase clean-fuel buses are
eligible for assistance under FTA's funding programs.
However, despite dramatic improvements in air quality, some of the
nation's largest metropolitan areas still face challenges in meeting
the current ozone standard (also known as the 1-hour standard due to
the averaging time for the ozone concentration levels). Areas that do
not meet the national air quality standards must develop air quality
``State implementation plans'' that show how the areas will achieve the
standards. The transportation plan for these areas, taken as a whole,
as well as individual transportation projects receiving Federal funds,
must be found to conform to the air quality plans.
Furthermore, the Nation as a whole, and the transportation
community in particular, face additional challenges as new air quality
standards are implemented. The new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate
(PM2.5) standards will be more stringent, and many areas
across the Eastern United States and in California have pollution
levels now exceeding these standards. Some of these areas, including
small urban and rural areas, may be designated nonattainment for the
first time. Other existing nonattainment areas may become larger and
involve more jurisdictions under the new standards. The Department and
EPA are working with these areas to increase their capacity to deal
with new nonattainment designations.
The President's Clear Skies legislation will assist in these
efforts by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide by
approximately 70 percent from the power generatingpower-generating
sector. In many areas, these reductions will provide needed flexibility
in meeting the new standards, thus reducing the pressure on other
sources.
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
We have learned a great deal about transportation and air quality
over the last 30 years, and over the last 10 years in particular. One
thing we have learned is that there is no one ``right way'' to address
transportation needs that meets the requirements of the entire nation.
The transportation needs of Houston differ markedly from those of
Chicago. This is doubly true when trying to reduce congestion and
improve air quality. We have also learned that if we are to address our
mobility and air quality needs simultaneously, we must incorporate
national approaches, State and local planning, and project-level
investments.
The CMAQ Program was established in 1992 by ISTEA as one of the
programs designed to provide States and metropolitan areas flexibility
to better address their particular needs, specifically targeted at air
quality improvements. Through this program, we have provided $6 billion
during the life of ISTEA and $8 billion under TEA-21 (1998-2003) to
States and local governments for innovative programs and projects that
demonstrate an air quality benefit and contribute to attainment of a
national ambient air quality standard. Under TEA-21, State and local
governments also received additional CMAQ funds from the programmatic
distribution of minimum guarantee funds and funds made available
through the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism.
The concept of the CMAQ program is to provide needed flexibility to
fund transportation improvements, whether they be highway, transit,
shared ride, bicycle and pedestrian or other types of projects. This
flexible approach allows for investments that cross traditional
boundaries of the Federal-aid program to support projects focused on
transit systems, alternative fuels and vehicles, intermodal highway
facilities, emissions inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs, and a
host of other projects.
The CMAQ program has also supported more highway and systems
management improvements that contribute to emissions reductions through
traffic flow enhancements or other means, and has been an important
funding source in the implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). In Arizona, for example, CMAQ funding accounted for 87
percent of the Federal funds used for ITS investments.
Overview of CMAQ-Funded Projects
Through fiscal year 2002, about $11.3 billion had been obligated
under the CMAQ program. According to the latest data, the majority of
CMAQ funding goes for new and enhanced transit services and traffic
flow improvements that ease congestion, reduce starts and stops, and
reduce emissions. These two categories are the backbone of any
metropolitan area's transportation system, but they are also the most
capital-intensive of the types of projects eligible under the program.
A breakdown of CMAQ funding by type of project is provided in the
table below.
CMAQ Funding by Type of Project: 1992-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Obligated
Type of Project ($ In Percent
Millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit...................................... $3,383 44%
Traffic Flow................................. 2,452 32
Shared Ride.................................. 290 4
Demand Management............................ 249 3
Bicycle/Pedestrian........................... 268 3
Inspection and Maintenance and Other......... 588 8
States with no Nonattainment or Maintenance 491 6
Areas.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the
amount of CMAQ funding used for emissions I&M programs. Both Illinois
and New Jersey have used CMAQ funding extensively for this purpose. In
fact, 75 percent of New Jersey's recent CMAQ funding has been used for
its I&M program. This is noteworthy because I&M programs have proven to
be important strategies for meeting Federal air quality standards,
demonstrating relatively large emission reductions, especially in acute
ozone nonattainment areas.
The Benefits of the CMAQ Program
Some CMAQ projects and programs, for example those supporting
vehicle I&M programs, have registered notable emissions reductions.
According to the States' annual CMAQ reports, I&M programs can yield a
reduction of about 5 tons per day in VOC in Illinois to over 40 tons
per day in New Jersey. Regional projects, like traffic management
centers and other projects that contribute to a modern, intelligent
transportation system, also demonstrate larger emissions reductions
than local or corridor level projects. Finally, we foresee greater
potential for projects that advance new vehicle and fuel technologies
which can be much more cost-effective than traditional projects. On the
transit side, funding for bus replacement, removing older higher
polluting vehicles from city streets in favor of newer models, has
shown results, as have heavy-duty diesel retrofit programs and the
introduction of alternative fuels.
Further, even the more traditional transportation control measures
(TCMs) funded under the CMAQ program can help our State and local
partners achieve other goals in addition to improving air quality.
Examples include High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV), turn lanes,
transit projects and new buses. These measures improve our quality of
life, by reducing pollution, by relieving congestion, and by allowing
us to walk or bike in a more pleasant environment.
Finally, the flexibility of the CMAQ program supports
experimentation by our partners in the States and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) to meet travel demand in the most environmentally
sensitive ways. In addition to ITS services, intermodal projects, and
I&M programs, the CMAQ program has funded:
Station cars and car-sharing programs
Telecommuting
Parking cash-out programs
New vehicle technologies, including fuel cell vehicles
Alternative fuels
Public-private partnerships
Transit-oriented development
Many States have made excellent use of their CMAQ funds by
implementing innovative and useful projects to address their congestion
and air quality problems. In Ohio, for example, the State has spent
more than $50 million in recent years for Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) projects, including signalization improvements, freeway
surveillance and transit communications that can help speed traffic
through its metropolitan areas and reduce emissions. It has also
invested about $20 million in Intermodal Centers, including the modern
and very popular Waterfront Station serving the Rock-n-Roll Hall of
Fame in Cleveland. Over $17 million has been used for new buses to
expand transit systems in several Ohio cities, with another $4 million
to support transit fare reductions during the ozone season. And
finally, Ohio has used CMAQ funding to continue its focus on reducing
the number of at-grade crossings benefiting not only air quality and
congestion, but also reducing fatalities. In Ohio and other places
around the country, CMAQ funding has facilitated the implementation of
critical transportation improvements with multiple benefits.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a comprehensive
assessment of the CMAQ program in April 2002. A number of findings and
recommendations were offered, with the study concluding the program is
valuable to State and local governments and should be continued. The
assessment highlighted in particular the importance of the program's
flexibility, encouragement of innovative approaches to reduce
emissions, and support for new partnerships across jurisdictions.
Recent Issues
In recent discussions, stakeholders have raised several issues
about the CMAQ program and its role in the overall surface
transportation program. The first involves concerns about the CMAQ
funding formula. The statutory formula apportions funds to the States
based on the population living in nonattainment and maintenance areas
and the severity of the ozone and CO pollution problem. However, the
statutory formula does not include factors for the EPA's new air
quality standards. Thus, a State whose nonattainment population will
grow under the new EPA standards will receive no comparable increase in
funding. Because these new areas will be eligible to use CMAQ funding
under provisions enacted in TEA-21, the States' CMAQ apportionments
will be stretched thin to cover them. The NAS report and others in the
air quality community have also pointed out the importance of
addressing the new fine particulate matter standard in the
apportionment formula and eligibility, because of the mortality impacts
associated with this type of pollution.
Expanding the eligible use of CMAQ funding for operating assistance
constitutes a second issue. One of the current strengths of the program
is the focus on improvement projects, which could be diminished by
providing assistance for routine operations. Currently, we provide
operating assistance for up to 3 years under the CMAQ program for new
services to help them get established.
A third issue that has been raised is whether to expand CMAQ
funding to areas outside of existing nonattainment and maintenance
areas. In January of 2002, DOT published a Federal Register notice
maintaining our current policy of limiting funding to nonattainment and
maintenance areas, but allowing projects to be funded that are in close
proximity to, and primarily benefiting, a nonattainment or maintenance
area. Comments to the docket revealed that our stakeholders are divided
on the issue of funding outside of existing nonattainment and
maintenance areas, although the majority of States and MPOs favored
retention of our current policy.
We are considering these issues as we develop our reauthorization
recommendations. We expect to send a proposal to Congress soon.
the transportation conformity process: coordinating transportation
and air quality planning
Conformity refers to a requirement of the CAA that is designed to
ensure that federally funded or approved highway and transit projects
conform to the air quality goals and priorities established in a
State's implementation plan (SIP). For programs administered by the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration,
we determine whether highway and transit projects conform to a State's
SIP by comparing the total expected air quality emissions from the
whole transportation system within the nonattainment or maintenance
area, including the expected emissions that would result from projects
contained in the transportation plan and transportation improvement
program (TIP), with the emissions budget for motor vehicles in the SIP.
A failure or inability to make a conformity determination by the
required deadline is referred to as a ``conformity lapse.'' During a
conformity lapse, the use of Federal highway and transit funds is
restricted. Currently, most areas of the country are in conformity.
But, as of March 4, 2003, seven areas are in a conformity lapse.
Fulfilling the transportation conformity requirements has created
stronger institutional links between two sets of agencies--
transportation and air quality--that operated quite independently of
each other prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA). This interagency consultation has played a crucial role in the
development of more realistic and achievable transportation and air
quality plans. In addition, the transportation conformity provisions
have been instrumental in fostering improvements to the travel demand
and emissions modeling processes, because of the specificity of data
necessary to meet conformity requirements.
We now have almost a decade of experience in implementing the
transportation conformity provisions of the CAAA and, despite
successes, stakeholders indicate that there remain opportunities to
improve the transportation conformity process. Transportation
conformity was intended to form strong linkages between the
transportation and air quality planning processes. However, there is a
concern among transportation agencies--and even some air quality
agencies--that transportation plans and SIPs are not synchronized with
one another due to different planning horizons and update frequencies.
This sometimes causes ``lapses'' in conformity that can disrupt the
transportation funding process. While transportation plans have very
long planning horizons and have to be updated frequently, most air
quality plans have comparatively shorter planning horizons and are
updated less frequently.
TEA-21 and the CAA require that transportation plans must cover at
least 20 years and be found conforming for that entire time period.
However, air quality plans have much shorter planning horizons, often
only 5-10 years, resulting in a ``mismatch'' in which transportation
plans must consider emissions controls in the absence of comprehensive
air quality planning. Without comprehensive air quality planning, there
is no analysis of the most cost-effective emissions controls across all
sources beyond the end of the SIP timeframe. If an MPO has a conformity
problem in the timeframe beyond that covered by the SIP, it has limited
options for achieving substantive emissions reductions with programs
over which the transportation agencies have control. Traditional TCMs
have little impact on regional emissions levels, despite benefits
realized at the local level, and such strategies will provide even
fewer reductions in the future, as technology continues to reduce total
mobile source emissions. Although MPOs bear the responsibility of
assuring that plans conform to air quality budgets, they do not have
the authority under current law to establish more effective measures,
like I&M programs or reformulated fuels. That process of identifying
future control strategies is the intended purpose of the SIP.
This ``mismatch'' can be further aggravated by differences in the
frequency with which transportation plans and air quality plans are
updated. Conformity determinations for transportation plans must be
made at least every 3 years, must be based on the latest demographic
and travel information, and must use the latest emissions estimation
model. However, air quality plans are not updated on a regular cycle,
and may reflect out-of-date assumptions or may have been developed
using an outdated emissions estimation model. When a conformity
analysis is performed in such a situation, it is impossible to
determine whether the emissions associated with the transportation plan
are truly consistent with the emissions budget in the air quality plan.
This may be because the transportation plan emissions were estimated
using one set of assumptions and model, while the emissions budget was
developed under another. Some stakeholders have reported that such
situations have occurred and are likely to happen again with the recent
release of a new emissions estimation model.
EPA, in coordination with U.S. DOT, has allowed a 2-year grace
period before States have to use the new emission model, MOBILE6, for
conformity. EPA also requires that SIPs that are started after the
official release use MOBILE6. While the Clean Air Act does not require
SIP updates in all cases, EPA guidance encourages States to evaluate
the effects of MOBILE6 early to plan for any needed SIP updates to
accommodate change.
Stakeholders indicate that conformity lapses have occurred because
areas could not complete the complex, comprehensive transportation
planning and conformity processes within the required timeframes, even
though they met their emissions budgets. Data collection, model
development, public outreach, and consensus building can all take a
considerable amount of time and resources. MPOs also face other daily
challenges of ever-increasing congestion, transportation needs due to
economic growth, protection of water quality and other environmental
resources, efficient freight management, safety, and security.
Many stakeholders have suggested bringing the planning horizons and
frequency of updates of both the transportation plans and air quality
plans much closer together. Some have suggested a shorter planning
horizon, and less frequent updates, while others have suggested a
longer air quality planning horizon. We note that some areas have opted
to voluntarily extend their air quality planning horizons.
In any case, some stakeholders have suggested it is in the best
interests of an effective, integrated process that the air quality
plans and the transportation plans are both using the latest, and most
consistent, set of planning assumptions, and that the air quality plans
include the necessary control measures to ensure timely attainment of
the standards. Stakeholders have stated that this would also help us
anticipate air quality problems and correct them in a more proactive
and coordinated transportation and air quality planning process.
The Department recognizes the value of transportation conformity,
and is committed to reducing motor vehicle emissions. We will monitor
potential and actual transportation conformity lapses, and strive to
minimize the number of conformity lapses that occur.
EPA's new air quality standards will also impact the conformity
process. The new standards are more stringent, and many areas across
the Eastern United States and in California have pollution levels now
exceeding these standards. Some of these areas, including small urban
and rural areas, may be designated nonattainment for the first time.
Other existing nonattainment areas may become larger and involve more
jurisdictions under the new standards. It is too early to tell the
magnitude of transportation and air quality planning and conformity
issues that might surface following implementation of the new
standards. However, based on our experience when the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments were implemented, we would expect these areas to face
challenges in the early years. The Department and EPA are working with
these areas to increase their capacity to deal with new nonattainment
designations and conformity.
Over the years, we have worked closely with EPA and our State and
local stakeholders to improve the transportation conformity process. We
are committed to better coordinating the transportation and air quality
planning processes and will continue to work with EPA and our
stakeholders to identify ways to remedy the mismatch issues, including
consideration of possible remedies in the development of our
reauthorization proposal.
general conformity
The Clean Air Act's General Conformity requirement applies to
Federal actions other than the highway and transit actions to which
Transportation Conformity applies, and requires that Federal actions
conform to State air quality implementation plans. These provisions
affect airport improvement and other DOT programs. The FAA and EPA
issued guidance last September that will help FAA and airport sponsors
perform the analysis supporting FAA conformity decisions on federally
assisted and approved airport projects. Because we expect new
nonattainment areas to be designated under the new air quality
standards, the new standards can also be expected to increase the
number of actions requiring general conformity determinations.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Department of Transportation is committed to
continuing the progress made over the last 30 years in reducing motor
vehicle emissions and strongly supports the goals of the Clean Air
Act's transportation conformity provisions. Improving transportation
safety and mobility, while protecting the environment and enhancing the
quality of life for all of our communities, are compatible goals. I am
proud of the successes we have achieved under the CMAQ program by
providing flexible funding for innovative transportation projects that
improve air quality and by improving interagency cooperation between
transportation and air quality agencies. However, I also recognize that
additional improvement in the coordination of the transportation and
the air quality planning processes can be achieved.
Integrating transportation and environmental decisionmaking can
effectively advance environmental stewardship and improve our
efficiency in meeting our nation's mobility needs. The American public
demands and deserves both mobility and clean air, and we must remain
focused on providing the highest level of service and environmental
protection that we can provide.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my
statement. I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I
look forward to working with you as we prepare for reauthorization of
the surface transportation programs.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90365.001
______
Responses by Emil Frankel to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Please describe the resources and the guidance that
your agency is going to provide in fiscal year 2004, assuming the
budget request is satisfied, to states and communities to help them
demonstrate conformity with the PM2.5 standard.
Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have worked closely in providing
technical assistance to nonattainment and maintenance areas to address
conformity and transportation air quality issues. In anticipation of
the number of new areas designated nonattainment for the first time,
DOT has embarked on a number of activities to prepare the areas for
this challenge:
1. Revise transportation conformity regulations--DOT is working
closely with EPA to revise the EPA conformity rule for the
implementation of the new ozone and fine particulate standards. Our
goal is to complete the rulemaking process by the time the new ozone
nonattainment designations are finalized. We believe this will allow
newly designated nonattainment areas to fully utilize the 1-year
conformity grace period in meeting conformity requirements.
2. Continue existing training courses--DOT has developed a well-
received basic training course on transportation conformity. EPA
assisted in the development of this training course. The course was
offered 6 times during FY 2002, and about 230 public and private sector
representatives of transportation and air quality disciplines attended
the course. DOT offered this course through the National Transit
Institute in 7 cities in FY 2003 and anticipates offering it 7 times in
FY 2004. Our field resource centers provided workshops and tailored
seminars, primarily focusing on emissions modeling, transportation
conformity, and the CMAQ program. In 2004, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will also continue to provide training in
MOBILE6, EPA's current emissions factor model.
3. Provide new training opportunities--FHWA's National Highway
Institute will be launching 3 new training courses in FY 2004 that will
be very helpful in preparing for conformity analysis.
La. Estimating Regional Mobile Source Emissions
Lb. The Implication of Air Quality Planning on Transportation
Lc. The CMAQ Program: Purpose and Practice.
4. In May 2002, FHWA launched a Transportation Conformity Community
of Practice (CoP) website to allow for sharing of best practices, free
exchange of ideas and discussions on topics related to conformity among
practitioners. The CoP website can be accessed at: http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/aqupdate/index.htm
Question 2. Studies are showing that toxic air pollutants from
mobile sources are turning out to be a very significant health threat
for people living near high-volume traffic. How is DOT incorporating
this elevated risk of cancer and developmental problems from mobile
source toxics exposure into NEPA reviews of projects?
Answer. The Department is aware of the evolving science surrounding
toxic air pollutants, and is following the basic research that is
underway by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) and others to enhance
our knowledge. HEI, which is jointly funded by EPA and industry to
provide unbiased assessments of health effects, just announced a new
research program, ``Assessing Exposure to Air Toxics`` to reduce what
it refers to as ``large data gaps in understanding exposures to many
air toxics.'' (see www.healtheffects.org/RFA/RFA2003.pdf). HEI's
Strategic Plan 2000-2005 focuses its air toxics research on reducing
uncertainties in evaluating the human health risks associated with
exposure to mobile-source air toxics.
FHWA is also funding studies focusing on mobile sources to help
fill in the current gaps in our understanding. Among major research
efforts, FHWA has commissioned research on:
the Multiple Air Toxics Emissions Study (MATES II) in
California and its transferability to other areas,
particulate matter and air toxics analyses in 7 cities to
establish the relationship between transportation activity and air
toxic emissions,
differences between modeling results and monitoring data,
and
development of a Strategic Workplan for Air Toxic
Emissions for the transportation community at large.
We are also interested in the nature of mobile source air toxics,
the analytical tools available or in development, and the contrast
between regional and local, i.e. project-level, impacts.
Finally, FHWA has convened a working group with our EPA
counterparts to establish a policy framework for agency field staff and
State Departments of Transportation to better assess the effects of air
toxics during project development and the NEPA process.
Question 3. Your agency has proposed changes to the conformity
provisions of the Clean Air Act or the CMAQ program as part of the
Administration's pending proposal for reauthorization of TEA-21. What
outside groups were consulted in the process of developing your
proposals?
Answer. The Department consulted with a broad range of
transportation and environmental stakeholders in developing SAFETEA
proposals, including the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, the National Association of Regional Councils, the State
and Territorial Pollution Prevention Association/Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials, and State and local air quality
agencies. Other interest groups such as the Highway Users Alliance, the
National Association of Home Builders, the Surface Transportation
Policy Project, Environmental Defense, and the Sierra Club were also
consulted. For the conformity and CMAQ recommendations, DOT also worked
closely with EPA.
Question 4. Can you provide the Committee with some examples where
an MPO had a problem with finding conformity in the out-years of the
transportation plan (the second 10-year period) that had not been
solved by the State using EPA's enforceable commitment policy under the
conformity rule?
Answer. In SAFETEA, DOT proposes a new provision regarding
metropolitan planning to more closely align the transportation and air
quality planning horizons for purposes of transportation conformity,
and to better integrate the transportation planning and air quality
planning processes. Transportation conformity currently must be
determined for the entire 20-year planning horizon of metropolitan
transportation plans. On the other hand, air quality State
implementation plans (SIPs) usually cover a much shorter timeframe (10
years or less). This mismatch in timeframes does not provide for an
integrated planning process beyond the life of the SIP.
Without comprehensive air quality planning, there is no analysis of
the most cost-effective emissions controls across all sources beyond
the end of the SIP timeframe. If an MPO has a conformity problem in the
time frame beyond that covered by the SIP, it has limited options for
achieving substantive emissions reductions with programs over which the
transportation agencies have control. Traditional TCMs have little
impact on regional emissions levels, and such strategies will provide
even fewer reductions in the future, as technology continues to reduce
total mobile source emissions. Although MPOs bear the responsibility of
assuring that plans conform to air quality budgets, they do not have
the authority under current law to establish more effective measures,
like I&M programs or reformulated fuels. That process of identifying
future control strategies is the intended purpose of the SIP.
MPOs that have experienced conformity problems in the outyears have
worked with their air quality partners through the interagency
consultation process, because they often could not solve these issues
themselves. In several cases, the SIP was revised to establish out-year
conformity budgets to solve the issue (e.g., Washington, DC established
budgets and a trading program in the outyears to address projected
emission increases in future years.) In addition, Colorado committed to
re-implement an I/M program in the future to solve the outyear
conformity problems.
The potential for timeframe mismatch is found in the June 2002
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (SEPW) staff survey of 16
MPOs on their experience of the conformity process. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) described the potential
for this mismatch in the following excerpt. However, it should be noted
that although the potential for a mismatch issue exists in this case,
SCAG does not actually report that it has an outyear emissions problem
for its 2025/2030 transportation plan.
Federal regulations require at least a 20-year planning horizon for
the development of any RTP [Regional Transportation Plans]. However,
SIPs are only required to address the time period up to the attainment
or maintenance date for the relevant area. Thus, SCAG's 2001 RTP
extends up to the year 2025, and the upcoming 2004 RTP will extend up
to the year 2030. However, and as one example, the 1-hour Ozone SIP for
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the SCAG region is only required to
consider the period preceding its stipulated attainment year of 2010.
As a consequence, there is always a gap of about 15 to 20 years between
SIP and RTP planning horizons. The complex interplay of socio-
demographic projections and emission budgets between the SIP and the
RTP processes means that there is almost always the potential of a
procedural conformity lapse.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SCAG's Comments on Transportation Conformity Issues for the
Senate Hearing on TEA-21 Reauthorization, July 22, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other examples can also be found in the same SEPW survey. The
PM10 attainment year for a PM10 nonattainment
area in the South Coast Air Basin in California is 2006, while the
transportation planning horizon is 2025--a gap of at least 19 years. In
the absence of realistic PM10 emissions budgets for these
future years, the MPO has experienced difficulty in demonstrating
conformity beyond the attainment year of 2006. The MPO for San Joaquin
Valley (PM10 nonattainment) had a similar experience.
SAFETEA proposed to address this issue by revising the conformity
requirement of a transportation plan to be more closely aligned with
the timeframe of a SIP. SAFETEA proposed to limit transportation
conformity to the first 10 years of the transportation plan, the latest
year for which the SIP contains a motor vehicle emissions budget, or
the completion date of a regionally significant project, if the project
requires approval before the subsequent conformity determination,
whichever is longer. Areas will still be required to conduct a regional
emissions analysis for the last year of the transportation plan, for
informational purposes only, if the transportation plan extends beyond
the timeframe covered by the conformity analysis. The proposed changes
will ensure that a coordinated and integrated transportation and air
quality planning process is used to develop the SIP budgets and to
determine transportation conformity. This provision is also intended to
encourage the development of longer-term SIPs in areas that anticipate
extended air quality problems.
Question 5. At my and Senator Lieberman's request, the GAO has been
doing a survey of all the states' air quality and transportation
planners on conformity. The final report should be available by the end
of April. It will cover many of the topics discussed at the hearing, in
plenty of time to factor into reauthorization. But so far, it appears
that GAO has found that most of the conformity lapses are a result of
administrative or procedural issues, unrelated to emissions budgets
constraints. Is that DOT's experience?
Answer. The GAO report, ``Federal Planning Requirements for
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More
Efficient and Better Linked,'' was issued in May 2003. It found that
since 1997, about half of the conformity lapses were caused by
resource, administrative, or technical problems rather than
difficulties meeting emissions budgets. The report indicates that most
areas resolved their conformity problems in 6 months or less. The GAO
report also included DOT's observation that even short conformity
lapses can have an impact on the transportation planning process.
However, GAO itself did not specifically analyze the impacts of these
lapses in its report. The GAO report also stated that ``a majority of
transportation planners who had trouble demonstrating conformity or
failed to do so by a deadline said that the required frequency of
demonstrations robs them of time and resources to solve other issues,
such as growing congestion.'' The GAO findings are consistent with DOT
analysis.
Question 6. It has been said: ``If you build it, drivers will
come.'' In transportation planning, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) typically consider a wide array of factors including economic
growth, safety, efficiency, and air quality. Is it appropriate for MPOs
to also consider the need for open space in conducting metropolitan
transportation planning?
Answer. It is appropriate for MPOs to consider the need for open
space in conducting transportation planning. The role of the MPO in
land use and transportation varies according to state and locality. In
some areas, MPOs are responsible for reviewing regionally significant
local land use decisions, including the need for open space. In others,
land use decisions are solely the prerogative of local officials.
Regardless of the MPO's role in decisionmaking, transportation planners
need to consider the comprehensive land use plans of the region and
local jurisdictions, including plans for open space, and create a
constructive dialogue with land use officials. In that way, each group
is informed of actions that might affect the other. In SAFETEA, the
Administration proposes language to encourage each MPO to coordinate
its planning process, to the maximum extent practicable, with those
officials responsible for other types of planning activities that are
affected by transportation, including State and local economic
development, environmental protection, airport operations, and freight.
Question 7. TEA-21 required DOT to streamline the environmental
review process for highway projects. While we are still waiting for the
Administration's proposal, some have suggested exempting transportation
plans from NEPA altogether. Does it make more sense to try implementing
TEA-21 by streamlining environmental reviews before considering
exempting transportation plans from requirements that all other federal
actions have needed to comply with since 1969?
Answer. The Department's position has long been that metropolitan
and statewide transportation plans and programs are not major Federal
actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. Section 1203 (m)
of TEA-21 explicitly continued this practice by stating that any
decision by the Secretary on a metropolitan transportation plan shall
not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under NEPA
(23 USC 134(o)), and Section 1204(h) made a similar provision for
statewide plans (23 USC 135 (i)). Individual projects and actions that
receive DOT funding or approval are subject to NEPA.
__________
Statement of Annette Liebe, Manager, Air Quality Planning, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality on Behalf of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
Annette Liebe, Manager of the Air Quality Planning Section of the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. I am testifying today on
behalf of STAPPA--the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators--and ALAPCO--the Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials--the two national associations of air quality
officials in 54 States and territories and over 165 major metropolitan
areas. The members of STAPPA and ALAPCO have primary responsibility
under the Clean Air Act for implementing our nation's air pollution
control laws and regulations and, moreover, for achieving and
sustaining clean, healthful air for our citizens. Accordingly, we are
pleased to have this opportunity to provide our perspectives on
implementation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) program under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) and the transportation conformity program under the Clean Air
Act.
STAPPA and ALAPCO are acutely aware of the key role that
transportation plays in our nation's economy. We endorse the
fundamental principle that transportation and environmental goals need
not be at odds with one another, but, rather, that our transportation
system can flourish and our economy can grow without jeopardizing our
environment. In fact, our transportation choices can contribute to
environmental improvements.
Today, however, transportation remains a dominant source of air
pollution across the country, contributing substantially to unhealthful
levels of ozone, particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). In
particular, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), these sources are responsible for over 40 percent of volatile
organic compounds and more than 50 percent of nitrogen oxides--both of
which are ozone precursors--more than 25 percent of fine particulate
matter emissions and 70 percent of CO emissions. Transportation sources
are also very significant contributors of greenhouse gases--including
over a third of carbon dioxide emissions--and toxic air pollutants and
play a role in the formation of regional haze. Although we continue to
make great progress in reducing emissions from mobile sources, it is
clear that the benefits of these technological advances cannot keep
pace with current and foreseeable trends of steadily increasing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT).
STAPPA and ALAPCO firmly believe that the CMAQ and transportation
conformity programs are critically important to our goal of achieving
full integration of our environmental and transportation decisionmaking
processes and ensuring that transportation choices do not undermine our
efforts to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air throughout the
country. For this reason, last fall, our associations adopted a set of
CMAQ and transportation conformity principles for the reauthorization
of TEA-21; a copy of our principles is attached.
cmaq program
STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly support the CMAQ program, which provides
a discrete source of funding explicitly set aside for transportation
projects that meet air quality objectives and for projects that result
in sustainable air quality improvement. The CMAQ program appropriately
reinforces the interrelationship between the transportation and air
quality planning processes by specifically recognizing and seeking to
ameliorate the transportation sector's impact on air quality. Over the
past 10 years, it has been demonstrated that CMAQ can play a
significant role in helping States and localities address
transportation-related air quality problems. We believe, however, that
this important program can be strengthened in several ways.
First, since CMAQ was originally established, the scope and
magnitude of transportation-related emissions and their impact on air
quality have expanded significantly. EPA has adopted new, health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate
matter and 8-hour ozone, both of which will be implemented in the next
few years. A National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment has concluded that
motor vehicles are the largest source of hazardous air pollutants
nationwide, producing nearly 1.4 million tons of air toxics each year.
And we have gained an increased understanding of the phenomenon of
transported pollution and precursors and its impact on the ability of
many areas to attain and maintain clean air goals.
While STAPPA and ALAPCO believe CMAQ funds should be apportioned
based on the severity of an area's air quality problem and its
population, we urge that the areas eligible to receive CMAQ funding be
expanded from 1-hour ozone, PM10 and CO nonattainment and
maintenance areas, to also include PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
nonattainment and maintenance areas; areas nearing nonattainment; areas
whose transportation-related emissions have an impact on a
nonattainment area; and areas that experience other air quality
problems as a result of transportation-related emissions, including,
but not limited to, hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources.
Accordingly, we believe that the historic allocation of CMAQ funds
is inadequate. We strongly urge a substantially increased Federal
commitment of resources to the CMAQ program, to reflect the true and
very significant impact of transportation-related emissions on air
quality. This increase should be no less, proportionately, than that to
be provided for highway investments.
In Oregon, CMAQ funds have been used to implement transportation
control measure commitments in numerous maintenance plans. Some
examples include expansion of transit service and programs, support of
transit-oriented development, implementation of commuter trip reduction
programs, expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the
purchase of advanced equipment to remove winter road sand that could
contribute to PM10. In order to meet the challenges of
implementing new standards to protect public health, it is necessary to
increase the amount of funding available for these types of projects
and assure eligibility for areas that are making progress to maintain
healthful air.
With respect to project eligibility, we urge that greater emphasis
be placed on projects that will result in direct, timely and sustained
air quality benefits. Certain types of congestion mitigation projects,
such as road and bridge construction and expansion, may have the long-
term effect of promoting growth in VMT and urban sprawl, and of
creating new congested corridors. CMAQ funding should be directed to
projects that demonstrate sustained air quality benefits. STAPPA and
ALAPCO also recommend that to qualify for CMAQ funds, a project should
be required to demonstrate that a specified minimum air quality benefit
threshold is met or exceeded, based on established criteria and
supporting data, with such a threshold determined with--the concurrence
of the appropriate State and/or local air quality agency. Based on more
clearly defined funding eligibility criteria and guidance, States and
localities should have discretion in determining which qualifying
projects receive funding.
Finally, STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that State and local air
quality agencies have a more defined and consistent role in the
evaluation and selection of CMAQ projects. We believe the concurrence
of State and local air quality agencies must be required for project
selection, through a well-defined consultation and concurrence process.
In Oregon, this concurrence has occurred through the ongoing
interagency consultation process that we established under the
conformity rule.
transportation conformity
STAPPA and ALAPCO remain firmly committed to the purpose of
transportation conformity, which is to ensure that shorter-term
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long-term Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) contribute to the timely attainment and
maintenance of healthful air quality and are consistent with the motor
vehicle emissions budgets contained in the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for air quality; we believe that conformity can be implemented as
intended, and that its purpose can be fulfilled with increasing
success.
In numerous areas, the conformity process has improved working
relationships between State and local air quality and transportation
officials by requiring consultation and coordination among agencies.
The process has made air quality and transportation planners more aware
of each others' objectives; resulted in the inclusion in TIPS and RTPs
of additional projects that benefit air quality; and opened up the SIP
development process to more input from the transportation community.
Clearly, this has been the case in Oregon. STAPPA and ALAPCO believe
that we must continue to strive for such successes across the country.
Moreover, our associations strongly believe that the purpose of
conformity--to ensure that transportation plans and programs stay
within the allotted mobile vehicle emissions budget--is absolutely
crucial to achieving clean air goals, especially given the continued
increase in motor vehicle use. While we understand that others seek
changes to the conformity process, STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly endorse
preserving the major conformity requirements and schedules that are now
in place.
For example, we understand that some seek to shorten the planning
horizon for the RTP, so that the plan's conformity determination would
be based on a 10-year horizon versus the current 20-year horizon.
STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly oppose such a change.
Long-term planning, over a 20-year horizon, is imperative to
ensuring that the potential growth in mobile source emissions is
identified, the impact on air quality is assessed and appropriate
adjustments to transportation plans are made accordingly. In planning
for clean air, State and local air agencies must not only chart a
course for achieving healthful air quality, but also for maintaining it
over the long term. Shortening the timeframe over which a
transportation plan is required to demonstrate conformity is extremely
troubling to us because it takes only the first part of our
responsibility--attaining an air quality standard--into account, and
ignores our responsibility to plan for maintenance over the subsequent
20 years. Major transportation investments can have huge air quality
impacts, much of which may not occur for several decades; these
investments can also significantly induce growth. If we eliminate the
responsibility to account for the impact of transportation investments
beyond 10 years, then we eliminate the ability to hold these projects
accountable for their air pollution, and severely compromise our
ability to adequately protect public health.
We also understand that some are seeking to reduce the frequency of
conformity determinations for transportation plans from every 3 years
to every 5 years, and to eliminate the requirement for conformity
determinations on the TIP, currently conducted every 2 years. STAPPA
and ALAPCO oppose these changes, as well.
Regular and timely analyses to demonstrate compliance of
financially constrained TIPs and RTPs with SIP motor vehicle emission
budgets must be maintained. Such continued frequency will ensure that
sound data is generated and allow for the timely improvement of motor
vehicle emission estimates. The result will be improved air quality and
timely progress toward attainment of health-based NAAQS and other air
standards. However, in recognition of the desire of transportation
officials to improve the alignment of conformity timelines, STAPPA and
ALAPCO recommend that the frequency of the conformity analysis on the
TIP and the RTP be synchronized and conducted no less frequently than
once every 3 years.
A final example of a conformity requirement where change is being
sought is the length of the grace period to be allowed before an area
found to be in violation of an air quality standard for the first time
must demonstrate conformity. We understand that some seek to extend the
length of the grace period for such areas from the current 1 year to 3
years. First, we note that Congress has already addressed this issue.
Just 2 years ago, statutory conformity provisions were amended to
provide for a 1-year grace period. Moreover, an extension of this
period to 3 years is of significant concern to our associations. To
allow transportation planning in an area with poor air quality to go
unchecked for 3 years would be a substantial weakening of the
conformity program and of public health protection. While both ozone
and PM2.5 pose dangerous health consequences, PM2.5
is especially dire because of its potentially deadly nature. We believe
the 1-year grace period following formal designation is sufficient in
terms of allowing an area to ramp up to its responsibilities, even for
areas that have never faced nonattainment and conformity before. Most,
if not all, of these areas are already aware of their forthcoming
nonattainment status. In addition, given all of the areas that already
implement conformity, there is now a wealth of experience for new areas
to draw on. At least part of the reason many areas across the country
will become nonattainment for the new ozone and PM2.5
standards is transportation-related sources. This being the case,
postponing for 3 years efforts to address the impact of transportation
plans and programs on air quality is highly imprudent.
STAPPA and ALAPCO believe conformity is working. We believe it is
well worth the effort it requires, given the benefits that will follow
in terms of public health and smart growth. In addition, we believe
that conformity as it is currently structured provides ample
flexibility to States to accommodate individual needs and
circumstances, while maintaining the integrity of the program. Rather
than statutory changes to such things as planning horizons, analysis
frequency and grace periods, STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that State and
local officials should retain the flexibility to resolve issues in the
way that works best at the State and local level. This may involve
revising the emissions budget in a SIP in one area, adding
transportation control measures to a TIP in another area or extending
the air quality planning horizon in yet another area. In each case, the
State and local officials can develop the best solution for their
jurisdictions through a strengthened interagency consultation process.
conclusion
At its winter meeting last month, the National Governors
Association (NGA) reaffirmed its existing policy on ``Transportation
Conformity with the Clean Air Act.'' In that policy, the Governors
state:
With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
Congress took steps to advance two essential national goals:
achieving air quality standards and providing for the
transportation needs of the American people. The Governors
strongly support the attainment of both of these goals and
believe that neither should be sacrificed in pursuit of the
other.
STAPPA and ALAPCO embrace this perspective, as well. To that end,
we are very pleased to have the opportunity to participate with State
environmental commissioners, and their transportation counterparts, in
a dialog initiated by the Environmental Council of the States and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials at
the request of NGA to explore potential areas of common-ground
regarding CMAQ and transportation conformity. Likewise, we look forward
to working with members of this subcommittee, as well as with EPA, U.S.
DOT and other stakeholders, as discussions regarding these two
extremely important programs continue.
Thank you.
______
Statement of S. William Becker, Executive Director, State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA)/Association
of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO)
STAPPA/ALAPCO--CMAQ and Transportation Conformity Principles for
Reauthorization of TEA-21
Transportation is the dominant source of air pollution in our
Nation, posing a significant threat to public health. The State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) endorse
the fundamental principle that transportation and air quality goals
should be harmonized to ensure that our transportation choices
contribute to improving our environment. As we seek to reduce
transportation-related emissions, we recognize the critical importance
of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
program, long-term air quality/transportation planning processes and
close collaboration and cooperation between air quality and
transportation agencies in harmonizing air quality and transportation
goals. As the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
undergoes reauthorization, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge that opportunities
for enhancing these programs and processes be explored.
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
STAPPA and ALAPCO strongly support the CMAQ program, which
appropriately reinforces the interrelationship between the
transportation and air quality planning processes by specifically
recognizing and seeking to ameliorate the transportation sector's
impact on air quality. Over the past 10 years, it has been demonstrated
that CMAQ--which provides a discrete source of funding explicitly set
aside for transportation projects that meet air quality objectives and
for projects that result in sustainable air quality improvement--can
play a significant role in helping States and localities address
transportation-related air pollution problems. As CMAQ undergoes review
as part of the reauthorization of TEA-21, STAPPA and ALAPCO offer the
following principles for enhancing the program:
Role of Air Quality Agencies in CMAQ Project Selection
State and local air quality agencies must have a more
defined and consistent role in the evaluation and selection of CMAQ
projects.
The concurrence of State and local air quality agencies
must be required for project selection, through a well-defined
consultation and concurrence process.
Increase in CMAQ Funds and Expansion of Areas Eligible to Receive
Funding
The historic allocation of CMAQ funds is inadequate to
address transportation-related air quality problems that exist now and
that. will exist in the future. Therefore, overall funding of the CMAQ
program should be increased, to reflect the expanding scope and
magnitude of transportation-related emissions and their impact on air
quality, and in anticipation of new PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas.
CMAQ funding should be apportioned based on the severity
of an area's air quality problem and its population.
The types of areas currently eligible to receive CMAQ
funding ``(i.e., 1-hour ozone, PM10 and CO nonattainment and
maintenance areas) should be expanded to include PM2.5 and
8-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Lareas eligible to receive funding should also
include:
Lareas nearing nonattainment;
Lareas whose transportation-related emissions have an
impact on a nonattainment area; and
Lareas that experience other air quality problems as a
result of transportation-related emissions, including, but not
limited to, hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources.
Project Eligibility
Greater emphasis should be placed on projects that will
result in direct, timely and sustained air quality benefits; criteria
for substantiating such benefits should be established and data to
support the quantification of such benefits should be required.
Certain types of congestion mitigation projects (e.g.,
road and bridge construction and expansion) may have the long-term
effect of inducing growth in vehicle miles traveled and urban sprawl,
and of creating new congestion corridors. CMAQ funding should be
shifted away from such projects unless there is a demonstration that
these projects will result in sustained air quality benefits.
To qualify for CMAQ funds, a project should be required to
demonstrate that a specified minimum air quality benefit threshold is
met or exceeded, based on established criteria and supporting data;
such a threshold should be determined with the concurrence of the
appropriate State and/or local air quality agency.
Funding eligibility criteria and guidance should be more
clearly defined to meet the above objectives.
To the extent that these project eligibility criteria are
followed, States and localities should then have discretion in
determining which qualifying projects receive funding.
Project Funding Beyond Three Years
Project funding beyond 3 years should be allowed and
decided on a case-bycase basis and contingent on a demonstration of
need and continuing air quality benefit.
Such extended project funding should be phased out over
time.
Transportation Conformity
Implementation of transportation conformity as Congress envisioned
it in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 has only
begun to occur within the last few years. Delays in establishing motor
vehicle emissions budgets resulted in the unintended consequence of
protracted use of the less-than-perfect build/no-build test for
determining conformity. However, now that motor vehicle budgets are in
place in nonattainment areas, STAPPA and ALAPCO firmly believe that
conformity can be implemented as intended, and that its purpose--to
ensure that shorter-term Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and
long-term Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) contribute to the timely
attainment of healthful air quality and are consistent with (i.e.,
conform to) the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality--can be fulfilled with
increasing success.
Because the conformity of transportation plans to air quality plans
is critical to achieving clean air goals--particularly given the
continued increase in motor vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled--
preserving the conformity requirements and schedules now in place is
crucial. Specifically, STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend the following:
Frequency of Conformity Determinations
Regular and timely analyses to demonstrate compliance of
constrained TIPs and RTPs with SIP motor vehicle budgets must be
maintained. Such continued frequency will ensure that sound data is
generated and allow for the timely improvement of motor vehicle
emissions estimates. The result will be improved air quality and timely
progress toward attainment of the NAAQS and other air quality goals.
To better harmonize timelines, conformity analyses. on the
TIP and the RTP should be synchronized and conducted no less frequently
than once every 3 years.
In addition, the 18-month SIP ``trigger'' for determining
conformity must be maintained.
Planning Horizon
The 20-year planning horizon for transportation plans must
also be retained. Such long-range planning is imperative to ensuring
that the potential for growth in mobile source emissions is identified,
the impact on air quality is assessed and adjustments to transportation
plans are made accordingly.
______
Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, OR, April 2, 2003.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety--CMAQ
and Conformity Hearing of March 13, 2003
Dear Senator Voinovich: At the March 13th hearing I testified on
behalf of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) about transportation conformity and the
Congestion Mitigation-Air Quality program. At the end of the hearing I
offered to provide additional information concerning how the conformity
and air quality planning processes work in Oregon. Overall, I believe
that transportation conformity works well in Oregon because affected
agencies work cooperatively to achieve conformity's intent: ensure that
transportation decisions and investments do not jeopardize healthful
air quality.
When the conformity rules were implemented in Oregon, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and the State's Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) organized themselves as standing committees to
achieve the required interagency consultation. These committees meet
monthly, and the regular contact allows participants to develop mutual
trust and to identify issues before they become critical problems.
Moreover, transportation and air quality planning is integrated into
the activities of the various agencies through workload sharing.
Typically, an MPO or the ODOT conducts the transportation modeling and
combines the results with the output of the mobile emissions modeling
performed by ODEQ. The product is an estimate of motor vehicle
emissions derived from the efforts of several organizations with a good
understanding of, and a degree of ownership in, the outcome. Whenever
possible, ODEQ utilizes the results of travel modeling that is done for
transportation planning purposes in the air quality planning process.
This minimizes the amount of modeling that is needed and ensures that
the planning processes are coordinated.
This climate of collaboration helped develop of some of the
innovative features first applied in the Portland, Oregon maintenance
plans for ozone and carbon monoxide. One of the features developed in
these plans was the ``TCM Substitution'' process. Transportation
Control Measures (TCM) are motor vehicle emission reduction strategies
in a SIP that are backed by especially strong enforcement requirements.
They include techniques such as expanding public transit services and
designating lanes that are available only to High Occupancy Vehicles.
Normally, changes to TCMs must be formally approved by EPA before those
modifications can take effect. This usually results in a protracted
process. Working with EPA's Region X and the MPO for the Portland area,
DEQ found ways accelerate the procedure and reduce the amount of
effort.
Briefly explained, TCM substitution can be used when ODEQ, EPA and
the MPO agree that a replacement control measure of equal or greater
effectiveness is appropriate. First a substitute measure is identified
using an advisory committee process and that substitute is made
available for public comment. Following a comment period that meets
both Federal and State procedural criteria, comment materials are
provided to EPA for their concurrence. If EPA finds the measure to be
acceptable, Oregon's Environmental Quality Commission is free to adopt
and implement the substitution without a SIP revision. (Please see
enclosure from the Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
details.)
Another feature of the Oregon SIP is a Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budget that extends beyond the duration of the air quality plan. The
addition of new highway capacity typically leads to changes in land use
that can often result in sprawl. In turn, these changes in land use
frequently lead to ever greater demand for highway construction. The
phenomenon is identified as ``induced demand'' and is the reason many
conclude ``you can't build your way out of congestion.'' The
interaction between transportation and land use can be subtle, and it
takes decades for its effects to be felt. Therefore, we feel that a
long planning period is essential to capturing the full consequences of
an area's transportation decisions. To address this concern Oregon DEQ
established motor vehicle emission budgets 10 years beyond the last
year of the SIP to balance the emissions from industry, ordinary
citizens and highway vehicles. This approach to addressing the
``mismatch'' between transportation and air quality planning horizons
can be implemented by any jurisdiction under current law.
In order to effectively evaluate alternatives during the planning
processes, it is necessary to have the analytical tools available that
are capable of assessing the full impacts of the proposed alternatives.
Computer models for predicting travel behaviors are often not sensitive
to the complete range of policy choices that transportation and air
quality planners need to assess. In Oregon, potential solutions to
these problems are discussed and developed by the Oregon Modeling
Steering Committee (OMSC).
The OMSC was organized by ODOT about the same time the conformity
rules took effect, and consists of representatives from the Federal
Highway Administration, State agencies for Housing, Transportation,
Environmental Quality and all of Oregon's MPOs. Through quarterly
meetings and modeling projects of common interest, the OMSC has
provided a vehicle for standardizing and improving travel models across
the State. These efforts allowed the development of new modeling
capabilities that can better inform policymakers of the consequences
their transportation choices will have on the environment, land use and
economic development. The OMSC has also been a forum for sharing
expertise between large and small MPOs and the group has recently
devised a mechanism that allows the temporary sharing of expert
personnel among participating agencies. Such close cooperation broadens
members' professional perspective and nurtures a sense of common
purpose.
These examples illustrate how the interagency consultation process
can address concerns that have been raised about conformity without the
need for changes to the statute. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of STAPPA/ALAPCO and to share this information about
our experience in Oregon. If you or your staff would like further
information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Annette Liebe,
Manager, Air Quality Planning.
______
Substitution of Transportation Control Measures (D2-10-2--Volume 3)
In the event that a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) is not
included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in the timeframe contained for that measure
in this maintenance plan adopted by the Environmental Quality
Commission (EQC), the parties in the interagency consultation process
established pursuant to OAR 340-020-0760 shall assess whether such
measure continues to be appropriate. Where the Metro and the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) concur that a transportation control
measure identified in the SIP is no longer appropriate, the agencies
may initiate the process described in this Appendix to identify and
adopt a substitute transportation control measure.
A substitute TCM must provide for equivalent or greater emissions
reductions than the measure contained in the maintenance plan. In
addition, a replacement measure must be implemented in the timeframe
established for the measure contained in this plan. Where such
implementation date has already passed, funding based measures selected
pursuant to this Appendix must be included in the first year of the
next TIP and long range plan adopted by Metro. The substitution process
described in this Appendix may be a basis for a finding of timely
implementation under OAR 340-020-0840 for no more than 2 years after
the implementation date established for the measure to be replaced.
Metro will convene a committee (or working group) to identify and
evaluate possible substitute measures. The committee shall include
members from all affected jurisdictions, State and/or local air quality
agencies and local transportation agencies. In addition, the working
group shall consult with EPA. Consultation with EPA may be accomplished
by sending copies of all draft and final documents, agendas and reports
to EPA Region 10.
Metro, DEQ, and EPA Region 10 must concur with the appropriateness
and equivalency of the substitute TCM. All substitute measures must be
adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission following the. public
comment period and EPA's 14-day concurrence period described below. The
measure to be replaced shall stay in effect until the substitute
measure has been adopted.
The TCM to be replaced must be rescinded for the new TCM
substituted pursuant to this Appendix to be effective. By adopting a
substitution under this Appendix, the EQC formally rescinds the
previously applicable TCM and adopts the substitute measures.
Prior to adopting a substitute measure under this Appendix, the
substitute transportation control,measure(s) must have been subject to
a public hearing and comment process. This means there must be at least
one public hearing on the substitution. The hearing can only be held
after reasonable public notice which will be considered to include, at
least 30 days prior to the hearing:
notice given to the public by prominent advertising in the
area affected announcing the date time and place of the hearing;
availability of each proposed plan or revision for public
inspection in at least one location in each region to which it, will
apply;
notification to interested parties in accordance with the
Oregon Administrative Procedures Act;
notification to the Administrator (through the Region 10
Office);
notification to the Southwest Washington Air Pollution
Control Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology; and
notification of the chief executives of affected local
governments, planning agencies, transportation agencies, environmental
control agencies, and economic development agencies.
A description of the measure(s) and analysis supporting the
proposal, including assumptions and methodology, must be made available
to the public, DEQ, and EPA Region 10 within a reasonable time before
the public hearing, and at least 30 days prior to the close of the
comment period. DEQ shall submit to EPA Region 10 a summary of comments
received during the public comment period along with DEQ's responses
following the close of the public comment period. EPA shall notify DEQ
within 14 days if the Agency's concurrence with the substitution has
changed as a result of the public comments. Where EPA fails to notify
DEQ within 14 days, EPA is deemed to concur.
The analysis of substitute measures under this Appendix must be
consistent with the methodology used for evaluating measures in the
maintenance plan. Where emissions models and/or transportation models
have changed since those used, for purposes, of evaluating measures in
the maintenance plan, the TCM replaced and the substitute measure(s)
shall be evaluated using the latest modeling techniques to demonstrate
equivalent or greater emissions reductions will be achieved through
implementation of the substitute measure(s).
Key methodologies and assumptions that must be consistent, and
reconciled in the event of a discrepancy, are, for example:
EPA approved regional and hot-spot (for CO and
PM10) emissions models;
the area's transportation model; and
population and employment growth projections.
DEQ will maintain documentation of approved TCM substitutions. The
documentation, will also provide a description of the substitute and
replaced TCMs, including the requirements and schedules. The
documentation will also provide a description of the substitution
process including the committee or working group members, the public
hearing and comment process, EPA's concurrence, and EQC adoption. The
documentation will be submitted to EPA following adoption of the
substitute measure by the EQC, and made available to the public as an
attachment to the maintenance plan. See Section 4.51.4.4, Maintenance
Plan Commitments.
__________
Statement of W. Gerald Teague, M.D., Professor and Vice Chairman of
Clinical Affairs, Director, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department
of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine
Good morning. I am Dr. Gerald Teague, Professor of Pediatrics at
the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. I would like to
thank Senators Voinovich and Carper and the Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works for inviting me here today.
health effects of urban air pollution
As many of us in this room already know, outdoor air quality is
known to affect respiratory health. Studies done over 10 years ago in
children seen at Grady Hospital, an inner city hospital that serves
primarily minorities, established a clear relationship between exposure
to unhealthy levels of ozone and increased symptoms of asthma (White et
al). Other studies done in Atlanta showed that airborne particles,
apart from ozone, can also increase respiratory symptoms in children
(Tolbert et al). As a pediatrician who practices in Atlanta, a city
which has not met U.S. air quality standards, I regularly care for
children with asthma attacks caused by air pollution episodes.
The evidence that air quality significantly impacts health is not
limited to breathing problems like asthma. The link between particulate
pollution and increased deaths due to heart attacks and arrhythmias in
adults is clearly established (Samet et al). Evidence is also mounting
that air quality is directly linked to the risk of lung cancer,
childhood leukemia, complications of pregnancy like low birth weight,
prematurity, and possibly congenital heart defects.
importance of traffic congestion
Since the 1950's, we have known that vehicle exhaust fumes play a
major role in the deterioration of air quality in urban areas (CMAQ).
The Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, authorized the EPA to cap pollutants
emitted from a wide range of sources to meet air quality standards and
preserve human health. As a result of this legislation, the air is much
cleaner today than it was in 1970. However, the prevalence of asthma in
urban areas has increased significantly, and an estimated 62 million
Americans live in areas where the air quality does not meet the health-
based standards. Furthermore, the United States has experienced a
staggering increase in traffic congestion (CMAQ). From 1982 to 1997,
traffic congestion increased by 45 percent in metropolitan Atlanta.
introduction to the atlanta olympics study
All of this leads me to the questions we face today. What happens
when a city makes a well-organized, highly collaborative, and
aggressive attempt to decrease automobile traffic congestion? Can such
a strategy work in terms of decreasing traffic volumes and traffic
congestion, and increasing traffic flow? If it does, what impact would
this have on the air quality of that city? And what impact would this
improvement in air quality, in turn, have on the health of the
residents of that city?
The 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta provided an opportunity to
answer these questions. To set the stage, Atlanta was preparing to be
host to an additional 1 million visitors during the 17 days of the
Olympic Games. These visitors would be concentrated in the downtown
area, where traffic congestion was already a very serious problem.
methods to reduce traffic congestion during the 1996 atlanta olympic
games
In response, the city of Atlanta, the Department of Transportation,
and the Atlanta Committee of the Olympic Games along with local
business leaders came together to develop and enact a comprehensive
traffic mitigation strategy which included the following key
components:
Expand and encourage use of public transportation--24 hour
bus and rapid rail services, additional buses
Promote alternative commuting practices to shift travel
away from rush hour periods--telecommuting, flex hours, etc.
Media warnings of particularly severe traffic congestion
Highway improvements--additional lanes, widened lanes
Traffic restrictions around the venue
study methods
To do this study, we measured acute care visits for asthma, mean
air pollution concentrations, weather variables, traffic counts, public
transportation use, and monthly gasoline sales during the 17 days of
the Olympics. This was compared to a baseline period consisting of the
4 weeks before and after the Olympics.
results
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90365.002
During the Olympics, acute asthma events decreased 42 percent in
the Georgia Medicaid Claims file, 44 percent in a health maintenance
organization, 11 percent in 2 pediatric emergency rooms, and 19 percent
in the Georgia Hospital Discharge data base (see figure above).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90365.003
Peak daily ozone concentrations decreased 28 percent from 81.3 ppb
during the baseline period to 58.6 ppb during the Olympics (see figure
above).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90365.004
Peak weekday AM traffic counts decreased 22.5 percent (see figure
above).
conclusions
Efforts to reduce downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the
Olympics resulted in decreased automobile use, especially during the
critical morning rush hours. These changes were associated with a
prolonged period of low ozone pollution and significantly lower rates
of childhood asthma events. This study provides evidence in support of
efforts to reduce air pollution and improve health via reductions in
motor vehicle traffic.
______
Olympic Asthma Study Media Fact Sheet
Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague, WG. Impact
of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996
Summer Olympic Games in on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001;
285(7): 897-905.
1. Our study showed that decreased city-wide use of automobiles in
Atlanta during the Olympics led to improved air quality and a large
decrease in childhood asthma events.
2. Automobile use decreased most dramatically during the weekday
morning rush hour period, which we believe is a critical time period
for the buildup of ozone pollution latter in the day.
3. Dramatic increases in public transportation use and the
widespread implementation of alternative downtown commuting schedules
resulted in the observed decrease in automobile use. Strategies to
decrease rush hour commuting included closure of the downtown area to
car traffic, flextime, carpooling, telecommuting, and promotion of
commuting alternatives through the media. Cooperation between city
government, ACOG, local businesses, the local media, and residents of
Atlanta ensured the success of these strategies.
4. Our findings are consistent with other studies linking poor air
quality to increased asthma events and decreased lung function in
children.
5. Our study is important because: (1) it provides evidence that
decreasing automobile use can reduce the burden of asthma in our
cities. (2) City-wide efforts to reduce rush hour automobile traffic
through the use of public transportation and altered work schedules is
possible in America.
6. Atlanta's inner-city children on Medicaid seemed to benefit the
most from this Olympic experiment in city transportation planning.
7. While some Atlantans may have left the city during the Olympics,
we found that overall emergency medical visits did not change while
emergency asthma visits did, suggesting this was a real decrease.
8. The decrease in automobile use was driven by the Olympics; the
question is whether there can be such a dramatic change in car usage
under more routine and sustainable conditions.
9. We believe that sustainable transportation changes are possible
if city governments, businesses, and city residents have a strong
desire to reduce automobile pollution, and work together in innovative
ways to accomplish this.
10. We hope that this study spurs interest in the development and
use of near emission-free cars in our cities. The technology and
practical application of such cars already exist. Efforts now need to
focus on how to encourage and promote their use over the next 5 years.
11. Asthma is a very complicated disease with many possible causes.
Air pollution and automobile congestion is only one factor in why a
person's asthma may flare up. Efforts to decrease automobile emissions
and improve air quality will not help everyone's asthma. But as our
study shows, it may have a significant impact on the burden of asthma,
especially in our inner-cities.
References
1. Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague, WG.
Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the
1996 Summer
Olympic Games in on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001;
285(7): 897-905.
2. White MC, Etzel RA, Wilcox WD, Lloyd C. Exacerbations of
childhood asthma and ozone pollution in Atlanta. Environ Res 1994;
65:56-68.
3. Tolbert P, Mulholland JA, MacIntosh DL, et al. Air quality and
pediatric emergency room visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia. Am J
Epidemiol 2000; 151: 798-810.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway
Administration. The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program. Publication No. FHWA-EP-00-020.
5. Samet JM, Dominici F, Curriero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL. Fine
particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities 1987-1994. N
Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1742-1749.
__________
Statement of Michael Replogle, Transportation Director,
Environmental Defense
Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael Replogle, and I serve as
Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense
is a leading, national, NY-based nonprofit organization, representing
300,000 members, that links science, economics, and law to create
innovative, economically viable solutions to today's environmental
problems. I serve as Chair of the Energy and Environment Issue Team of
the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and today also speak on
behalf of the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders
of Wildlife, Center for Community Change, America Walks, the Southern
Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, Metropolitan
Atlanta Transportation Equity Coalition, the Tri-State Transportation
Campaign (based in New York), and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss transportation and
air quality, especially focusing on transportation conformity and the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and to offer our
views as the subcommittee begins work in reauthorizing TEA-21. I want
to incorporate by reference the extensive testimony I provided on
transportation and air quality issues to the full Senate EPW hearing on
July 30, 2002. I stand by that testimony.
transportation conformity: a key element in timely attainment
of healthy air
Conformity is a principal way to keep the transportation system
accountable to public health, air quality and the environment. In the
12 years, since TEA-21 was enacted, the science linking emissions from
the transportation sector to public health has confirmed, time and
again, the powerful link between health and the environment. Conformity
is way to balance the checkbook, to keep track of air quality impacts
and spur greater efficiency in the transportation system. Without
conformity, money will be spent on transportation without this basic
accountability.
Clean Air Act (CAA) transportation conformity requires
transportation plans that are designed to achieve motor vehicle
emission within the pollution limits established in State air pollution
implementation plans (SIPs). Conformity was strengthened in the 1990
CAA Amendments to require quantitative emission limits so
transportation plans could be held accountable for their performance,
and to assure that transportation and air quality planners would
coordinate their activities.
Conformity was strengthened because, since adoption of the 1970
CAA, growth in the number of vehicle miles traveled and related
transportation emissions had been routinely underestimated, leading to
repeated failure of many metropolitan areas to attain healthful air
quality by established deadlines. Despite the adoption of far cleaner
vehicle and fuel technologies, air pollution from motor vehicles--then
and now--continues to harm the health of millions of our citizens.
Today, it is clear that, despite setbacks that have delayed and
hampered its implementation, transportation conformity has been
successful in many ways.
It has spurred broad support for timely implementation of
cleaner vehicle technologies, fuels, and vehicle maintenance
initiatives.
It has spurred adoption of strategies to reduce traffic
and related pollution growth by expanding transportation choices and
better managing transportation systems.
Conformity has made it routine business for transportation
planners to consider the air quality implications of alternative
policies and investments and fostered much better interagency
coordination.
Conformity: Like Balancing Your Checkbook. Transportation
conformity has been most effective behind the scenes, providing timely
information to decisionmakers to motivate action to reduce pollution
and protect public health. Most conformity success stories have gone
unreported and little noticed, while the complaints from some
transportation officials about the nuisance of transportation
conformity are often recounted.
Conformity is a lot like balancing your checkbook--it's not a fun
way to spend your time, but its vital to the health of your household
or business in the long run that it be done. Doing it routinely,
frequently, and with the most accurate, up-to-date information
available helps avoid surprises, bounced checks, and overdrafts that
can result from untimely failure to record an ATM banking transaction,
catch checkbook register arithmetic errors, or mis-recording of data,
thereby protecting one's financial health and reputation. So too
metropolitan areas doing frequent conformity analysis can catch early
errors in forecasting motor vehicle emissions that result from changes
in assumptions--such as the share of SUVs and light trucks vs.
passenger cars, job and housing patterns, transit fares, parking rates,
or improved travel behavior data--or from mistakes in transportation
and emissions modeling and analysis. Timely updates to modeling
assumptions improve accountability and protect the integrity of
transportation and air quality planning.
However, some highway officials argue that there is a ``timing
mismatch'' between the transportation and air quality planning process.
They advocate ``fixing'' this by reducing the frequency of conformity
analyses, limiting the future time horizon for air quality analysis,
and by allowing use of out-of-date assumptions and data for conformity
analysis. Such proposals would greatly weaken transportation conformity
and make it likely that regional air quality control strategies will
fail for the third time since enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970.
These proposals would put off for another generation the day when all
Americans might breathe healthful air. Congress should reject these
proposals that threaten public health and the environment.
To explain why, I'd like to recount several conformity success
stories, including a recent one here in the Washington, DC-northern
Virginia-suburban Maryland area. Successes like these would be
imperiled by ill-advised proposals from some highway officials.
Frequent Conformity Checks Deliver Timely Correction of Emission
Reduction Shortfalls. In July 2001, Washington-area officials sought to
update the region's transportation plan more than a year before its
conformity finding was due to expire, so they could include several new
regionally significant highway projects. The area's Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), in a routine update of modeling
assumptions, found mobile source emissions exceeding the SIP emission
limits by about 8 tons per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) when the
growing use of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks was
accounted for, as these vehicles produce significantly more pollution
per mile driven than standard cars. This finding was an early warning
that additional emission reduction strategies needed to be adopted
before new road projects could be added to the transportation plan.
Officials formed a task force to consider reopening the SIP to allow
for more motor vehicle pollution by finding offsets from other emission
sources or fixing the conformity problem by adopting added emission
reduction measures. Over the course of a year, area officials
deliberated, and eventually settled on three major types of actions
which each contributed significantly to address the conformity problem
within the transportation planning process:
The MPO refined their models to better account for
emissions and for emission reducing measures already being implemented
by the District of Columbia and other jurisdictions, but not previously
credited by planners.
The State of Maryland advanced a $42 million package of
new transportation emission reduction strategies, including buying
clean buses, improving pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, and
supporting transit oriented development and telework.
The State of Virginia cut back its proposed short-term
road program for 2005 by 100 lane miles of new road capacity
(representing about 0.5 percent of 2005 modeled road capacity), which
the MPO estimated would result in a 1 percent reduction in regional
mobile source NOx, a 0.1 percent decrease in VOC, a 0.6 percent
reduction in daily VMT, and a 1.3 percent increase in daily transit
trips.\1\ And Virginia taxpayers saved $800 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kirby, Ronald. F., ``Emissions Estimates Associated with the
2002 CLRP and fiscal year 2003-08 TIP, and Potential Transportation
Emissions Reductions Measures (TERMs), memorandum of June 28, 2002 to
Transportation Planning Board, Washington, DC, Attachment 1, ``New 2005
Emissions Calculations Reflecting Changes In the Six-Year Plan and
Certain Posted Speed Limits in Virginia''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If proposals being pushed by some transportation officials and road
lobby groups to reduce the frequency of required conformity analysis of
regional transportation plans to every 5 years or to allow the use of
obsolete data assumptions for conformity analysis had been in effect,
this $42 million package of emission reduction measures would almost
certainly not have been funded. Awareness of the emission benefits of
reduced road expansion--driven by fiscal problems more than by the
pressures of transportation conformity--would have gone unnoted. The
MPO would have devoted less time and resources to considering
strategies to reduce emissions and traffic growth.
If the region had been allowed to use old data for conformity
analysis of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and regional
transportation plans, the region's officials would have been able to
add major new highway projects to the plan at a time when it was clear
that motor vehicle emissions would far exceed the pollution budget
established in the SIP, almost guaranteeing that the region would not
be able to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2005, after it had
already missed the 1999 deadline for meeting that standard that was set
in the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Our families here in the Washington region would face worse health
problems from breathing the air. The ``fixes'' proposed by some highway
officials ostensibly to ``align planning horizons and frequency of
updates for transportation plans and SIPs'' would actually have the
effect of reducing the timely alignment of transportation and air
quality plans, leading to much dirtier air, more sick kids, more
premature deaths from respiratory problems, and more damage to the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and other ecosystems caused by excess air
pollution from motor vehicles.
Twenty-Year Conformity Planning Horizon: Vital to Considering Long-
Term Effects of Transportation Investments. I'd like to recount another
relatively unheralded conformity success story that would have been put
in peril by the ``fixes'' proposed by AASHTO and the road lobby. In the
mid-1990's, it became clear that Charlotte, North Carolina's 20-year
transportation plan would not stay within the pollution limits set in
the region's air quality plan. This helped prompt local officials to
consider and adopt a new 2025 Transit Land/Use plan for Charlotte-
Mecklenburg with bus rapid transit and light rail to support the five
major transportation and development corridors. Funding for the plan is
coming from a combination of local, State, and Federal funding,
including a half cent local sales tax approved in 1998 by Mecklenburg
County voters to expand bus and rapid transit improvements. The
requirement that the regional transportation conform 20 years into the
future was a vital element in motivating this regional progress and
action to curb pollution while expanding transportation choices.
Indeed, the proposal by the road lobby to weaken conformity by
having it apply only to the first 10 years of the RTP or to the last
horizon year in the SIP threaten to cause a renewed widespread failure
of SIP control strategies. Such a proposal would allow major projects,
such as new outer beltways, to advance far into planning, development,
and construction before accounting more fully for their profound long-
term impacts on regional growth and traffic patterns, and related air
pollution. The unsophisticated regional traffic models currently in use
by most MPOs are already too insensitive to induced traffic and land
use effects. This proposal would exacerbate this problem. Some State
DOTs complain that they must make up for pollution growth from traffic
in the out years of their 20-year transportation plans, without help
from SIP control strategies after the attainment year. While SIPs are
not required to adopt control strategies beyond the attainment year
until the attainment year is reached and requirements for a 10-year
maintenance plan are triggered, at least a half dozen States have
adopted SIP control strategies that extend beyond or begin after the
attainment year, to help transportation agencies deal with this
problem.
But this problem would not materialize if metropolitan areas
adopted development policies that combine transit oriented development
with the implementation of comprehensive regional transit programs. To
eliminate the obligation of the transportation agencies to account for
the long-range impats of the choices they make will force other
emissions sources to bear the entire cost of future emission
reductions.
Adoption of Emission Controls For Years After Attainment Deadline:
Ready Solution to Emissions Growth Issues. For example, Denver was
faced with a terrible particulate matter (PM) problem in the 1980's.
Agencies began taking action against wood burning. There was progress
made during this period, but PM was still measuring 185 g/m3
compared to the NAAQS of 150 g/m3. Conformity made
transportation planning and air quality agencies look at other sources
of PM. They started looking at street maintenance practices and
implemented street sanding and sweeping strategies in the mid-1990's as
a short-term emission reduction measure. Strategies have been
implemented beyond the initial strategies adopted as part of the
Colorado SIP. Within 2 years PM level dropped to 80 g/m3.
Conformity spurred Denver to also build into regional plans enough
maintenance plan measures to meet long-term health standards through
2015. Conformity provided additional incentive for developing light
rail in Denver since it would provide long-term help to mitigate the PM
problem. Conformity also led to the development of Metro Vision 2020
which includes a commitment by metro area governments to limit growth
to a 730-square mile area and has committed the region to
transportation alternatives to support this goal. Denver also has a
number of travel demand management (TDM) strategies in their long range
plan such as a RideArrangers program and a telework program. They do
not take credit for TDM system management in the 2025 conformity
finding, but they recognized the potential for reduction and retain
them as a safety margin in meeting the emissions budget.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are recognized in the Clean
Air Act as a key part of attaining and maintaining healthful air
quality. Some regions have used them extensively to help assure
progress on clean air, including them in their plans even well beyond
the attainment year of the SIP. For example, TCMs represent nearly 5
percent of total emission reductions in the San Joaquin region of
California. The MPO projects that TCMs will deliver as much as 10
percent reduction in emissions by 2020. In San Joaquin County
rideshare, vanpool, and commuter rail provide significant emissions
reductions, with a large percentage of San Joaquin County residents
facing long distance commutes into the San Francisco Bay Area.
Conformity: A Key to Coordination Between Transportation and Air
Quality Agencies. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, conformity
has been a significant factor fostering local, regional, and national
political support for cleaner fuels and vehicles and inspection and
maintenance programs that have helped produce more timely progress
toward attainment of healthful air quality. In that period, conformity
has been the single greatest factor promoting interagency cooperation
between transportation and air quality agencies at the State, local,
and Federal levels. Prior to 1990, transportation agencies paid no
attention to the air quality consequences of transportation investments
and plans. But in recent years, many metropolitan areas have adopted
changes to their transportation plans and programs to help reduce
traffic growth and emissions. Consideration of air quality impacts of
investments has become a routine matter in many metropolitan areas
where pollution problems are more severe. In most regions with serious
air quality problems, officials and staff of air agencies and
transportation agencies routinely meet and work together to help foster
effective program administration that delivers progress on both
mobility and air quality goals.
For example, Atlanta's conformity problems led the Governor to
create a new regional authority responsible for better planning and
funding transportation, air quality, and growth management in Georgia's
non-attainment areas in an effort to fix a broken interagency
cooperation process. The political impetus to accomplish this was
obtained only once the transportation plan conformity finding expired.
Had the road builder's proposal for a once in 5 year conformity review
been in force, informed observers can have little doubt this governance
reform would have faced insurmountable obstacles.
And while road builders have often raised the spectre of
transportation conformity causing major disruptions to transportation
programs, there have been no such disruptions. Even in Atlanta, where
the longest conformity lapse of consequence to date took place, the
region lost no transportation funding but instead redirected several
hundred million dollars of funds from sprawl-inducing, pollution-
generating roads into projects that reduced pollution and into safety
and system improvements that would not increase emissions.
Proposals to reduce the frequency and time horizon for conformity
analysis and to allow use of obsolete assumptions for conformity will
not make the system work better. Instead, by reducing incentives for
agency coordination they will make the system less efficient.
Conformity works well when transportation and air quality experts work
closely together on a routine basis, to plan and implement highway and
transit investments and air pollution reduction strategies. Conformity,
and the current schedule of deadlines, gives these agencies a powerful
incentive to work together. The deadlines are also spaced just far
enough apart to allow problems to be identified early--before they
become crises that threaten air quality targets.
If the minimum frequency of conformity determinations for
transportation plans is set at 5 years, and if the life of a short-term
transportation funding program conformity finding is extended beyond
the current 2 years, as some propose, this will likely be too far apart
to detect and correct significant increases in emissions, especially in
fast-growing metropolitan areas where vehicle miles traveled or the use
of SUVs and light trucks grows, or to account in a timely way for
important new data on housing, employment, and travel patterns produced
periodically by the U.S. Census and other sources.
Conformity Time Frames Must Be Keyed to Attainment Schedules. The
ultimate purpose of conformity is to ensure that motor vehicle
emissions are reduced to the levels required by the States in the SIPs
to attain the national health standards. For the Clean Air Act to work,
all emissions in an area must be reduced to the allowable levels
established in the SIP by the deadline for attainment, and kept within
those levels thereafter.
Updates of motor vehicle emissions must be coordinated with the
Act's attainment deadline. In areas where the deadline has been
extended, emissions updates must also be coordinated with the
milestones set for making interim progress toward attainment. If the
motor vehicle emissions analyses required for conformity are not
coordinated with important CAA deadlines, then there is no possibility
for taking corrective action to reduce motor vehicle emissions to meet
the emission-reduction targets that must be met to attain the national
standards.
The key points when emissions targets must be met are the
attainment date, and the 3-year interim milestones that are required to
ensure progress toward attainment. All the intervals between these
dates are 3 years, or less.
For example, the Act's default schedule for nonattainment areas
allows less than 3 years between the time the limit on motor vehicle
emissions, i.e., the ``motor vehicle emissions budget,'' established in
the SIP by the State, and the date when the area is required to attain
the NAAQS. Unless EPA grants an extension, States are required to
submit a SIP for each nonattainment area within 3 years after
designation as nonattainment, and the SIP is required to provide for
attainment within 5 years after designation. See CAA section 172(b).
That means an area is only allowed 2 years from the time the motor
vehicle emissions budget is established in the SIP until the attainment
date when motor vehicle emissions must meet the budget.
If the conformity analysis is not required for 5 years, the
conformity process would be disconnected from moving an area toward
attainment of the NAAQS because the transportation agencies would not
have to analyze emissions, or take corrective action to revise their
transportation plans and TIPs, during the period when emissions must be
reduced. This entire process would become irrelevant. Then the
transportation agencies would come back 5 years from now and ask for
repeal because conformity had become a paper exercise that no longer
served any air quality purpose. To ensure that conformity continues to
play a very important role in attaining the NAAQS, the schedule for
conformity reviews must remain closely coordinated with statutory
timeframes for achieving emissions reductions.
Another set of important emissions reduction targets mandated by
the Act are the 3-year milestones established for areas that have
extended attainment dates. The Act allows EPA to set later attainment
dates than the 5-year deadline required by section 172(b), but also
requires interim reductions to achieve ``reasonable further progress.''
See sections 171(1), 172(c)(2) generally. Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires
the adoption of measures to achieve at least 9 percent reductions in
emissions every 3 years, and 182(g) requires the States to determine if
actual emissions comply with the milestones at the end of each 3-year
period.
To establish milestones for total emissions in an area, motor
vehicle emissions must be determined for the area as well as stationary
source emissions. To determine compliance at the end of a milestone,
motor vehicle emissions must again be analyzed. The 3-year schedule for
conformity was intended to ensure that the transportation agencies
would be determining motor vehicle emissions around the time that
milestone compliance demonstrations are required by the Act. If
conformity is determined every 5 years, the emissions estimates will
not be available for the States to make their compliance
demonstrations. More importantly, the transportation agencies will have
no obligation to take corrective action when a milestone is violated as
a result of motor vehicle emissions that exceed the budgets in the SIP.
Corrective action will not be required until a new conformity
determination is required, which could be as much as 4 years later.
In short, the Act can't work as intended if the conformity schedule
is not coordinated with the key statutory deadlines for emissions
reductions. Nor will the transportation agencies be as likely to
receive cooperation from the State in the development of additional
emissions to solve excess motor vehicle emissions. Under current law,
sections 182(c)(5) and 182(g)(3), when motor vehicle emissions exceed
SIP levels, the State is required to submit additional measures to
reduce motor vehicle emissions back down to the levels used to
demonstrate attainment in the SIP. If these State obligations are not
coordinated with conformity determinations, the transportation agencies
may not get timely help to prevent or resolve a conformity lapse.
Transportation agencies and others, such as the authors of the
misguided January 2003 Resources for the Future (RFF) Report,
Exhausting Options, who propose to relax the current conformity
schedule do not discuss any of these coordination issues, or the
potential adverse impacts on implementation of the Act if the schedules
are no longer coordinated. They only consider the burdens on
transportation agencies that result from the obligation to keep
transportation emissions within the limits required by the States' air
quality plans. A balanced approach to these issues is required to
ensure that the Act remains an effective tool for achieving a safe air
supply for every American. The evidence in the RFF Report demonstrates
that while significant efforts are required to keep motor vehicle
emissions within bounds, the cooperative efforts of air and
transportation agencies has produced effective solutions to these
challenges. This kind of effective partnership was a goal of the Act,
and is working. Emissions are being kept in bounds and the public is
being well served.
Air Agency Performance Needs to Be Enhanced. Rather than
disconnecting the schedule for conformity determinations from the other
schedules in the Act, the committee should require effective
implementation of the corrective measures required of the State air
agencies and EPA. EPA supplied this committee with responses to
questions transmitted at the hearing last summer which indicate that,
aside from California, almost all States with serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas have not submitted the milestone compliance
demonstrations for 1999 required by section 182(g). Even more
disturbing, EPA States in its response to Question 16: ``We sent no
correspondence addressing State failures to submit milestone compliance
demonstrations.'' EPA has been derelict in not taking action to require
emissions updates needed to determine if the States are on track toward
attainment, and to require corrective action if they are not.
Implementing this requirement of the Act would go a long way toward
resolving the complaints from the transportation agencies that the
States are not updating their SIPs to overcome shortfalls in achieving
the emissions reductions needed for conformity, milestone compliance
and attainment.
Effects of Conformity Fix on New NAAQS Attainment and on Use of
2000 Census Data. Let's look at how the road builder's package of
conformity ``deadline mismatch fixes'' might affect the timeliness of
considering new information, data, and control strategy requirements.
Data from the 2000 Census journey-to-work survey is
expected to become available in late 2003. Many MPOs continue to use
inadequate transportation analysis models that were calibrated on
travel data from the early or mid-1990's on 1990 Census data. Many MPOs
are anticipating revisions to their travel forecasting models using
2000 Census data so they can better reflect current travel patterns and
behavior. It is not uncommon for a major MPO model update to take 18-24
months, which means improved analysis methods and data to support
conformity analysis may become available in late 2005. But a new
conformity analysis of a 10-year regional transportation plan, based on
a deficient travel model based on obsolete 1990 travel data, might be
adopted in the fall of 2005 and, under the road lobby's proposal, this
analysis would continue to be valid until late 2010, after the
expenditure of all the funds authorized in a new 6-year transportation
bill. In the meantime, major pollution-increasing transportation
projects could proceed to be approved and funded for construction
without any consideration of their emissions impacts, even if the
revised travel data and model shows that the previous 1990-data based
model significantly underestimated emissions.
The MOVES model, which will update the Mobile 6 emission
factor model for mobile sources, is anticipated to be made available by
EPA in the fall of 2005, and will become mandatory for use in SIPs and
conformity analysis by 2007. A conformity analysis made in 2006 might
rely on by then out-of-date Mobile 6 emission estimates, but would not
need to be updated and replaced with a new regional plan conformity
finding until 2011, 6 years after the issuance of the improved MOVES
model, which is likely to lead to significant changes in the estimation
of mobile source emissions. In the meantime, major pollution-increasing
transportation projects could proceed to be approved and funded for
construction without any consideration of their emissions impacts, even
if the MOVES model shows that the Mobile 6 emission estimates were
significantly underestimated.
The 8-hour ozone designations to be made by EPA in April
2004 are not anticipated to require adoption of SIPs and motor vehicle
emission budgets until 2007. The first conformity analysis will be
required for newly designated areas 1 year after designation in 2005.
The SIP for such areas will be required to provide for attainment by
2009 (see section 172(b)), but the next conformity demonstration would
not be required until 2010. Thus, if the transportation plan is not
adequate to reduce motor vehicle emissions to the level required for
attainment, there would be no requirement to change the plan before the
attainment deadline. As a result, the area would fail to attain and
another SIP would be required. Thus, a new conformity finding made in
early 2007 for a 10-year regional transportation plan might continue to
be valid until 2012, allowing a network of new outer beltways to be
approved for construction in 2010 or 2011 which would result in massive
sprawl, traffic growth, and pollution without considering the impact on
the region's capacity to meet the deadline for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard in 2012. The burden for emissions reduction required for
attainment would fall on stationary and area sources, small businesses,
and consumers, while giving the road construction industry a free pass
to build new roads that cause substantially greater pollution at
taxpayer expense. All the funds authorized in a new 6-year
transportation bill would be spent before considering the impacts of 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards on the road
building industry, even if it was clear that the transportation plan
approved in 2007 would make it impossible to attain the new NAAQS by an
extended 2010 or 2012 deadline.
Helping Conformity Work Better. Instead of the statutory ``fixes''
sought by the road lobby, schedule coordination should come from better
interagency coordination and by ensuring that EPA carries out its
obligations to review the adequacy of SIPs every 3 years, not through
relaxing the frequency of accounting system checks and balances.
If there is any statutory adjustment to conformity, it should
assure that areas in a conformity lapse will be able to add new
emission-reducing transportation projects to non-conforming short-term
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and long-range transportation
plans, even if those projects were not previously contained in a
conforming, fiscally constrained TIP or plan. This is discussed in
greater detail in Attachment 1 to this testimony, which is the response
I offered to this Committee to followup questions after the July 30,
2002 hearing on transportation and air quality.
Promote Performance-Oriented Planning Systems. Better interagency
coordination and air quality and transportation planning, and more
timely project delivery, could also result from a requirement that all
State and metropolitan areas develop and periodically update, with
public involvement, coordinated transportation, natural resource
protection, and growth management plans that consider alternative
scenarios that considerably reduce traffic growth and enhance
environmental performance through better system management. Such an
activity would fit naturally within a new environmental management
system for transportation agencies. Such a system should be supported
by annual reports on the current and projected performance of
transportation system management, investment, and proposed programs and
plans, accounting for cumulative and secondary impacts on growth
patterns, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, the achievement of
natural resource planning goals for air, water, and habitat protection,
and the provision of equal access to jobs and public facilities for all
residents, including those without cars, without undue time and cost
burdens. Short of a mandate for such activities, the Congress could
offer a 100 percent Federal funding share for these activities to
encourage their voluntary adoption by States and MPOs.
Enforce Fiscal Constraint and Travel Modeling Requirements.
Congress should also take steps to assure that EPA and FHWA will better
comply with the Clean Air Act and transportation planning laws. Traffic
and emission forecasts often rely on unsupportable assumptions that go
unquestioned in the interagency review process. FHWA and EPA have
failed to enforce key Clean Air Act and TEA-21 planning requirements
that transportation plans and programs must be fiscally constrained and
show the sources of funding that can be relied upon to implement and
operate them. They have also failed to enforce regulatory requirements
that the effects of congestion and new transportation capacity on
travel time and cost appropriately be ``fed-back'' through the travel
behavior analysis process and reflected in emission and traffic
estimates.
Many MPOs continue to rely on unrealistic and questionable
financial and technical forecasts as they determine the quality and
performance of regional transportation systems in future years,
including the level and price of transit services, the characteristics
of motor vehicles being driven, and the amount of traffic and
emissions. Poor accounting often leads to underestimation of motor
vehicle emissions, making it more likely that State Implementation Plan
(SIP) air pollution control strategies will again fail to deliver on
the promise of healthful air for all Americans, more than 35 years
after the first Clean Air Act. These problems were detailed in my
testimony to the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on
July 30, 2002.
The failure to reflect ``induced'' traffic often leads to
underestimation of emissions. EPA and FHWA should assure that MPO
traffic models used for conformity and project impact analysis
appropriately reflect scientifically established relationships between
travel time, travel cost, and traveler behavior, as reflected in
numerous induced traffic studies. If MPO models do not reflect these
relationships adequately, immediate corrective action should be
required to assure honest accounting for traffic and emissions growth,
with a timely investment in developing best practice analysis methods,
regionally and nationally. These empirical relationships are well
reviewed in a paper by two former EPA scientists, which I attach to
this testimony by reference. Their survey of the literature found that
in general for every 10 percent increase in road lane miles, it is
typical to find a 3 to 11 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled,
with 8 percent being a typical median value. As this paper notes,
Regional transportation planning agencies (or the States)
generally maintain a system of models to forecast and evaluate
the impact of transportation projects and plans. These models
are usually deficient in accurately forecasting emissions
(Transportation Research Board 1995) partially because they do
not adequately account for both short and long run induced
travel effects. This can be partially corrected by building
feedback mechanisms into the models to at least account for
some of the short run impacts (Johnson and Ceerla, 1996 a). Air
quality regulations already require this step for conformity
analysis, though actual practice has generally not kept up with
the regulatory requirement.
Some EPA regions are working with metropolitan planning
organizations to improve the State of the practice in the
modeling of transportation impacts, in particular the impacts
of transportation on land development. Various modeling
packages (none of which are ideal) are available to provide
estimates of land development changes induced by transportation
and accessibility changes. Improved modeling of these impacts
would provide decisionmakers with far better information on the
short-run and long-run emission impact of alternative
transportation plans and are critical for development of State
Implementation Plans that will actually help bring a region
into attainment of the NAAQS. Project selection criteria would
also be vastly improved.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Robert Noland and Lewison Lem, ``A review of induced travel and
changes in transportation and environmental policy in the US and the
UK,'' Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 7, 2002.
Notable improvements to models used for transportation and air
quality planning are being made in many regions, including Portland,
Oregon and Sacramento, California. And other States are making
progress.
Mr. Chairman, the Ohio Department of Transportation has launched a
$6 million program to develop an integrated transportation and land use
model. This work follows the example of Oregon, which has pioneered a
similar State-wide model and which is sharing it with its metro area
planning agencies. And the Columbus Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission is developing an activity-based travel micro-simulation
model which offers the promise of bringing that area's analysis tools
up to best practice standards. These kinds of tools are vital to making
performance-based planning a reality rather than an ill-supported pipe-
dream.
Ensure the Integrity of SIP Attainment Strategies.EPA has issued
guidance that encourages submission of Attainment SIPs that sound
science suggests are unlikely to provide for the attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as they are required to
do. Moreover, EPA has been finding such SIPs adequate and granting them
full approval. Conformity to the emission budgets in these SIPs is
unlikely to result in attainment by the statutory deadlines.
In January 2002, EPA released a new Mobile 6 emission factor model
that metropolitan areas and States must use this year or next year to
update their SIPs. In nearly all metropolitan areas, this improved
model is showing that mobile source emissions of NOx and VOC are
significantly higher than previously estimated for years prior to 2007.
Thus, emissions will be higher than previously thought in the
attainment deadline years that have been established for serious and
severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These substantial excess
emissions in the attainment year are likely to cause the attainment
SIPs to fail unless these emissions are offset by added emission
reductions.
Before accepting new Mobile 6 SIPs as adequate for purposes of
conformity, or as new attainment demonstrations, EPA should require
States to either offset these increased emissions or to use a regional
airshed model to evaluate whether their SIP strategies will be adequate
to demonstrate attainment by the statutory deadlines. However, EPA has
offered States guidance that would allow them to use scientifically
unsupported ``rollback'' methods in lieu of new modeled demonstrations
of attainment with the latest emission inventories and forecasts.
Congress should ask EPA in what areas and by how much emissions
will increase in each SIP milestone and attainment year using Mobile 6,
compared to the emissions estimated using the older Mobile 5 model, and
ask EPA or the States to evaluate with regional airshed models the
effect these increased emissions will have on forecast ozone levels in
various attainment years. Congress should ask EPA to explain the
science behind its assumption of a linear relationship between NOx and
VOC emissions and ozone levels that is at the heart of the EPA weight-
of-evidence and rollback methods for appraising the adequacy of
attainment SIPs, in light of a National Academy of Sciences study
finding that:
Nonlinearities in the response of ozone concentrations to
emission changes generally result in smaller ozone reductions
than might be expected or desired from reducing emissions. For
example, by the year 2000, mobile sources in Los Angeles are
expected to account for about 30 percent of total VOC
emissions. Airshed model calculations indicate that removing
this fraction of VOCs would decrease peak ozone 16 percent from
270 to 230 ppb for the particular set of episode conditions
studied (Russell et al., 1989) . . .
Several recent studies have shown that ozone in rural areas
of the Eastern United States is limited by the availability of
NOx rather than hydrocarbons, and that reductions in NOx
probably will be necessary to reduce rural ozone values.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Research Council, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in
Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, 1991, page 361-363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
assure progress in dealing with local health impacts of
transportation projects
Recent scientific research shows that there are many adverse local
health impacts experienced by those who live close to major highways
carrying large volumes of traffic, including high cancer risk and
multiple adverse health effects related to the exposure to small
particle air toxics. While diesel exhaust is implicated as the largest
contributor to these toxic exposures, all motor vehicles make a
contribution. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II), a Colorado study of
leukemia risk factors, and a California Air Resources Board study of
the Barrio Logan in San Diego have all found that mobile sources
contribute as much as 90 percent to the excess cancer risk people
experience due to exposure to hazardous air pollutants. At a January
2003 panel of the Transportation Research Board annual meeting in
Washington, DC, several US DOT and EPA officials agreed that this was a
serious problem that both agencies are working to develop new policies
to address it. Panelists agreed that hot spot exposures near major
roads and bus terminals represent a significant health threat that
warrants further study.
However, the Federal Highway Administration has thus far resisted
calls to evaluate and take steps to mitigate or avoid these health
effects in relation to major highway expansion environmental review
studies, as required by law. This issue is currently in litigation in
relation to the US-95 highway widening project in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and has been raised in transportation plan and project reviews in
several other regions.
Congress should assure timely EPA action to regulate air toxics and
assure that FHWA accounts for and avoids or mitigates the adverse
health impacts of exposure of communities to hazardous air pollutants
caused by expansion of major highways. Appendix 1 provides more
information on this subject.
assuring adequate resources for the cmaq program
The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ), which helps
local communities and States reduce traffic and transportation
pollution, should be reauthorized at a substantially higher level,
recognizing the much larger population living in non-attainment areas
and exposed to hazardous air pollutants. CMAQ funds should be targeted
to innovative strategies that produce lasting traffic and pollution
reduction, rather than to short-term one-time emission reduction
strategies or traffic flow improvements.
Health studies have shown air pollution is more widespread and
hazardous at lower levels than previously thought, with major health
threats from fine particulate matter and air toxics. There is
widespread consensus that CMAQ funds should be made available to help
the hundreds of additional counties that face new requirements to
address their previously unrecognized air quality problems. We join in
that consensus. There is also wide support for allowing CMAQ funds to
be used to help reduce emissions and exposures to air toxics. We agree
with this as well. But this means that CMAQ funding must rise by about
half over current levels in the next transportation authorization just
to sustain the current level of effort in non-attainment areas on a per
capita per pollutant basis.
CMAQ is the key source of transportation funding dedicated to
improving transportation related air quality. Failure to boost CMAQ
funding levels is likely to hamper the ability of existing non-
attainment areas to sustain ongoing pollution-reduction transportation
investments or limit funds available to newly designated non-attainment
areas that need similar access to resources.
TEA-21's CMAQ obligation formula currently recognizes only the
population living in ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas,
even though funds can be spent on project that help reduce particulate
matter. In 1999, nearly 54 million people live in areas that do not
meet the 1-hour ozone standard. According to the latest available
monitoring data from EPA, more than double this number--123 million
people--live in the 333 counties violating the new 8-hour ozone
standard. Some 82 million live in 173 counties that violate the PM fine
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), with some overlap with
ozone non-attainment areas. If contiguous counties that make up
metropolitan areas are included, as is usual in designating non-
attainment areas, these numbers will grow significantly. Additional
millions live in areas that violate the CO standards.
The Federal Highway Administration counts 172 million people living
in 1-hour ozone and CO non-attainment or maintenance areas and has used
this figure for fiscl year 2003 CMAQ apportionments to States. Initial
estimates suggest that this apportionment population number will
increase by about one-fourth when non-attainment area designations are
made under the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate NAAQS in 2004 and
2005. But this increased apportionment estimate does not include the
population living in areas affected by air toxics that are outside of
what will likely be designated as non-attainment areas under the new
NAAQS, nor does it take into account the increased scope of air
pollution control efforts that will be needed by existing non-
attainment areas to attain the new 8-hour ozone and PM fine air quality
standards.
Broad consensus exists that CMAQ eligibility should be expanded to
help counties, cities, and States deal with fine particulates and air
toxics in addition to ozone and CO. Reauthorization apportionments
should recognize the expanded scope of funding needs by proportionate
expansion of CMAQ funding based on both population and the degree of
pollution remediation needed. Otherwise existing non-attainment areas
will face cut-backs in funds for air pollution reduction programs while
being asked to take additional steps to further cut pollution to
protect public health.
If the eligibility of the CMAQ program is expanded to include air
toxics and fine particulates and all newly designated non-attainment
areas without cutting the per capita allocation of CMAQ funds to
existing non-attainment areas, an increase of at least 50 percent in
CMAQ funding will be needed in TEA-3. This will require growing the
program from its fiscal year 2002 program obligation level\4\ of $1.435
billion in fiscal year 2003 to an average of $2.15 billion a year over
the upcoming authorization period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ estimated: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/
appendix/DOT.pdf, page 721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Reprinted Responses by Michael Replogle to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. In general would you agree that conformity is spurring
investments in transportation strategies and technologies that reduce
air pollution and create better interagency cooperation?
Answer. Yes. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, conformity
has been a significant factor fostering local, regional, and national
political support for cleaner fuels and vehicles and inspection and
maintenance programs that have helped produce more timely progress
toward attainment of healthful air quality. In that period, conformity
has been the single greatest factor promoting interagency cooperation
between transportation and air quality agencies at the State, local,
and Federal levels. Prior to 1990, transportation agencies paid no
attention to the air quality consequences of transportation investments
and plans. But in recent years, many metropolitan areas have adopted
changes to their transportation plans and programs to help reduce
traffic growth and emissions. Consideration of air quality impacts of
investments has become a routine matter in many metropolitan areas
where pollution problems are more severe. In most regions with serious
air quality problems, officials and staff of air agencies and
transportation agencies routinely meet and work together to help foster
effective program administration that delivers progress on both
mobility and air quality goals.
Atlanta's conformity problems led the Governor to create a new
regional authority responsible for better planning and funding
transportation, air quality, and growth management in Georgia's non-
attainment areas in an effort to fix a broken interagency cooperation
process. While road builders have often raised the spectre of
transportation conformity causing major disruptions to transportation
programs, there have been no such disruptions. Even in Atlanta, where
the longest conformity lapse of consequence to date took place, the
region lost no transportation funding but instead redirected several
hundred million dollars of funds from sprawl-inducing, pollution-
generating roads into projects that would reduce pollution and into
safety and system improvements that would not increase emissions.
After conformity analysis led Charlotte, North Carolina, to see
that its transportation plan would lead to emission problems 20 years
in the future, local officials developed, considered, and adopted a new
2025 Transit Land/Use plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg with a new rapid
transit system to support the five major transportation and development
corridors identified in the 1994 Centers and Corridors Plan as well as
connections to key development hubs between these corridors. The plan
seeks to concentrate jobs around stations, provide residential multi-
family housing at stations, and develop rail and bus rapid transit.
Capital costs, plus operation, maintenance and other expenditures will
cost $1.085 billion over 25 years and quantifiable benefits such as
travel time savings and vehicle operating cost savings total $72
million a year, generating a benefit cost ratio of 1.6. There are also
numerous benefits of the plan that are not quantifiable such as
improved access to jobs and revitalization of the core center. Funding
for the plan will come from a combination of local, State, and Federal
funding. Mecklenburg County Voters approved a half-cent local sales tax
in 1998 to fund expansion of bus service and rapid transit improvements
in major corridors. The requirement that the RTP conform 20 years into
the future was a vital element in motivating this regional progress and
action. Limiting conformity determinations to a 10-year time horizon--
as some propose--might reduce the incentive for other regions to take
the kind of leadership initiatives seen in Charlotte.
Conformity helped Denver develop cost-effective strategies to
reduce particulate matter (PM) problems. Agencies began taking action
against wood burning in the 1980's, but PM was still measuring 185 g/
m3 compared to the NAAQS of 150 g/m3. Conformity
made transportation planning and air quality agencies look at other
sources of PM. They found that street sanding and sweeping strategies
was a very effective measure and implemented controls beyond what was
federally mandated, reducing PM levels to 80 g/m3.
Conformity also provided an incentive for developing light rail in
Denver and the Metro Vision 2020 Plan, which seeks to limit growth to a
700 square mile area with supportive transportation strategies. Denver
also has a number of travel demand management (TDM) strategies in their
long-range plan such as a Ride Arrangers program and a telework
program. While Denver does not take credit for TDM system management in
the 2025 conformity finding, the region recognizes TDM emission
benefits as a safety margin in meeting their emissions budget.
To deal with emissions problems recognized through the conformity
process, many other regions have adopted transportation control
measures (TCMs). These represent nearly 5 percent of total emission
reductions, for example, in the San Joaquin region of California. The
San Joaquin Council of Governments projects that TCMs, including
rideshare, vanpool, and commuter rail, will deliver as much as a 10
percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Conformity has also been valuable in helping to win adoption of new
short-term emission reduction strategies in the metropolitan
Washington, DC region. In July 2001, the DC metropolitan planning
organization updated its modeling assumptions to reflect the growing
use of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks, which produce
more pollution per mile driven than standard cars. As a result, they
observed that that they could no longer add new road projects to their
transportation improvement program (TIP) and regional transportation
plan (RTP) and still conform with the NOx motor vehicle emission budget
in their adopted SIP. Officials formed a task force to consider
reopening the SIP to allow for more motor vehicle pollution by finding
offsets from other emission sources or fixing the conformity problem by
adopting added emission reduction measures. With adjustments for some
refinements to their model estimates and for emission reducing measures
already being implemented but not previously credited, the MPO found
that the 8 tpd NOx excess emissions over budget was reduced to about 3
tpd.
Following further meetings and analysis, Maryland proposed a $42
million package of transportation emission reduction strategies,
including buying clean buses, improving pedestrian and bicycle access
to transit, and supporting transit oriented development. Along with
measures advanced by other jurisdictions, this package provides
sufficient reductions to offset this emission budget shortfall and the
region in July 2002 adopted them as part of a new TIP and RTP. If
proposals made by some parties to lengthen the life of TIP conformity
findings to 3 or 5 years had been in effect, this $42 million package
of emission reduction measures would almost certainly not have been
funded.
Question 2. If Congress does make any changes in the conformity
process as part of the next transportation bill, what would be your No.
1 suggestion and please be specific?
Answer. Congress should make one change to the conformity process
as part of the next transportation bill. It should adopt the bill
introduced in the 106th Congress, 2nd Session as H.R. 3686, the ``Road
Back to Clean Air Act,'' by Rep. John Lewis and as S. 2088 by Senator
Max Cleland. This bill would put into law the EPA and DOT guidance that
helped get Atlanta more focused on solving the city's transportation
and air quality problems. It would increase flexibility so other areas
of the country could continue to receive Federal funds for transit,
safety improvements, road rehabilitation, and other projects even
during a lapse in the conformity of their transportation plans. Without
this legislative change, because of the way that DOT has at times in
the past administered conformity and planning requirements, regions in
a conformity lapse can face difficulty adding air quality improving
projects to their transportation spending plans unless those projects
had been part of a previously conforming fiscally constrained TIP and
regional transportation plan.
The text of this bill follows:
A Bill
To amend the Clean Air Act and titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to
provide for continued authorization of funding of transportation
projects after a lapse in transportation conformity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Continued Authorization of Funding of Transportation
Projects After Lapse in Transportation Conformity.
Section 176(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 7506(c)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (C) and (D), any transportation
project identified for funding in a transportation plan and
transportation improvement program adopted under section 134 of title
23 or sections 5303 through 5306 of title 49, United States Code, shall
remain eligible for funding under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49,
Unites States Code, as applicable, after the long-range transportation
plan or transportation improvement program no longer conforms as
required by subparagraphs (2)(C)(i) or (2)(D), if----
``(i) the long-range transportation plan and transportation
program met the requirements of subsection (c) at the time at
which a project agreement for the transportation project was
approved under section 106 (a)(2) of title 23 United Sates
Code, or the project was otherwise approved for assistance
under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, as
applicable;
``(ii) the transportation project is a transportation control
measure (as defined in section 93.101 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulation s (as in effect on March 1, 1999);
``(iii) the transportation project qualifies for an exemption
from the requirement that the transportation project come from
a conforming metropolitan long range transportation plan and
transportation improvement program under section 93.126 or
93.127 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect
on March 1, 1999); or
``(iv) the transportation project is exempt from a
prohibition on approval under section 179(b)(1), except that
this paragraph shall not apply to a transportation project
described in section 179(b)(1)(B)(iv).''
Section 2. Amendment of Long-Range Transportation Plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs Not Conforming to Applicable
Implementation Plans.
(a) Transportation Plans--Section 134 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
``(p) Amendments to Plans and Programs Not Conforming to Applicable
Implementation Plans--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a
long-range transportation plan or transportation improvement program
under this section that no longer conforms to the applicable
implementation plan under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7506(c)) and part 93 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(or a successor regulation), may be amended without a demonstration of
conformity if the amendment is solely fort he purpose of adding
transportation project----
``(1) for which that State submits a revision of the
applicable implementation plan to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency requesting approval of the
project as a transportation control measure (as defined in
section 93.101 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on March 1, 1999); or
``(2) that qualifies for an exemption from the requirement
that the transportation project come from a conforming
metropolitan long-range transportation improvement program
under section 93.126 or 93.127 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on March 1, 1999)''
(b) Mass Transportation Plans--Section 5303 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Amendments of Plans and Programs not Conforming to Applicable
Implementation Plans--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
long-range transportation plan under this section or a transportation
improvement program under section 5304 that no longer conforms to the
applicable implementation plan under section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and part 93 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation), may be amended without a
demonstration of conformity if the amendment is solely for the purpose
of adding a transportation project----
``(1) for which the State submits to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency a request for approval as a
transportation control measure (as defined in section 93.101 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulation s (as in effect on March 1, 1999)) under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410); or
``(2) that qualifies for an exemption from the requirement that the
transportation project come from a conforming metropolitan long-range
transportation plan under and transportation improvement program under
section 93.126 and 93.127 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as
in effect on March 1, 1999).''
______
Reprinted Responses by Michael Replogle to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. During the hearing, several witnesses talked about how
the coordination of the frequency of submittals for the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the Transportation Plan, and the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is an important and necessary
reform. Among other things, such a reform would lessen the confusion of
those involved, reduce costs, and help States meet air quality goals.
In your testimony, you reject any proposal to reduce the frequency of
conformity analyses. Do you see value in better coordinating the
transportation and air quality planning processes?
Answer. Environmental Defense and other environmental groups
strongly support better coordination of transportation and air quality
planning processes. However, we strongly object to proposals currently
being put forward under the misleading name of ``streamlining.'' By
extending deadlines and creating overly long gaps between conformity
analyses, these proposals will threaten air quality, threaten public
health and reduce information available to the public about the air
they breathe.
Equally important, these proposals won't make the system work
better--they'll make the system more inefficient. They reduce
incentives for agency coordination. Conformity works well when
transportation and air quality experts work closely together on a
routine basis, to plan and implement highway and transit investments.
Conformity, and the current schedule of deadlines, gives these agencies
a powerful incentive to work together. The deadlines are also spaced
just far enough apart to allow problems to be identified early--before
they become crises that threaten air quality targets.
But reducing the frequency of required conformity analysis--
currently 2 years for TIPs and 3 years for regional transportation
plans (RTPs)--is likely to reduce rather than enhance such
coordination. Conformity analysis is rather like balancing one's
checkbook. If done routinely and frequently, problems will be detected
when they are small and correctable. If done infrequently, the costs of
errors is likely to soar, as unrecorded transactions or errors go
undetected, with their impacts compounded over time.
If the minimum frequency of conformity determinations is set at 3
or 5 years, this will likely be too far apart to detect and correct the
rapid growth in VMT in fast-growing metropolitan areas. Across the
country, this rapid growth is causing those areas to fail to attain on
time. At a time when ou transportation investments are proving to
threaten air quality and health, it makes no sense to relax deadlines.
Instead of statutory changes, schedule coordination (if any is
needed) should come from better interagency coordination, not through
relaxing the frequency of accounting system checks and balances. With
wider gaps between reporting deadlines, opportunities for abuses and
poor accounting grow larger. Uncertainty about true air quality impacts
and benefits would increase.
Today, most metropolitan areas update their TIPs annually and redo
their conformity analysis as they do so. Analysis of conformity as TIPs
undergo changes to regionally significant projects provides
opportunities for timely improvement of what have often proven to be
out-of-date or previously incorrect model assumptions.
Many regions, such as Washington, DC, have recently updated motor
vehicle fleet data assumptions to reflect the growing use of SUVs and
light trucks, which produce more pollution per mile traveled than light
duty cars, with a resulting increase in the estimates of motor vehicle
emissions in the attainment year. In the case of Washington, DC, this
conformity re-analysis led to increased attention by transportation and
air officials and staff to the need for improved interState and
interagency coordination and collaborative data collection to upgrade
the regional inventories of motor vehicle pollution factors. It also
led local and State officials to add $42 million in new emission-
reducing transportation projects to the region's TIP in July 2002 to
offset the increased pollution observed through the conformity re-
analysis. This investment would not likely have occurred had the 2-year
life of the TIP conformity finding been relaxed to 3 or 5 years. These
investments will benefit not just air quality, but they will increase
mobility in the region, increase access to jobs, foster better quality
of life, and promote economic growth.
Conformity helped catch this problem sooner rather than later, when
it was still a manageable problem that could be addressed through
transportation measures, without needing to reopen the SIP. Had the
problem been left to fester, it is more likely that the region's
officials would simply have said the problem was too big to manage, and
sought to make it someone else's problem. In fact, fear of this kind of
crisis is what may motivate concerns about conformity. But by having
tight deadlines and careful coordination among agencies, the challenges
can be addressed with incremental measures before they escalate to
crisis. The beneficiaries of tight deadlines are the millions of
children, elderly people, and other individuals who suffer respiratory
distress, premature death, injury, and other impairments every year
when Federal air quality health standards continue to be unmet. The
beneficiaries of relaxed conformity deadlines are primarily polluting
industries and other special interests that profit at our society's
expense.
In fact, States already have flexibility and discretion in the
current system. The current tiered schedule for reappraising TIP and
RTP conformity provides appropriate advance notice of conformity
problems in a way to encourage timely solutions. For example, many
regions first uncover conformity challenges when updating their TIPs to
incorporate new projects. Updating these planning factors uncovers
previous underestimates in regional vehicle emissions and allows timely
corrective measures to be adopted--as they have been in Washington, DC,
in the example described above.
At times, this may create what some call a ``conformity lockdown,''
during which the current 2-year TIP conformity finding remains valid,
but no new regionally significant transportation projects can be added
to the TIP until the region adopts new emissions-reducing measures to
offset the incremental increase. At this point, the increment of
emissions imbalance is usually still relatively small and manageable,
and measures can be taken reasonably easily to offset the impacts of
the new projects. In essence, the system provides ``early warning''
that provides the time to adopt new emission reduction measures to
ensure that the TIP stays in conformity.
If the region fails to offset motor vehicle emissions that exceed
the adopted SIP motor vehicle emission budget before the expiration of
the 2-year TIP conformity finding, the region would likely enter a
conformity lapse. In a lapse, there is yet another safety valve: the
region can adopt an Interim TIP composed of projects with funding
agreements, exempt projects, and transportation control measures drawn
from the conforming long-range RTP, relying on its 3-year conformity
finding. At any time, a State can choose to reopen its SIP to identify
additional emission reduction measures from mobile or non-mobile
sources to offset excess emissions from mobile sources that are in
violation of the motor vehicle emission budget.
In short, States have discretion at every stage to align the
schedule for updating their transportation and air quality plans and
where they choose to seek emission reductions. The system works and
should be sustained. If any change is warranted, it would be toward
more frequent reviews of SIPs--but not less.
Better coordination of air quality and transportation planning
should take several forms:
Interim Milestone Reports. First, Congress should enhance
this interagency coordination by ensuring that EPA adopts regulations
to govern State submissions of SIP milestone compliance reports. These
reports would track and report regional emissions every 3 years in
nonattainment areas and ensure that remedial measures are implemented
immediately when emission reduction targets are not met, as required by
Clean Air Act Sections 182(c)(5) and (g). EPA has failed to issue these
sorts of regulations, and that failure must be remedied. By ensuring
that States meet this required 3-year cycle of SIP reappraisal,
Congress could address the concerns of transportation agencies that
SIPs are too infrequently updated, while transportation plans are
subject to more frequent updates.
Prompt Upgrade of Models. Second, transportation agencies
should be required to promptly upgrade their computer models to
effectively consider air quality, induced traffic, and fully up-to-date
planning factors. Congress should provide EPA and DOT with a strong
mandate to establish best-practice planning model standards and to
require timely action by MPOs and other agencies to meet these
standards for conformity and SIP planning. A recent report (U.S.
General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives
Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality,
Washington, DC, October 2001, GAO-02-12, page 95) notes that, ``DOT and
EPA efforts to improve travel-demand-forecasting models may help MPOs
and communities determine the effects of transportation improvements on
congestion and air quality. However . . . these efforts currently do
not call for integrating land use or environmental components into the
travel demand model . . . Without such integrated models, communities
cannot consider the likely effects that their transportation decisions
will have on land use, future growth and development, and air
quality.'' U.S. GAO-02-12, op. cite, page 95.
In regions where transportation models used for conformity and air
quality planning have not been upgraded to integrate land use and
environmental components, including full sensitivity to induced traffic
and growth effects of transportation investments, urban design, and
pricing policies, less frequent conformity analysis is likely to impair
timely upgrading of analyses.
Question 2. Do you think there are more cost-effective options for
achieving air quality improvements in the transportation sector than
through the current program?
Answer. Transportation conformity is not an air quality improvement
strategy in and of itself. It is a highly cost effective accounting
mechanism that assures the integrity of adopted air quality attainment
plans by preventing adoption of transportation plans and programs
likely to cause pollution in excess of the levels determined to
endanger public health. The Clean Air Act allows States great
flexibility in determining how to achieve health-based air quality
standards--whether through controls on stationary sources, area
sources, or transportation sources, and whether through adoption of
cleaner technologies, management and pricing strategies, or growth and
demand management.
Without a strong and well-enforced transportation conformity
program, experience shows that transportation emissions tend to be
underestimated, leading to the failure of air pollution control
strategies. That failure--more than three decades after the 1970 Clean
Air Act--continues to impose huge costs on our society, with the
adverse health costs of motor vehicle air pollution estimated by US DOT
in 2000 at $40 billion to $65 billion, which pales beside the $27
billion in annual Federal transportation expenditures.
Transportation conformity has played a significant behind-the-
scenes role fostering cost-effective air pollution improvements in the
transportation sector, including adoption of cleaner vehicle and fuel
standards by States and Federal agencies, adoption of inspection and
maintenance programs, and reallocation of transportation investments
from sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating roads into transit, walking,
bicycling, and Smart Growth strategies that meet economic and social
needs for mobility with less need for travel by single-occupant
vehicles.
EPA's own recent analysis shows that proposed air pollution
reduction strategies and technology fixes alone are insufficient to
deliver healthful air quality for all Americans over the next decade or
even two (http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/maps.pdf). Thus, conformity is
vital to assuring that motor vehicle emissions are properly accounted
for as States and regions strive to achieve emission reductions from
various sources and avoid having uncontrolled traffic growth undo
progress toward healthful air quality.
______
Reprinted Responses by Michael Replogle to Additional Questions
from Senator Smith
Question 1. You testified that before State SIP's had established
motor vehicle emission budgets, the transportation agencies were forced
to rely on complex and widely criticized transition rules. EPA and DOT
may be proposing a return of these transition rules in new non-
attainment areas that will have a 1-year grace period to make a
conformity determination. Would you agree that our air quality goals
are better served by coordinating conformity with motor vehicle
emissions budgets, rather than returning to these transition rules?
Answer. As designed by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act,
conformity is intended to focus on comparing forecast motor vehicle
emissions in a transportation plan and program with an adopted motor
vehicle emission budget (MVEB) established in a SIP designed to enable
a region to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
by deadlines established by law. Where such MVEBs exist, they should be
used as the fundamental yard-stick to measure conformity of
transportation plans and programs with air quality plans.
The problem we see with the ``build/no-build'' transition rule is
principally in how it has been applied, and in the length of the
transition to conformity against adopted SIP MVEBs, not in the
underlying principal of the build/no-build transition rule. The build/
no-build rule, first issued by EPA and DOT in 1991, compares emissions
in a base-case no-build future scenario vs. emissions in a build
scenario, adding or subtracting the applicable transportation projects
changes proposed in any given TIP or RTP amendment. This is a desirable
and acceptable conformity test to use in the absence of an adopted SIP
MVEB when the evaluation uses analysis methods that properly account
for induced land use and traffic effects of transportation investments
and policies. However, as applied in many regions, build/no-build
analyses have assumed no induced land use change or shift in the time-
of-day of traffic caused by transportation system changes. Numerous
peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that induced traffic effects
are profound and the addition of 10 percent more lane miles of roadways
can be expected to induce an additional 6 to 10 percent vehicle miles
traveled in a region in a few years time. If induced traffic is
unaccounted for, the build/no-build analysis is invalid, and will
underestimate motor vehicle emissions growth associated with major
highway system expansions, working against the CAA statutory mandate
that transportation plans and programs must contribute to timely
attainment of the NAAQS.
It is vital that areas expected to be designated as new non-
attainment areas should now begin to take steps to prepare to meet
conformity analysis requirements. The TEA-21 Federal transportation law
provides flexible funding to States and regions in the Surface
Transportation Program and other funding categories that can be used
for planning and data collection. Such funds should be used now to
establish sound, up-to-date, local inventories of jobs, housing,
highways, transit resources, and travel behavior, to develop locally
applicable transportation planning models that meet best practice
standards for appraising travel behavior and induced traffic, to code
information on planned transportation investments and forecast job and
housing growth expectations, and other information. Outside consultants
should be retained to help cultivate local expertise to sustain these
analysis systems, which have many cost-effective applications beyond
conformity analysis in supporting sound capital program planning,
traffic and transit operations planning, transportation equity
analysis, growth management, cost-allocation evaluation, and other
activities. The cost of establishing such planning and analysis systems
is but a tiny fraction of the annual capital facilities investment
costs of most States and regions, but can have a payoff far in excess
of these costs by assuring more sound decisionmaking, investment
planning, and identification of lower-cost and more optimal strategies
for meeting local and national mobility, environmental, economic
development, and equity goals. Establishing these planning and analysis
tools in a metropolitan area can be accomplished in less than a year,
but does require agency commitment and ongoing support.
EPA and DOT should promptly issue long-promised additional model
guidance and regulations to assure that non-attainment areas properly
account for induce land use and traffic effects in conformity analysis
and SIP transportation modeling.
There are no valid reasons why any newly designated non-attainment
area cannot establish the requisite transportation and emissions
analysis systems well in advance of the expiration of the 1-year grace
period following designation. Until adopted SIP MVEBs are available to
provide a basis for conformity, the build/no-build test (with
appropriate consideration of induced land use and traffic effects),
along with the Reasonable Further Progress requirements of the CAA,
should be the basis for evaluating conformity in non-attainment areas.
Question 2. If I am interpreting your testimony correctly, you
appear to suggest that one way to judge the success of conformity is by
how much it redirects transportation spending away from new highway
construction. In Northern Virginia, however, they have delayed over
$800 million in highway projects generating a total of 2 tons reduction
in emissions, or $400 million per ton reduced. By comparison, EPA's
vehicle emission standards cost below $1600 per ton. Stopping new
highways does not sound like a very cost-effective strategy to reduce
emissions, wouldn't you agree?
Answer. I'm sorry, but you have misinterpreted my testimony and
data and I must disagree with your assertion. I noted that a recent
analysis by the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board
showed that by deferring 100 lane miles of highway expansion projects
in 2002--a 0.5 percent reduction in lane-miles of road capacity--
Virginia saves $800 million in capital costs while cutting NOx
emissions by more than 1 percent, or nearly 2 tons per day, and
reducing vehicle miles of traffic by 0.6 percent. This illustrates how
the very expensive expansion of new highways typically produces a
growth in air pollution emissions by spurring more traffic, rather than
a reduction in emissions as often claimed by the road lobby. It
illustrates how reducing expenditures on new roads is often the most
cost-effective emission reduction strategy, because it avoids
generating both costs and air pollution. By not building additional
traffic, sprawl, and pollution-inducing highways, regions like Northern
Virginia can avoid the need for additional expenditures of up to $1600
per ton to reduce emissions because they can prevent the pollution from
being emitted in the first place.
A savings of nearly $400 million per ton of NOx reduction for
cutting highway expansions is highly competitive when compared to
alternative emission reduction costs of $1600 per ton for pollution-
control technology investments! More regions faced with missed
deadlines for clean air attainment should be protecting public health
and the taxpayer's wallet by redirecting public investments from road
expansions into other more productive forms of investment, such as
transit, the revitalization of walkable neighborhoods, education,
affordable housing close to jobs, and public health services.
Question 3. You have been an advocate of using land use and other
``Smart Growth'' strategies to reduce air pollution. Yet, we all know
that these strategies take a decade or more to change transportation
patterns. How do you expect to generate substantial pollution
reductions from these projects when the emission levels from these
vehicles will be 95-99 percent cleaner than their 1970's counterparts?
Answer. Even with significantly cleaner cars and truck
technologies, Smart Growth strategies offer the promise of avoiding--at
essentially no cost--as much as one-quarter of the potential motor
vehicle emissions in 2020, thus helping to achieve more timely
attainment at less cost. If Smart Growth strategies are ignored and
sprawl and highway building advance without any accountability for
impacts on emissions, society will need to invest billions of dollars
more in pollution abatement technologies to clean up mobile and non-
mobile sources so we can achieve healthful air quality.
The amount of motor vehicle pollution emitted per mile driven has
fallen by more than 90 percent since 1970, but today motor vehicles
still account for a major share of pollution--from one forth to three
fourths of the NOx and VOC emissions--in most non-attainment areas.
Adopted or submitted SIPs show that in the attainment year and in
future years going out as far as 2020, motor vehicle emissions are
expected to continue to account for a large share of emissions in many
metropolitan areas, as Graph 1 shows. For example, despite adoption of
cleaner technologies, motor vehicles are estimated to account for 28
percent of VOC and 39 percent of NOx emissions in Washington, DC (in
2005), 31 percent of NOx emissions in Connecticut/NY (in 2007), 45
percent of VOC and 61 percent of NOx emissions in Chicago/Illinois (in
2007), 67 percent of NOx emissions for Portland, Maine (in 2012), 30
percent of VOC and 39 percent of NOx emissions in Denver (in 2013), 79
percent of CO emissions and 71 percent of PM emissions in Las Vegas (in
2020), and 38 percent of VOC and 44 percent of NOx emissions in Salt
Lake City (in 2020). And despite the fact that California leads the
Nation in adopting cleaner vehicles and fuels, the Bay Area expects
motor vehicles to contribute 42 percent of VOC emissions and 52 percent
of NOx emissions (in 2006), and the South Coast non-attainment area
expects motor vehicles to contribute 59 percent of PM emissions and 49
percent of NOx emissions (in 2020).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90365.005
The magnitude of emission reductions needed to reach healthful air
quality is considerably greater than that now identified through
submitted and approved SIPs. EPA's recent posting of maps of estimated
effects of the proposed ``Clean Skies'' initiative (http://www.epa.gov/
clearskies/maps.pdf) shows that adopted and proposed measures are
together inadequate to bring many of the nation's largest metropolitan
areas into full attainment of the NAAQS even by 2020. Significant
further emission controls will be needed also to deal with hazardous
air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental
pollution, even with the cleaner motor vehicles produced under the Tier
II and heavy-duty diesel engine rules.
A conservative estimate is that Smart Growth strategies have the
potential to reduce traffic growth and emissions over the timeframe of
20-year regional transportation plans by 15 to 25 percent compared to
forecast trends in most metropolitan areas. Over the shorter timeframe
of a 2-year TIP conformity cycle or the several years prior to reaching
ozone attainment deadlines, many regions could accomplish reductions in
traffic growth and related pollution well of several percent a year
relative to trends with a concerted effort combining Smart Growth,
pricing, and demand management strategies.
The degree to which Smart Growth can affect emissions and traffic
growth is closely related to the pace of job and housing growth in a
community. In slow growth communities, the opportunities for Smart
Growth to change travel patterns are modest compared to fast-growing
communities. Smart Growth is very pro-growth in the areas where it is
being implemented while seeking to discourage job and housing growth in
other locations where people lack non-driving travel choices. Where
fast growth is occurring, there tend to be more opportunities for
growth to become smarter.
The effectiveness of Smart Growth strategies in reducing traffic
and pollution is also closely linked to how comprehensively these
strategies are implemented. Effective Smart Growth means transit-
oriented (not just transit proximate) development that is attractive
for walking and cycling, includes a vibrant mix of land uses for
various income groups, and highly attractive non-automobile access to
other parts of the metropolitan area. It includes pricing policies and
incentives that favor transit, walking, bicycling, and alternatives to
driving while curbing subsidies for driving. Even in slow growth areas,
Smart Growth transportation pricing and urban design incentives, such
as Commuter Choice programs where employers pay for transit benefits
and offer cash-in-lieu-of-parking benefits can produce substantial
shifts in travel behavior and pollution reductions in the span of a
year or two, with concerted marketing, promotions, demonstrations, and
incentives for rapid adoption of Smart Growth changes. Research and
experience cited in my most recent testimony to the Committee shows the
magnitude of near-term travel behavior and emission changes that have
been achieved in a number of communities with these sorts of
strategies.
Question 4. In your written testimony you State, ``Because of steep
increases in the number of vehicle miles, cuts in the amount of
pollutant emitted per mile, particularly for NOx, and small
particulates, have been offset by growth in miles driven.'' While this
has been true in the past, doesn't EPA's data clearly show that future
vehicle emissions are decreasing, even as vehicle travel increases?
Answer. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act, increasingly stringent motor
vehicle and fuel standards have significantly reduced vehicle emissions
per mile. Federal light duty Tier 1 vehicle emission standards today
allow only 4 percent as much VOC pollution per mile as vehicles emitted
in 1969, and 10 percent as much NOx. Despite this sharp reduction, in
1999 motor vehicles still accounted for 29 percent of VOC and 34
percent of NOx emissions nationwide according to EPA. VOC emissions
from highway vehicles declined 18 percent during the past decade, but
NOx emissions increased by 19 percent during the same period. And as a
2002 TRB study, The CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience,
noted (page 70), ``Although tailpipe emissions from highway vehicles
are only a small share of directly emitted PM on a national basis, they
account for a substantially higher proportion of longer-lived
atmospheric concentrations of fine particles in urban areas, for
example, up to 40 to 50 percent in the Denver and Los Angeles
metropolitan areas.''
With the full phase-in of Tier 2 standards beginning in 2009, light
duty vehicle emission standards will allow only 22 percent as much VOC
pollution per mile as Tier 1 standards, and 18 percent as much NOx. But
the slow pace of motor vehicle fleet turnover means that the full
benefits of these emission reductions will not take effect until 2020
or later. In the meantime, unless regions adopt strategies to better
manage travel demand, sprawl, and subsidies that encourage driving,
motor vehicle travel will continue to grow and offset much of these
emission reduction benefits. Between 1980 and 1999, vehicle miles
traveled grew by 87 percent. If a similar pattern continues through
2020, NOx and VOC emissions from motor vehicles will decline by 2020 by
only little more than half. But much deeper reductions than this will
be needed to achieve healthful air quality for all Americans. In other
words, technology alone will not make the amount of driving irrelevant
to considerations of pollution control in the foreseeable future.
The recent adoption of more stringent motor vehicle emissions and
fuel standards for light duty trucks and heavy-duty diesel engines will
offer important additional contributions toward clean air. Nonetheless,
progress toward timely attainment will for the next several decades be
dependent on continued and improved measurement and monitoring of the
amount and pattern of motor vehicle use, and greater efforts to avoid
pollution by shaping motor vehicle use and travel behavior.
Question 5. In your written testimony, you State, based on the
MATES-II study, ``that 90 percent of the total cancer risk is
attributable to toxic air pollutants emitted by mobile sources.'' But
you fail to mention that 70 percent of that risk is from diesel
emissions, and the EPA heavy duty diesel rule will substantially reduce
these emissions. Moreover, you also fail to mention that the same study
shows that cancer risk has been declining from 700 per million in 1990
to 300 per million in 1997, which suggests progress is being made on
non-diesel related toxic emissions. You suggest that less highway
construction and more programs to reduce vehicle travel are needed to
reduce these risks, yet isn't technology and better fuels the real
answer to reduce most of these risks?
Less highway construction and improved programs to reduce vehicle
travel should indeed be evaluated through the planning and project
review process to appraise their capacity to avoid or mitigate adverse
health risks caused by transportation related air toxics emissions.
Travel demand and growth management strategies, pricing incentives, and
other actions related to the operation, management, investment in
transportation systems and related community systems can often provide
very cost-effective approaches to reduce exposure of communities to air
toxics and the cancer and other health risks associated with these
exposures. Indeed, expansion of highways where unacceptably high air
toxic exposure problems already exist will likely increase the scope of
the problem by inducing traffic growth and exposures to air toxics.
Cleaner technology and better fuels are not the only or best way to
reduce most of these health risks, although these are an important part
of the solution. While a reduction in cancer risk from 1990 to 1997 is
documented in the MATES-II study, the cancer risk in 1997 is many times
higher than the level at which EPA and FHWA are required to take
actions to safeguard public health from such documented risks.
Diesel emissions are indeed the largest source of toxic air
pollutants emitted from mobile sources and the EPA heavy duty diesel
rule will eventually reduce those emissions substantially. But because
of the long-delayed timeframe for implementation of the heavy-duty
diesel rule and the very long lifetime of diesel engine equipment,
barring major new pollution control initiatives, it will take decades
to achieve the substantial emission reductions required to protect
public health from toxic air pollutants from these motor vehicles.
While technology and fuels will do a lot to reduce these risks, public
health will be best protected by a program that combines such
initiatives with better strategies to manage the demand and use
patterns of motor vehicles--both diesel and non-diesel--and to manage
exposure of the public to these emissions. This must include
consideration of how changes in transportation investments--such as
highway expansions--will affect the amount of traffic emitting toxic
air pollutants, and whether alternative investments might better
satisfy mobility objectives while avoiding or mitigating these adverse
health impacts. As the example in Washington, DC, cited above shows,
reducing highway system expansions can--at least at times--produce both
cost savings and substantial reductions in pollution. There are many
ways to better manage the system to minimize air toxics while meeting
mobility needs, including promotion of faster adoption of cleaner
technologies and alternative transportation investment and management
strategies. But FHWA is refusing to face core issues related to health
impact assessment in its project approval and transportation plan and
program approval process.
The health risks from transportation related air toxics
remaining after the emission reductions of the last decade far
exceed Federal criteria for unacceptable health risks, and will
continue to be unacceptably high even if further reductions in
per-vehicle emissions are achieved in the foreseeable future.
The future risks expected due to the traffic volume anticipated
in many major highway corridors are not acceptable to the
families who are exposed to toxic emissions. Furthermore,
proper consideration of strategies that serve mobility needs
without increasing single occupant vehicle travel can minimize
these risks. FHWA has not given adequate consideration of these
harmful health effects and the alternatives that could mitigate
them in its process for reviewing and approving transportation
plans, programs, highway funding agreements, and project
environmental and design documentation.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq., requires a review of the harmful effects of exposure to these
motor vehicle pollutants generated by highways. FHWA has violated both
NEPA and the requirements imposed by 23 USC Sec. 109(a) and (h) and 23
CFR Sec. 771.105 to assess and mitigate the adverse effects of air
pollution from highway projects in a number of cases, such as the
proposed widening of US 95 in Las Vegas.
It is not acceptable to dismiss the substantial cancer risks
that are exacerbated by highway expansions simply because
cleaner technologies are likely to be introduced into the
marketplace at some future time without considering the health
impacts on several generations of children and adults who we
know will be harmed by these effects in the decades prior to
these cleaner technologies coming into wider use. The evidence
of serious health risks is compelling. California's South Coast
Air Quality Management District published a study entitled
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II) in March 2000. In
February 2000, the Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association published a study entitled ``Distance Weighted
Traffic Density in Proximity to Home is a Risk Factor for
Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers'' (JAWMA Study). But FHWA
routinely fails to even attempt to estimate the concentrations
of toxic vehicular emissions likely to result from vehicle
travel in high volume traffic corridors proposed for major
expansion, or to assess the health risks of public exposure to
pollutant concentrations identified by these recent scientific
studies as the source of elevated cancer risks and rates. Not
performing such an assessment is arbitrary and capricious and
inconsistent with NEPA.
EPA has listed 21 toxic air contaminants from mobile sources,
including diesel particulate and diesel exhaust organic gases.
The EPA concluded that ``[t]he current EPA position is that
diesel exhaust is a likely human lung carcinogen and that this
cancer hazard exists for occupational and environmental levels
of exposure.'' 65 Fed. Reg. 35, 446 (June 2, 2000). The EPA
premised this position on findings by the World Health
Organization, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Id.
Other Federal health agencies have listed diesel emissions as
containing carcinogens. The National Toxicology Program at
NEIHS on May 15, 2000, 2 months before your letter, listed
diesel particulate as a ``known human carcinogen.'' EPA has
published a list of ``Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)'' which
``includes various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
metals, as well as diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust
organic gases (collectively DPM + DEOG).'' 66 FR 17,229 (March
29, 2001). This list clearly defines the hazardous air
pollutants from motor vehicles that FHWA should consider in
assessing the health effects of air toxic emissions from the
major highway expansion projects.
In refusing to prepare environmental analyses, FHWA has cited
evidence that toxic emissions from individual automobiles and overall
emissions in urban areas had declined from 1990-97. FHWA has failed to
explain, however, why this decline justifies a refusal to consider the
public health significance of ongoing cancer risks identified in
studies that relied on monitored ambient concentrations of toxic
contaminants near major highways and other information gathered after
1997. Indeed, the toxic pollutant concentrations reported in MATES-II
reflect lower per-vehicle emissions than are occurring in most States,
because California vehicles are subject to stricter emission standards.
FHWA's response to environmental critics does not address the
information showing that the health risks remaining after the
emission reductions of the last decade far exceed Federal
criteria for unacceptable health risks, and will continue to be
unacceptably high even if further reductions in per-vehicle
emissions are achieved in the foreseeable future. The future
risks expected due to the traffic volume anticipated in the US-
95 Las Vegas corridor and many other areas of the Nation
subject to highway expansion are not acceptable to the families
who are exposed to toxic emissions. Furthermore, proper
consideration of strategies that serve mobility needs without
increasing single occupant vehicle travel can minimize these
risks. Congress should reaffirm FHWA's obligation to consider
as part of project reviews these harmful health effects and the
alternatives that could mitigate them.
Emissions per vehicle mile traveled are not relevant to assessing
the magnitude of the public health risk associated with motor vehicle
emissions. The key issue is total emissions from highway corridors and
the impacts total emissions are expected to have on the health of
nearby populations. When highway expansion increases the vehicle-
carrying capacity of the highway it induces additional traffic volumes,
which in turn will contribute to increased total emissions from the
highway and exposure to higher concentrations in the ambient air of
hazardous pollutants in nearby neighborhoods. Risks to human health
increase in proportion to human exposure to pollutants in the ambient
air, not emissions per vehicle. These increased exposures create
significant public health hazards that must be addressed in
environmental reviews, the regional planning process, and the air
quality conformity process.
At least one reasonable estimate of the cancer risk attributable to
diesel emissions is the estimate developed by the California
environmental agencies presented in the MATES-II study. Even if a
careful review of the evidence suggests a better estimate of the cancer
risk is only one-half or one-quarter of the risk estimated by
California, the risk would still be very high.
Estimates that regional concentrations of criteria pollutants may
improve are simply not relevant to assessing the likely public health
impacts of toxic contaminants from motor vehicles. The regional
modeling assessments performed to satisfy the ``conformity''
requirements of the CAA address only the direct emissions of CO,
PM10 and ozone precursors from motor vehicles. These
pollutants are subject to emissions limitations established by EPA for
new motor vehicles, and are expected to decline in the future because
future vehicles are required to meet more stringent emissions
standards. But no such standards have been established for toxic air
contaminants. There is no basis for assuming that comparable reductions
will be achieved for toxic air contaminants. Even if emissions from
future vehicles are reduced, that reduction would not obviate the need
to assess future emissions levels and whether total emissions in a
heavily trafficked corridor will cause or contribute to unacceptable
health hazards.
In considering whether technology cleanup vs. demand
management and improved transportation system planning should
be preferred strategies for avoiding or mitigating health
impacts of transportation, it is vital to consider the health
costs of highways. The Department of Transportation has
estimated the national aggregate health costs of criteria air
pollutants from highways at $40 to $68 billion per year. Table
9, Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study
Final Report, U.S. Deppartment of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration (May 2000). The methodology developed in
the Addendum to the Highway Cost Allocation Study to estimate
the costs of adverse health effects from air pollution provides
a basis for estimating the adverse health effects, and costs,
attributable to emissions from specific highway corridors. The
Addendum assessed only the health effects attributable to pre-
1997 criteria pollutants, and did not include the health
effects attributable to toxic air contaminants emitted from
motor vehicles. If FHWA intends to justify highway expansions
by comparing the value of increased travel against the costs of
providing that capacity, a fair assessment of the health costs
to the community must be part of the calculus. In addition,
that kind of cost-benefit calculus must be applied to both the
highway option and reasonably available alternatives that can
reduce or mitigate the adverse impacts on health.
Recent studies have significantly improved understanding of the
linkage between vehicle emissions and the risk and incidence of cancer
among people living near major highways. The MATES-II and JAWMA studies
demonstrate that projects like the US-95 expansion in Las Vegas will
increase cancer risks among exposed populations, a highly significant
impact on the human environment that warrants environmental impact
review. The most important new information derived from these studies
is (1) the magnitude of the cancer risk caused by motor vehicle
emissions from a highway corridor of the size of the US-95 project, and
(2) the demonstrated increased incidence of cancer among children
exposed to higher traffic volumes.
It has been known for nearly two decades that motor vehicles emit
toxic pollutants that include known or suspected carcinogens. What had
not been firmly established by sound scientific research prior to the
MATES-II results is that these pollutants reach concentrations in the
ambient air in the vicinity of heavily traveled highways that present
cancer risks of at least 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 650, i.e., levels far
greater than the threshold for mitigation established by EPA's cancer
risk policy and Federal agency policies generally.
EPA's cancer risk policy requires that pollutants be reduced when
risks exceed 1 in 10,000 for the maximally exposed individual. These
high cancer risks for nearby residents, and even higher risks for those
living adjacent to roadways, far exceed the risk levels adopted by EPA
and Congress in setting national health standards, and are unacceptable
to the residents of these neighborhoods. EPA has summarized the
consensus cancer risk policy of Federal agencies as requiring careful
assessment of measures to reduce cancer risks when the population risk
is greater than 1 in 1 million.
Where the entire U.S. population is exposed to a chemical
classified as a probable human carcinogen, the agency consensus
appears to be that risks less than 1 in 1 million generally can
be found acceptable without consideration of other factors
while risks greater than that level require further analysis as
to their acceptability.
56 Fed. Reg. 7757 (February 25, 1991). On the other hand, EPA and other
Federal agencies have generally acted to reduce cancer risks greater
than 1 in 10,000. Here, the evidence from MATES-II shows that
communities near corridors such as US-95 with traffic volumes in excess
of 220,000 vehicles per day will be exposed to cancer risks well above
1 in 10,000.
The MATES-II study derived its estimates of community cancer risks
from ambient air monitoring of toxic pollutants in 12 residential
neighborhoods during 1998 and 1999. MATES-II also included regional
toxic emission data for the Los Angeles Basin and a computer modeling
program to estimate exposures for areas of the region where monitors
were not located. The conclusions of the MATES-II study are startling:
the regional average risk of cancer for residents of the Basin is 1400
in one million (1 cancer for each 714 residents), and 90 percent of
this heightened cancer risk is attributable to air pollution from
mobile sources. (MATES-II at ES-3).
MATES-II determined that exposure to diesel particulate emissions
and other toxics from mobile sources combine to cause 90 percent of the
elevated risks. Id. at E-3. Areas with concentrated traffic suffered
from increased risks of cancer above the regional average. Id. at ES-5.
The study found that the highest cancer risk is in neighborhoods
nearest highways where modeled risks were as high as 5800 in one
million, meaning that one person out of 170 is likely to suffer cancer.
Id. at Fig. 5-3a, p. 5-10.
The JAWMA study of cancer rates in Denver, also published in 2000,
is consistent with the MATES-II findings. That study focused on rates
of childhood leukemia among children under 12 living very near highways
(within 750 feet). The study found that children with leukemia were 12
times more likely to live close to highways than children without
leukemia, and concluded that a ``strong association'' exists between
proximity to high traffic streets and childhood leukemia. JAWMA Study
at 2. The study built on established research connecting childhood
cancers to benzene and other volatile organic compounds found in
automobile emissions. Id.
Both the MATES-II and JAWMA studies have broad applicability.
While MATES-II examined the L.A. Basin specifically, the
general findings establish a clear link between automobile
emissions and cancer risk. Even if the relative magnitude of
emissions of cancer causing agents differs somewhat between
locales, the underlying conclusion remains irrefutable:
highways are the largest source of carcinogens emitted into the
ambient air in the urban environments, and the pollutant
concentrations are highest in neighborhoods near highways. The
size of the cancer risk is proportional to daily traffic loads
in the corridor. When traffic loads are known, approximations
of ambient concentrations of mobile source toxics can be made
for neighborhoods located next to highways in other States by
comparing the daily traffic loads on those highways with the
daily traffic loads on highways for which emissions are modeled
in the MATES-II study.
Except for diesel particulate, these risk estimates are derived from
well-established risk factors that have been the subject of intensive
scrutiny for many years. Although the MATES-II cancer risks are derived
from risk factors adopted by the California environmental agencies,
those factors do not differ significantly from those reported by EPA.
See Integrated Risk Information System (EPA, Cincinnati, OH)[http://
www.epa.gov/iris]. In addition, these risk estimates are not for the
maximally exposed individual living adjacent to heavily traveled
highway corridors, but rather for regional populations. Nearby
neighborhood exposures are substantially higher, and may be as much as
an order of magnitude higher for the maximally exposed individuals.
With regard to diesel particulate, the cancer risks in MATES-II are
estimated based on unit risk factors adopted by California, but not yet
by EPA. ``The current EPA position is that diesel exhaust is a likely
human lung carcinogen and that this cancer hazard exists for
occupational and environmental levels of exposure.'' 65 FR 35,446 (June
2, 2000). This characterization of DPM as a carcinogen is supported by
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the World Health
Organization (WHO). Id. The National Toxicology Program at NEIHS on May
15, 2000, also listed diesel particulate as a ``known human
carcinogen.'' Although a risk factor for DPM has not yet been adopted
by a Federal agency, more than enough data has been accumulated from
numerous epidemiological studies to allow a risk factor to be
determined for risk assessment purposes. Further, California's more
stringent emissions standards mean that other jurisdictions, like Las
Vegas, may suffer from higher concentrations of toxic emissions from
mobile sources.
The JAWMA study emphasized the relationship between proximity to
highways and childhood cancers. As such, this study has broad
application. Nothing in the study indicates that the areas examined
were in any way exceptional. Based on the findings in the JAWMA study,
one would predict higher rates of childhood leukemia among those living
near major highways such as the expanded US-95 in Las Vegas.
In response to this new information, Sierra Club and local civic
and environmental interests have sought action by FHWA to assure a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS) for the US-95 corridor
expansion project in Las Vegas. Similar issues are presented in other
corridors around the country where extremely high traffic volumes would
be increased by road expansions in an area close to thousands of
residents. But FHWA has refused to consider the issues being raised by
environmental and health groups. These issues go to the underlying
questions posed by Senator Smith--should such requests for analysis be
dismissed because of cleaner technologies are expected to become
available in coming years and because emissions are decreasing somewhat
in some areas? And are facility investment and transportation system
management strategies worth considering as control strategies related
to these public health problems?
A significant purpose of an EIS is the involvement and education of
the public that the process entails. The U.S. Supreme Court has held
that SEISs are necessary to ensure that this purpose is furthered.
Marsh, 490 U.S. at 371 (1989). The cancer studies raise an issue that
clearly warrants such public involvement. The US-95 expansion may look
dramatically different to residents alerted to the heretofore
unconsidered link between highways and cancer. An SEIS would provide an
opportunity to inform the public about the issue and the degree of risk
involved. The public has an obvious, critical interest in providing
input on this issue.
Public involvement in the consideration of alternative modes of
meeting travel demand in the US-95 corridor is critical. NEPA not only
serves as a vehicle for informing the public of impacts, it also
requires that alternatives be considered. Taken together with the
requirement of 23 U.S.C. Sec. 109(h) to mitigate the adverse impacts of
air pollution from highways, an SEIS should identify the alternatives
that can mitigate or eliminate the cancer risk while at the same time
meeting the mobility needs of people who live and work in the US-95
corridor or other similar corridors around the United States
Federal law requires assessment, reporting, and mitigation of
health risks attributable to highway projects. FHWA's failure to assess
the adverse health effects, the costs of these health effects, and the
alternative transportation facilities and/or services that could
prevent or minimize the adverse effects of the project violates NEPA,
section 109 of the Federal transportation code and the Department of
Transportation's (``DOT'') environmental regulation at 23 CFR
Sec. 771.105.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the position adopted by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that the purpose of the National
Environmental Protection Act would be thwarted without an SEIS
requirement. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.9(c); Marsh v. Oregon Natural
Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 370 (1989). Accordingly, CEQ
regulations implementing NEPA impose a duty on Federal agencies to
prepare an SEIS when ``[t]here are significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed actions or its impacts.'' 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.9(c)(ii). As
noted above, the CEQ defines ``significantly'' according to context and
intensity. Context includes effects on society generally and the
locality in particular, and intensity includes the magnitude of the
impacts on public health and the nature of the risks. 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 1508.27.
When deciding whether to prepare an SEIS, the agency must apply a
``rule of reason,'' while taking a ``hard look'' at new information.
Marsh, 490 U.S. at 373-74. In weighing the value of new information,
the agency must make the decision according to the same NEPA guidelines
governing the decision whether to prepare an EIS in the first instance.
Id. If new information shows that the proposed action will affect the
environment in ``a significant manner or to a significant extent not
already considered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared.'' Id. When new
scientific data raise environmental concerns that have not been
addressed in a previous EIS, an SEIS is required. Portland Audubon
Society v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 1993). New concerns
that require an SEIS can be either quantitative or qualitative.
Environmental Defense Fund. v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983, 996 (5th Cir.
1981).
In addition to NEPA, Federal highway law requires the consideration
of the adverse effects of air pollution prior to approval of the plans
and specifications for a highway, 23 U.S.C Sec. 109(a), and the
adoption of measures that ``eliminate or minimize'' the adverse effects
of ``air pollution.''
23 U.S.C. Sec. 109(h). In a case challenging DOT's approval of a
highway project without assessing its impact on air pollution, the
court in D.C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231
(D.C. Cir. 1971), held that 23 U.S.C. Sec. 109(a) required such an
analysis:
We can find no basis in the statute's language or purpose for
the conclusion that certain hazards are, as a matter of law,
immaterial to the Secretary's evaluation of a project's safety.
The District Court would surely agree that Congress did not
intend to permit construction of a bridge in a situation,
however rare, where air pollution would be a significant threat
to safety. It does not follow, of course, that air pollution
will be a significant hazard in all-or even any-highway
projects. And the District Court apparently concluded that no
extraordinary dangers are likely to arise from the Three
Sisters Bridge. Still, the gathering and evaluation of evidence
on potential pollution hazards is the responsibility of the
Secretary of Transportation, and he undertook no study of the
problem.
DOT's approval of the highway bridge was remanded.
Federal highway law goes beyond NEPA by requiring that the decision
to approve a highway be----
``made in the best overall public interest taking into
consideration the need for fast, safe and efficient
transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating
or minimizing such adverse effects and the following: (1) air,
noise, and water pollution; (2) destruction or disruption of
man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community
cohesion and the availability of public facilities and
services; (3) adverse employment effects, and tax and property
value losses; (4) injurious displacement of people, businesses
and farms; and (5) disruption of desirable community and
regional growth. Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed
projects with respect to which plans, specifications, and
estimates are approved by the Secretary after the issuance of
such guidelines.''
23 USC Sec. 109(h). At a minimum, this provision requires DOT to
determine the costs of eliminating or minimizing the adverse health
effects attributable to air pollution, and then requiring mitigation in
the ``best overall public interest.''
DOT's 1987 regulations implementing this requirement and NEPA
provide that the analyses required by Sec. 109(a) and (h) are to be
performed as part of the NEPA review of the project. 23 CFR Part 771.
Thus because both Sec. 109(a) and (h) require an analysis of the
adverse effects of air pollution and the costs of eliminating or
minimizing such effects, a supplemental EIS is required.
Section 109(h) also requires DOT to ``eliminate or minimize'' the
adverse effects attributable to a new or expanded highway. This
provision is implemented through DOT regulations in 23 CFR
Sec. 771.105, but has not been applied by FHWA with regard to the
adverse health affects associated with toxic and fine particle air
pollutants emitted from this highway project. DOT's regulation adopts
as----
the policy of the [Federal Highway] Administration that:
(b) Alternative courses of action be evaluated and decisions
be made in the best overall public interest based upon a
balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient
transportation; of the social, economic, and environmental
impacts of the proposed transportation improvement; and of
national, State, and local environmental protection goals.
(c) Public involvement and a systematic interdisciplinary
approach be essential parts of the development process for
proposed actions.
(d) Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts be
incorporated into the action. Measures necessary to mitigate
adverse impacts are eligible for Federal funding when the
Administration determines that:
(1) The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually
result from the Administration action; and
(2) The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public
expenditure after considering the impacts of the action and the
benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. In making this
determination, the Administration will consider, among other
factors, the extent to which the proposed measures would assist
in complying with a Federal statute, Executive Order, or
Administration regulation or policy.
On its face, paragraph (d) requires that measures necessary to
mitigate the adverse health effects of hazardous air pollutants and
fine particles be incorporated into the plans and specifications for
the project. Subparagraphs (1) and (2) then establish criteria for
determining whether the costs of mitigation are eligible for Federal
funding. The rule does not contemplate the approval of a project that
would have significant adverse effects on human health without
requiring that those effects be mitigated. The project must either
include measures to eliminate long-term human exposure to the levels of
hazardous air contaminants that are associated with significant risks
of adverse health effects, or alternatives must be developed that can
prevent these adverse health effects. None of these requirements of
DOT's rule have been addressed in the review of the US-95 project in
Las Vegas.
For all of the above reasons, less highway construction and more
programs to reduce vehicle travel should indeed be evaluated through
the planning and project review process to appraise their capacity to
avoid or mitigate adverse health risks caused by transportation related
air toxics emissions. While cleaner technology and better fuels are an
important part of the solution, they are not the only way or
necessarily the best way to reduce most of these risks.
Proposals to streamline NEPA reviews through such actions as
imposition of arbitrary deadlines for agency action, limits on public
involvement, curbs on the engagement of resource agencies and the
public in determinations of project purpose and need or available
reasonable alternatives, limitations on judicial review of NEPA
decisions threaten to reduce compliance with these important legal
requirements and public health safeguards. We urge Congress to oppose
such efforts as fundamental assaults on America's core environmental
and public health laws.
__________
Statement of Howard Maier, Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Areawide
Coordinating Agency, Cleveland, OH and Jerry Lasker, Executive
Director, Indian Nations Council of Governments, Tulsa, OK,
Representing The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA),
The Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG) and The National
Association of Regional Councils (NARC)
what are noaca and incog?
The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) and the
Indian Nations Council of Government (INCOG) are two of over 300
federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the
country. MPOs perform the planning component of the Federal surface
transportation act to keep the funding for transportation projects
flowing into their regions. Part of their responsibility is meeting
Clean Air Act and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) requirements and regulations relating to transportation conformity
and clean-air planning.
NOACA represents 170 local governments in a five county region.
These five counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina) total
2.1 million people. This is one fifth of the State of Ohio's
population. NOACA operates in the heart of a home rule State--where
units of local government make autonomous decisions regarding roads,
zoning, and economic development within the confines of their
respective boundaries. There is no State or Federal mandate to compel
these communities to cooperate on these issues. NOACA is the one forum
in which these communities come together and make decisions from a
regional perspective.
INCOG is a voluntary association of some 50+ local governments in
the five-county Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan area and has served as the
MPO for over 20 years. The city of Tulsa, the region's largest city,
contains about half of the region's approximately 800,000 population.
Osage County, the region's largest county, borders the State of Kansas,
is bigger than the State of Rhode Island and has a population of
approximately 45,000.
the national association of regional councils (narc)
NARC is a 32-year-old organization serving the interests of
regional councils, and MPOs. NARC is an umbrella organization comprised
of planning commissions and development districts made up of large
urban and small rural councils, and MPOs from across the country. NARC
provides advocacy and technical assistance in and for environmental
issues, economic and community development, emergency management, and
transportation. NARC emphasizes regional intergovernmental cooperation
to resolve common problems in all of these important areas.
Regional councils and MPOs are created by compact and enabling
legislation as consortia of local governments. As such, regional
councils and MPOs represent local elected officials from cities,
counties, townships, and villages. Their mission is regional planning
and coordination across multiple jurisdictions. Regional Councils and
MPOs deliver a wide-range of programs and services such as economic
development, first responder and 9-1-1, health care, infrastructure
development, aging services, air and water quality, land-use planning,
work force development, emergency management and homeland security, and
transportation.
Among all of these programs, transportation is key to the continued
prosperity and health of all regions across the country. Access to
employment and recreation and the movement of goods and services, drive
regional economies and serves to bridge communities otherwise
separated.
The Committee is addressing one of the most complex aspects of
transportation system development--transportation conformity. First and
foremost, Congress should consider whether air quality conformity as it
currently exists is a tool that truly achieves clean air quality goals
in our regions.
Our Nation needs to maintain its commitment to clean air and
healthy communities. The Nation has made great strides in the
application of new technology to environmental betterment, in the
maintenance of our freight and transport fleets, and in energy savings,
all leading to cleaner air across the country. However, the complex and
burdensome system currently used for assisting our regions in
determining standards, in applying data, and in selecting projects does
not always work to improve community livability. The current process,
while proving itself over the years, also has proven challenging for
MPOs. Benefits gained in clean air through the law need to be measured
against the increasing cost and complexity of clean air planning.
the northeast ohio experience with cmaq and conformity
The 1992 classification of Northeast Ohio as a moderate
nonattainment area for ozone generated a planning challenge for the
region. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must be developed for
nonattainment areas. SIPs identify how an area will achieve attainment
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because earlier
SIP planning efforts often generated documents that did not result in
significant improvements in actual air quality conditions, USEPA
required a specific format for the new SIPs for the newly classified
nonattainment areas. USEPA required that moderate ozone nonattainment
areas develop plans that would generate 15 percent reductions in
hydrocarbon pollutant emissions by 1996 beyond already mandated
improved vehicle technologies (e.g., catalytic converters).
Hydrocarbons, a precursor of ozone, were believed to be the primary
contributor to ozone attainment problems at that time. In northeast
Ohio, the required reduction amounted to roughly 75 tons per day. This
SIP requirement gave areas less than 4 years to generate a considerable
decrease in hydrocarbon emissions.
Northeast Ohio, like many nonattainment areas, found itself facing
a challenge. The reductions identified in the 15 percent SIP had to be
real, that is, the activities that were to generate the reduction had
to be recognized by USEPA to be certain to achieve the stated
reduction. USEPA held the authority to approve or reject any
methodology submitted for a given reduction strategy. In many instances
(e.g. the Automobile Inspection Maintenance Program), USEPA supplied
the approved methodology for local use. Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) funded projects also had to meet this ``verifiable
reduction'' requirement.
Areas planning to achieve the 15 percent reduction generally
adopted a two-tiered approach to the planning effort. First, they
identified the available control measures that could be mandated. These
included m easures such as changes in fuel formulation and the
Automobile Inspection and Maintenance (AIM) Program. Second, once all
the possible reductions from these measures were identified, other
measures were identified to make up the remaining reduction target.
These measures (e.g. signal projects) were generally not things that
could be mandated. They also generally required the development of some
quantitative or qualitative methodology for estimating the emission
reductions associated with them.
During this planning stage, USEPA approved a NOACA methodology for
estimating emission reductions from signalization projects. This
approval, and the need for additional reductions toward the 15 percent
target, led NOACA to ask local governments to identify signalization
projects that could aid in meeting its goal. Generally, only signalized
corridors generated sufficient reductions to be worth consideration for
this planning purpose. Once a set of possible candidate projects was
identified, NOACA asked municipalities to become project sponsors and
to commit to implementing the projects by the summer of 1996. The
projects of those municipalities who could make this commitment were
added to the 15 percent Plan. Twenty-two signalization projects made
this cut. CMAQ funds were the obvious choice for funding these
transportation improvements.
These events led to three results that persist to this day:
1. Twenty-two signalization projects were guaranteed CMAQ funding
for their projects in order to ensure compliance with the 15 percent
SIP;
2. A large reservoir of additional signal projects whose project
sponsors could not commit to the 1996 deadline were on the table and
were also candidates for CMAQ funding; and
3. Local communities became aware that CMAQ funds were available
and could be used for signalization projects. This resulted in a
continuing stream of applications for additional signal projects.
In addition to signalization projects CMAQ dollars have also been
used to fund the purchase of buses and the construction of park-n-ride
lots. These lots provide an increased opportunity for non-auto
dependent travel to work and other destinations. It is probable that
many of these projects would not exist in the absence of the CMAQ
program.
The CMAQ program through its specialized focus affords a unique
opportunity to pursue projects that are beneficial to air quality. It
is likely that given the limited resources available, these projects
would not be completed with regular transportation dollars. They would
fall victim to the many competing priorities for these funds. For this
reason, NOACA believes that the CMAQ program should remain to give
priority to these air-quality projects.
It should be noted that in the State of Ohio, as it is in many
States, CMAQ funding is allocated by the Department of Transportation.
While there is general agreement about this process--it is applied at
the discretion of the State. Direct apportionments to MPOs in this next
surface transportation bill would eliminate any uncertainties they have
concerning their share of CMAQ dollars.
NOACA's experience with transportation conformity analyses has been
somewhat different than that experienced in many metropolitan areas
around the country. Conformity analyses were introduced as a required
element of transportation planning in December 1993. Since that time
all proposed new projects or revisions that could generate a possible
air quality impact must be evaluated for their conformity to the
purposes of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Conformity determination in nonattainment areas
involves the comparison of the aggregate system-wide emissions
resulting from the construction of a project with those existing in its
absence. This is referred to as the Build/No-Build Test. Conformity
determination also involves the comparison of the resulting emissions
with those in the emissions budget from the applicable SIP. This is
called the Budget Test. In maintenance areas, only the SIP Budget Test
is required.
Prior to its redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard in 1996, NOACA had to conduct both the Build/No-Build and the
Budget Tests for its transportation plans, programs, and projects.
During this period, the Build/No-Build test was the only aspect of the
conformity process that posed a potential problem in the NOACA area.
This is because in a long established area like Northeast Ohio, new
capacity additions are responsible for very small changes in total area
wide emissions. As a result, differences between Build/No-Build
scenarios were very small and the demonstration of a net improvement
from an analysis frequently needed to rely on the use of off-network
reductions to offset tiny increases generated by the model. Off-network
reductions are reductions from activities that cannot be captured by
the transportation-modeling environment. Signalization projects are an
example of such a reduction. Changes in signal number and or timing are
not captured in a traditional four-step transportation model. As a
result, their impact must be determined separately and then combined
with the model results. Using these off-network results, NOACA
successfully passed both Build/No-Build and Budget Tests during its
period of nonattainment.
Following redesignation, NOACA only experienced problems with
conformity determinations when changes in the MOBILE model resulted in
dramatic changes in the forecast of emissions from the transportation
system. The MOBILE model, which is developed and updated by USEPA, has
been updated several times during the past decade. Twice during this
period, NOACA has had to seek revision to its SIP Budgets in order to
allow for conformity of its transportation plans with the SIP budget.
Outside of the aforementioned modeling circumstances, the remaining
conformity challenge for the area has been that its transportation
plans, programs, and projects must be conformed based on the entire
nonattainment/maintenance area. In the region this has meant the need
to conduct conformity for two MPOs and one additional county.
This situation has resulted in the need for significantly more
coordination, and therefore, time than would be experienced in the
absence of this requirement. Compounding this situation have been
efforts by FHWA to require the two MPOs to share identical
transportation planning timeframes as a result of their participation
in conformity planning for this multi-jurisdictional area. It severely
taxes the governing bodies of two independent MPOs to be required to
establish transportation planning schedules based solely on a required
conformity finding. The conformity process in and of itself is
expensive and time consuming--when the coordination of two Federal
agencies, a State DOT, and multiple local jurisdictions is added the
costs become unmanageable. This experience is similar for all MPOs--and
many of them have multiple State boundaries and many more local
jurisdictions.
NOACA recognizes that its experience of CMAQ and conformity
analyses has been different from many other metropolitan areas. The
area's relatively stable population has resulted in slower VMT growth
than in many other areas. As a result, emission reductions from new
vehicle improvements have outweighed any emission increases associated
with VMT growth. This has averted any of the planning difficulties
associated with major population growth and capacity increases realized
in other urbanized areas. NOACA expects however along with our
colleagues from other MPOs that we will have difficulty in planning for
the new 8 hour standards.
the experience of tulsa, oklahoma in cmaq and conformity
Tulsa County was a non-attainment area until 1990. INCOG worked
very hard locally to achieve attainment status and Tulsa became a clean
air county prior to the signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments. It was
very important to avoid the stigma associated with being on the EPA
non-attainment list, especially for economic development purposes.
Since that time, INCOG worked even harder to maintain our clean air
status. While efforts were wide ranging, perhaps most notable was the
creation of the nationally recognized Ozone Alert! Program, the
nation's first episodic voluntary emissions control program. This
program reflects INCOG's philosophy of seeking voluntary common sense
measures that are most effective in improving air quality rather than
the command and control approach too often used by State and Federal
regulators. As part of this program, gasoline suppliers and
distributors agreed to voluntarily reduce the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
of gas sold in the Tulsa area. The regional transit agency provided
free bus rides on Ozone Alert! Days and citizens and businesses were
asked to voluntarily reduce their driving and other pollution causing
activities.
In addition to the Ozone Alert! Program, Tulsa, by formal agreement
with EPA and a host of other Federal, State and local partners, became
the nation's first Flexible Attainment Region (FAR). Beginning in 1995,
the FAR provided the region a locally crafted strategy to reduce
emissions and adequate time to evaluate results before implementing
more stringent measures to meet regional goals. This approach avoided
the ``one-size-fits-all'' command and control system , which has been
historically imposed by EPA. The FAR agreement came about because the
region as local governments and private industry are committed to
improving air quality. The necessary ingredients to make this work are
flexibility and common sense. When the regions are allowed to develop
their own program the local ``buy in'' is assured and the willingness
to commit financial and political capital to achieve results is more
readily accepted.
The Tulsa area successfully maintained the 1-hour ozone standard
during the 5-year FAR agreement. After the expiration of the FAR
agreement in 2000, the Tulsa area experienced a unique weather pattern
that resulted in a number of exceedences of the ozone standard, putting
the region close to violating the standard. Again, in order to avoid
going into non-attainment INCOG entered into EPA's Ozone Flex program
which was designed to defer redesignation until it was shown that
locally imposed emission control reduction measures would not work.
INCOG is proud to relate that their continuing efforts have been
successful and they have remained in attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Presently, Tulsa faces its next challenge in meeting the 8-hr.
standard. Current readings at two of the five ozone monitors in Tulsa
County place the entire five-county Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
on the verge of non-attainment. EPA provided two strategies for
reaching attainment. The conventional nonattainment approach requires
the Governor of each State to submit to EPA a classification of
`attainment', `nonattainment' or `unclassifiable' based on information
available for each affected area. This conventional approach then
requires nonattainment areas to develop enforceable control measures to
reduce emissions, modify the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
accordingly and reach attainment by as early as 2009. Transportation
conformity analysis begins 1 year after nonattainment designation and
is required to continue for 20 years after reaching attainment.
Specific EPA guidance for the implementation of this strategy is not
yet available for the 8-hour standard. The second strategy provided by
EPA is the Early Action Compact (EAC).
The EAC is a 5-year agreement allowing local areas to develop an
area specific program identifying and implementing effective control
measures to achieve attainment at the monitors by 2007. Further, EAC
defers the effective date of the nonattainment designation. If an area
fails to achieve EAC commitments, then the conventional nonattainment
strategy kicks in. INCOG has pr oactively entered into the EAC. The EAC
will allow EPA to defer the effective date of designation. In return,
the EAC commits INCOG and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality to develop additional modeling necessary to identify control
measures that will be implemented to bring the area into compliance by
2007 rather than 2009, the date required if INCOG were to slip into
non-attainment this next season.
Since the Tulsa area is in compliance with our EAC, INCOG is
requesting the definition of `unclassifiable' designation be expanded
to include areas under EAC agreements. Even though INCOG is under an
EAC, and the effective date of the designation is put off, they are
told that EPA designations of nonattainment will still occur. This
being the case, Tulsa will be designated nonattainment. The problem
will be solved if States are given the opportunity to defer the
designation by recommending an `unclassifiable' designation.
For a complete discussion of the EAC, please see the material in
Attachment A.
INCOG has taken a pro-active approach to improve regional air
quality. The stigma associated with being designated non-attainment
will have adverse effects on the region's economic development
initiatives that so desperately need to be effective during these tough
times. INCOG is also very concerned about the health related
implications of poor air quality and its program is designed to address
those concerns.
For all of our regions, it is clear that clean air is one of
several key health goals. They do everything possible to balance
accessibility and development goals with a healthy environment. It also
is clear that air quality planning is very complex, often
misunderstood, and misapplied.
There is also concern in our regions and local communities that
current conformity law may strip local elected officials of the
authority they exercise through the comprehensive transportation
decisionmaking process. This process is adopted in coordination with
their citizens, environmental groups, and the business community.
Conformity law has the capability to alter decisions made locally and
change the very structure of decisionmaking process in a sweeping and
possibly regionally detrimental fashion. Therefore, NARC believes, with
this new reauthorization, we have the opportunity to fix provisions
that will serve only to enhance the current process.
NOACA, INCOG, and NARC as well as all the associations regional
members have undertaken an extensive look at current conformity
processes and what can be done to make the process smoother, easier to
apply, and more effective and meeting clean air goals. The key issues
are summarized as follows:
clean air planning cycles and conformity
MPOs are required by law to undertake a comprehensive planning
process. Concurrently, air quality plans are undertaken as well. There
is no synchronization of timing on all the different plans that MPOs
are doing. Plans start and stop at different times and for different
reasons. Because this makes coordination extremely difficult between
transportation and air-quality planning, NARC proposes the following
revisions.
Congress should require the planning horizons of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and transportation plans consistent.
Furthermore, the Metropolitan Plan would only have to conform every 5
years--when it is updated.
``Maintenance'' should be reduced to 5 years.
There is also the problem of implementing new national modeling
standards. NARC is concerned about the implementation of these new
standards and the effect new data runs in new models will have on
transportation programs. NARC recommends that:
Conformity modeling processes and modeling results Federal
and State Governments adopt should be consistent with regional
metropolitan transportation planning processes and fluctuations in
modeling outcomes should be accounted for. Furthermore, an appropriate
timeframe for model implementation should be allowed and regions should
not be held accountable for new variances in model outputs without
adequate time to plan.
Very specific aspects of conformity need to be changed to allow our
regions to meet clean air goals. For example, the mitigation of
emissions from industry to offset emissions from mobile sources can be
used as a comprehensive clean air strategy. Specifically, NARC believes
changes in these areas will have tremendous benefits to regions:
Congress should eliminate the conformity update triggers.
Allow Transportation Control Measure (TCM) substitution in
SIPs without SIP revisions as long as equivalent emissions reductions
are identified and implemented on a consistent schedule.
Congress should allow the use of intersector trading for
attaining clean air standards. Congress should also allow trading
between pollutant categories.
Conformity provisions should be reassessed in light of
experience with implementation of existing provisions. The purpose/
benefit of Build/No-Build Tests should be closely reviewed.
Conformity requirements for areas containing more than one
MPO must be clearly stated so as to inform those areas of the precise
requirements regarding the coordination of their planning efforts.
The loss of highway funds as a penalty for non-compliance
with conformity or other air quality requirements should be closely
reexamined. The penalty should not exacerbate the problem. In many
instances, the project that would not be completed due to the loss of
highway funds would contribute to reductions in congestion and air
pollution.
congestion mitigation and air quality program
CMAQ has been demonstratively successful in helping to relieve
congestion and improve air quality. Recently released reports indicate
that CMAQ is a very effective program and well received by MPOs. Some
specific adjustments will improve the program and the use of it at the
regional level:
Congress must increase CMAQ funding.
Congress needs to introduce more flexibility into CMAQ
with fewer restrictions on how long programs or projects can be funded
and which are eligible, e.g. 13-year limitation on operations.
Congress should suballocate CMAQ funds to all MPOs in air
quality non-attainment and maintenance areas.
In States where all regions are in attainment, the CMAQ
funds will be provided to all MPOs through suballocation (see above) in
order to maintain attainment.
Congress needs to incorporate PM10 and
PM2.5 into calculations on funding for a region.
eight-hour standards
NARC is also aware that current advances in attaining clean air
goals may change as a result of the implementation of USEPA's new more
stringent 8-hour ozone standard. This will place Northeast Ohio, Tulsa,
and many other regions, under a nonattainment status once more.
Depending on how conformity analysis is handled under this new
standard, this could result in more difficulty in demonstrating
conformity, and could influence how the area chooses to spend available
CMAQ dollars.
The new 8-hour standards (NAAQS) were revised by EPA in July 1997.
The standard set at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) with 8-hour readings
that would be averaged over 3 years. If an MPO is designated
nonattainment then requirements will result in a State Implementation
Plan (SIP), Conformity, New Source Review, and other planning
requirements--a cumbersome process.
MPOs are concerned by the litigation that took place under the 1-
hour standard and the potential for a similar rash of lawsuits once the
8-hour designations are made and the SIPs are submitted. MPOs and
States would like to find a legislative solution to this problem in
order to avoid the financial burden of defending their TIPs and SIPs.
Rural communities and counties are also aware that their
designations for nonattainment may change. Under the new 8-hour
standards over 400 counties may be newly designated for nonattainment.
Many of these areas are small city or rural counties not covered by MPO
planning areas. These areas have neither the tools nor expertise
necessary to prepare for and/or meet the standards. The costs of
compliance far outweigh the ability of rural counties to fund air-
quality initiatives.
To help MPOs prepare for the new standards NARC has a cooperative
agreement with EPA and FHWA to provide outreach to all regional
councils and MPOs on integrating transportation and air quality
planning. A series of workshops have been provided to help our members
understand the 8-hour standards and the implementation. NARC is in the
process of preparing Guidelines for Regional Councils and MPOs on
Integrating Transportation and Air Quality Planning.
clean air incentives
The only ``incentives'' that exist relative to clean air and
conformity are disincentives aimed at punishing regions that fail
current air quality standards. These disincentives may, in the extreme,
shut down a region's transportation program. The only extra funding
regions receive to combat air quality problems are those from the CMAQ
program, applied when a region reaches non-attainment or maintenance
status. To correct this imbalance and reward those regions that are in
attainment or moving toward a maintenance or attainment status, NARC
proposes the Clean Air and Attainment Pilot Program (CAAPP).
Congress should consider setting-aside, above the normal
allocation of category funding, a reward to those regions that are in
attainment or in demonstrated maintenance for a set number of years.
This allocation would be discretionary and allocated directly to
regions to fund strategies to promote clean air. The funding could be
used to fund planning, management and operations, and other ``clean-
air'' activities. The program would help create a set of `best
practices' that could be emulated by other regions to improve air
quality.
Funding for the CAAPP shall not be taken from the CMAQ
program.
Of concern to our regions is the purported linkage between
congestion and air-quality. MPOs do not necessarily believe there is
always a direct linkage between the two. While cities grow and become
more vibrant and while roads in some areas become congested--our air is
becoming cleaner. Government reports have concluded that the
application of new vehicle technology has been a positive contributor
to air being the cleanest it has been in decades. NARC respectfully
encourages Congress to look at congestion mitigation in other
discussions and through other programs--not through the conformity
process.
NARC proposes changes in TEA-21 to allow all States and regions the
flexibility to achieve air quality goals and implement world-class
transportation systems.
NARC is urging Congress to consider all its partners as important
to building and maintaining the best transportation system in the
world. NARC has released a twelve-point program to help our lawmakers
help regions. NARC seeks more funding for MPOs, better coordination
within State and Federal programs, and new and innovative programs
aimed at alleviating urban transportation problems such as congestion,
funding flexibility, and freight and goods movement. To this end,
Congress should guarantee States the flexibility to spend funds and
program projects based on their priorities and extend that same
responsibility and authority to all local elected officials.
Our association hopes Congress will also consider the role of
fiscal constraint on MPOs and councils. While absolutely necessary to
allow for the accurate accounting of our public expenditures it is
critical that revenue forecasts are precise and fiscal standards remain
consistent. MPOs and regional councils are held to higher fiscal
standards in their planning and programming processes then the States
that fund them. Congress should require States to provide accurate
revenue forecasts to MPOs and councils and engage them in calculating
these forecasts as well.
NARC will also urge Congress throughout this and the coming year to
consider greater emphasis on safety in rural and urban communities, a
balanced and intermodal approach to Federal funding, comprehensive
review and consideration of technology deployment, and greater
consideration of freight movement as an essential part of the
transportation planning process.
Of particular concern to NARC members and the citizens they
represent are the tens of thousands of accidents and deaths on rural
roads each year. Coupled with increasing safety concerns in urban
areas, this presents a sobering picture of travel on America's roads.
NARC is urging Congress to apply resources in new and innovative ways
to lessen this tragedy.
NARC is also urging Congress to consider ways to streamline the
project delivery process, while ensuring the health of our natural
environment. The ability to move projects quickly, especially those
that will make our roads safer and eliminate bottlenecks is of key
concern. Bound intimately with safety are new concerns for security.
Given the fact that many regional councils are currently involved
in emergency management planning, NARC will also urge Congress to
consider regional councils and MPOs as primary recipients of homeland
and surface transportation security funding.
NARC would like to help all MPOs achieve the same success as that
of Cleveland, Tulsa, and in other places, through a balanced,
intermodal, comprehensive, and locally and regionally led process of
planning, programming, and project selection.
______
Attachment A.--Consideration of Early Action Compact Areas and Regions
Currently in Attainment
a. the tulsa area's designation for the revised naaqs should be
``unclassifiable''. it may be necessary to clarify the caa language for
``unclassifiable'' areas, (caa sec 107 d-1 a iii) to provide
appropriate designation status for eac areas meeting all milestones
By July 15, 2003, State Governors are to submit to EPA a list of
all areas in the State recommending designation of nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable on the basis of available information as
meeting or not meeting the revised NAAQS. These designation and
boundary recommendations will precede the EPA's April 2004
designations. We believe it appropriate and critical that the Tulsa
area be ``unclassified'' during this initial revised NAAQS designation
process. We believe we meet the intent of the CAA's unclassifiable
provision through the Tulsa area's EAC commitment and efforts.
Tulsa is very nearly meeting the 8-hour standard, clearly meeting
the 1-hour standard, and through EAC MOA, committed to meeting the 8-
hour standard by 2007. The EAC provides for `deferring the effective
date of a non-attainment designation' for the Tulsa area. With the past
13 years of pro-active air quality improvements, Tulsa's air quality
continues to improve. At present, two of the five Tulsa area monitors
are only marginally above 8-hour standard and are expected to be in
compliance before the end of 2007. Given that the EAC effectively is
intended to provide a transition status only for those areas meeting
the 1-hour standard but only marginally not meeting the 8-hour
standard, we believe it reasonable and appropriate to be considered
``unclassifiable'' on the basis of available information as EAC
committed milestones are underway and monitor data reflecting these
aggressive EAC strategies pending near-implementation.
Once EAC areas are determined to be fully incompliance with all
milestones and meeting the standard at the monitor, a designation of
attainment could be issued. The EAC agreement includes a local
`maintenance plan' for growth. This plan takes the place of
transportation conformity maintenance requirements and includes
updating and modeling for future transportation projects for 5 years
beyond December 2007.
Additional support for not designating EAC areas, rather defining
them as unclassifiable, is provided by EPA's own statement in the
November 14, 2002 Jeffrey Holmstead, Memorandum, page 7, 2d paragraph
3d sentence: ``If any milestone is missed and EPA withdraws the
deferred effective date, thereby triggering a nonattainment designation
and applicable statutory requirements, a nonattainment SIP would have
to be submitted to EPA within 1 year of the new effective date of the
nonattainment designation.''
b. transportation conformity issues
Transportation conformity is intended to encourage municipalities
and States to consider the impacts of transportation projects on air
quality. State Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) must conform to
State Implementation Plans (SIPs). S pecific mandates are placed on
areas not in attainment with clean air standards. The current
transportation conformity law holds several requirements we find
counterproductive to cleaner air, and more costly than beneficial.
Additionally, because the Tulsa area is an EAC Agreement area and
expected to meet NAAQS by 2007 or earlier, the `triggers' for
transportation conformity requirements are unclear.
Transportation conformity requirements add burden and significant
cost to MPOs and local regions by requiring modeling of mobile source
emissions for future year modeling. The non-attainment SIP already
takes into account the prescribed future growth for all area emissions.
Mobile source emissions are modeled for future growth and incorporated
into an EPA approved SIP.
There is a disconnect between areas covered by EAC agreements and
Federal transportation conformity requirements. If a nonattainment
designation (with a deferred effective date on non-attainment
designation and related requirements) were to occur for the Tulsa area
in 2004, it is unclear whether or not conformity would kick-in within 1
year. Reasonably, transportation conformity would also be deferred
under the EACs ``related requirements'' clause.
There is a disconnect between whether or not--and when--
transportation conformity would begin for EAC areas meeting milestones
and meeting attainment at the monitors in 2007. The problem arising
from this issue is resolved through our earlier recommendation that EAC
areas, like Tulsa, be eligible to be designated unclassifiable until
2007. At the end of 2007, when EAC area monitors are in compliance with
the revised NAAQS, transportation-planning requirements as planned for
in the EAC agreement and SIP planning process would begin.
Once an area reaches attainment, the 20-year maintenance
transportation conformity requirement for areas redesignated to
attainment creates an arbitrary and unreasonable burden for areas, like
Tulsa, that have never been more than marginally above the standard. A
reasonable rule for maintenance conformity requirements would take into
account the degree of nonattainment an area reached. Areas like Tulsa
should not be required to perform conformity nearly as long as areas
classified as `serious' or `extreme'. A 5-year maintenance conformity
period is more reasonable. Also, maintenance requirements for
conformity should be better partnered with SIP planning, providing
reasonable synchronization of modeling efforts.
Newly designated nonattainment areas will be faced with data
inadequacies. Local areas, like Tulsa, will need time to accumulate the
necessary resources and data to produce updates to the long range plan
every three rather than 5 years. There should be some consideration for
a necessary delay in shifting the requirement to update the long-range
transportation plan from 5 to 3 years at a minimum. We believe
retaining a 5-year plan update is appropriate.
c. other related issues
The current limitations placed on Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) funding is constraining and minimizes effective project
implementation especially in the area of using funds for operational
purposes. For example, our transit agency provides free bus rides on
Ozone Alert! Days--an important part of our program. They are
constrained by the current CMAQ rules for continuing this program for
more than 3 years. We recommend allowing more flexibility in both the
type of CMAQ projects selected and removing the 3-year limitation for
project eligibility for funding.
The current TEA-21 legislation does not provide for areas that are
in attainment, like Tulsa, to receive CMAQ funds to undertake air
quality improvement programs. We would recommend that consideration be
given to expanding the eligibility for receiving CMAQ funds to those
areas that have entered in to Early Action Compact agreements with EPA.
Simply put, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''.
__________
Statement of Diane Steed, President, American Highway Users Alliance
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
appear before you for the first time as the new President of the
American Highway Users Alliance. Since 1932, The Highway Users has
represented both motorists and a broad cross-section of businesses that
depend on safe and efficient highways to transport their families,
customers, employees, and products. From coast-to-coast, our members
pay the user fees that finance the Federal highway program, and they
expect the government to be good stewards of their investment in our
nation's roads and bridges. Highway User members strongly believe that
user fees paid on the nations roads should be rapidly returned to the
roads through projects that make their motoring experience safer and
less frustrating.
I use the term ``rapidly'' for a reason. Mr. Chairman, I know that
you have been a leader among Senators who want to streamline the
project delivery process. I want to take a second to thank you for your
attention to the problems of project delay. You can count on us to
support your efforts to advance highway projects quickly.
This morning I will focus my testimony mainly on our views of the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program or CMAQ. However, I would
also like to state for the record that I endorse the comments of those
who testified last summer (and here today, if applicable) on the
specific need to coordinate the submission of Clean Air Act State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) with statewide and Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).
we care about congestion relief and clean air
When I tell someone that I work for the Highway Users, the
frequent, joking reply is that he or she is one. Nearly every American
can claim to be a highway user--regardless of race, creed, or even
political affiliation. Representing such a broad group, I can say
confidently that highway users, like all Americans, care about the
quality of the air we breathe and want it to keep getting cleaner.
Of course, we have also lost patience with the increasing amount of
traffic that chokes up our roads, delays our trips home to our
families, causes accidents, strangles commerce, and even slows
emergency vehicles when time really matters most.
With that in mind, I am so pleased to speak to you about the Clean
Air Act and the CMAQ program--a transportation program that should
address both the problems of congestion and air pollution.
clean air progress
The good news is that we have a freer, more mobile society than
ever and our air is cleaner. The dramatic improvements in air quality
are truly a testament to the outstanding benefits of the Clean Air Act.
Incredibly, today's car on the road emits less pollution than a 1960's
car sitting in its driveway with its engine off. And more progress has
been made in mobile source pollution reduction than any other source.
For most metropolitan areas, mobile source emissions are no longer the
principal source of pollution; for many, they aren't even second.
Since 1970, there is 28 percent less carbon monoxide in the air, 39
percent less sulfur dioxide, 42 percent less volatile organic
compounds, 75 percent less particulate matter, and lead pollution has
been all but eliminated. In fact, the only pollutant that has increased
since 1970 has been Nitrous Oxides. However the amount of NOx being
emitted from automobiles is down over 31 percent.
At the same time, the population has grown 38 percent,
transportation energy consumption has gone up 61 percent, there are 71
percent more drivers, and 99 percent more vehicles. And most
impressively, vehicle-miles-traveled or VMT has increased nearly point-
by-point with the gross domestic product at 148 percent and 158
percent, respectively. This is no coincidence. Mobility leads to
economic growth.
In the State of the Union address, President Bush introduced his
pollution-free fuel cell car initiative by noting that ``the greatest
environmental progress will come about . . . through technology and
innovation''. When contrasting the growth in vehicle miles traveled
with the reductions in Clean Air Act pollutants, it is clear that
technology and innovation have done far more to clean the air than
increased travel has done to sully it. For example, today's diesel
truck engine is eight times cleaner than an engine built just a dozen
years ago. And with new technology for dramatically cleaner diesel
fuels and engines coming online, it is clear that technological
advancement leading to cleaner air is only gaining in momentum.
a major flaw in the 1990 clean air act amendments
When the Clean Air Act Amendments were written in 1990, there was
an assumption from EPA models that increased vehicle-miles of travel
(VMT) would be a major source of increased air pollution. As I have
already discussed, this has not been the case. VMT has gone up;
pollution has gone down. EPA's models did not reflect the improvements
that would be realized by technology. But due to this flaw in the CAAA,
State Implementation Plans for air quality conformity are not approved
unless States include projects to reduce VMT. If States do not show how
their plans would reduce VMT, the EPA can impose sanctions that freeze
money for highway projects.
which cmaq projects work and which do not
Mr. Chairman, last summer this Committee held a hearing on CMAQ and
conformity. One common conclusion reached by several witnesses was that
the biggest environmental bang for the buck comes from traffic flow
improvements, diesel engine retrofits, and vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs. Yet, according to the EPA, the highest priority
for CMAQ funds is the implementation of transportation control measures
(TCMs) intended to reduce VMT. The use of the word ``control'' is
telling. TCMs are intended to control the ``bad'' people who either
need or choose to drive alone. These measures are the ``carrots and
sticks'' advocated by some anti-car, anti-motorist planners and groups
who believe that government should be in the business of forcing people
out of their cars. TCMs sit uneasily with a population accustomed to
basic freedoms. However, even if that were not the case, TCMs are
doomed to failure for another reason: They are directed mainly at
commuters--but over 80 percent of trips are NOT commutes. It should be
no surprise that TCMs have little to no proven track record in causing
measurable clean air progress or congestion relief.
What should be clear is that there are serious flaws in the CMAQ
program. And the reasons are actually quite simple. First, road
improvements that increase capacity for single occupant vehicles are
prohibited. In other words, by law, the vast majority of drivers idling
in congestion cannot get any relief under the program. Second, there is
no measurement of the projects funded under the program so there is no
incentive for prioritize the most effective projects. For example,
according to a recent Federal Highway Administration report, transit
improvements cost $272,000 per ton of hydrocarbon removed while traffic
signalization improvements only cost $23,000 per ton. Yet inexplicably,
the year that this data was reported, transit received 47 percent of
all CMAQ funds while only 32 percent went to traffic lights.
some of the most effective projects are ineligible for funding
Many projects that would result in clean air progress and
congestion relief are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere is that more
clear than in a comprehensive examination of the benefits of making
modest improvements to unclog America's worst bottlenecks. In 1999, we
analyzed the worst traffic bottlenecks in the country and calculated
the benefits of improving them from what engineers call level of
service ``F'' (or failing) to just passable level of service ``D''.
What we found was astonishing. If the worst 167 bottlenecks were
unclogged, the average emissions of volatile organic compounds would
drop by 44 percent, carbon monoxide would be reduced 45 percent.
Greenhouse gases would drop over 70 percent. At the same time, traffic
delays would be reduced by 71 percent, saving the average commuter 40
minutes per roundtrip. Clearly, a comprehensive program to relieve
traffic bottlenecks is an example of a program that should meet the
logical requirements for an effective Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality program. But under the current program it is ineligible because
it would provide capacity for single occupancy vehicles.
In addition, vehicle scrappage programs are ineligible under CMAQ.
The EPA estimates that the dirtiest 10 percent of vehicle contribute 40
percent of the pollution. Providing incentives to scrap old, dirty
vehicles would do nothing for congestion relief, but it would do far
more to improve air quality than trying in vain to convince people to
give up their cars.
recommendations to improve the cmaq program
Although we clearly have concerns with the CMAQ program,
fortunately the majority of problems can be remedied with only minor
statutory adjustments. We believe the CMAQ program can be restructured
to better meet the true pollution-reduction goals of the Clean Air Act.
At the same time, these program improvements can markedly reduce
traffic congestion. We recommend the following:
(1) Ease CMAQ's inflexibility. Allow all transportation projects
that reduce congestion and Clear Air Act pollutants to be eligible for
funding.
(2) Focus on technological improvements instead of trying to gget
people out of their cars. Let's be realistic: TCMs aren't convincing
people to stop driving and they never will. And changes in VMT are not
accurate indicators of air pollution anyway.
(3) When funding CMAQ projects, measure the benefits and costs of
alternative strategies to relieve congestion and reduce air pollution.
Based on those criteria, engage in projects that can be shown to do the
most good for congestion and air quality. DOT should report results and
develop best practices for obligating CMAQ funds.
(4) Frustrated drivers stuck in traffic would appreciate a targeted
program that fixws the worst bottlenecks. Give motorists a break from
traffic jams and clean the air! Traffic congestion is positively
nightmarish in many parts of the country. We're wasting 3.6 billion
hours and 5.7 billion gallons of fuel in delay. The air quality,
safety, and time management benefits of unclogging those bottlenecks
would be extraordinary.
conclusion
Since 1991, $14 billion has been authorized for the CMAQ program.
But CMAQ doesn't reduce congestion and clean the air because of its
name alone. Changes in the way the account is administered could go a
long way toward realizing the transportation-related goals of the Clean
Air Act. We look forward to working with you as you reconsider the
structure of this program. I'd be happy to answer your questions at the
appropriate time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congested Total
Miles of Miles of Percentage
States Major Major Congested
Highways Highways
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... 490 1,349 36%
Alaska................................ 28 110 25
Arizona............................... 793 1,316 60
Arkansas.............................. 141 859 16
California............................ 5,314 8,379 63
Colorado.............................. 637 1,289 49
Connecticut........................... 385 1,048 37
Delaware.............................. 128 188 68
District of Columbia.................. 91 121 75
Florida............................... 2,433 3,677 66
Georgia............................... 1,013 2,360 43
Hawaii................................ 129 221 58
Idaho................................. 92 347 27
Illinois.............................. 1,481 3,359 44
Indiana............................... 686 1,988 35
Iowa.................................. 116 863 13
Kansas................................ 162 957 17
Kentucky.............................. 394 977 40
Louisiana............................. 406 1,181 34
Maine................................. 40 248 16
Maryland.............................. 817 1,349 61
Massachussetts........................ 805 2,155 37
Michigan.............................. 1,317 2,699 49
Minnesota............................. 409 939 44
Mississippi........................... 195 854 23
Missouri.............................. 603 1,743 35
Montana............................... 31 230 13
Nebraska.............................. 157 476 33
Nevada................................ 188 350 54
New Hampshire......................... 68 260 26
New Jersey............................ 1,028 1,926 53
New Mexico............................ 199 629 32
New York.............................. 1,376 3,986 35
North Carolina........................ 769 2,022 38
North Dakota.......................... 20 204 10
Ohio.................................. 1,042 3,110 34
Oklahoma.............................. 355 1,155 31
Oregon................................ 327 858 38
Pennsylvania.......................... 962 3,305 29
Rhode Island.......................... 144 468 31
South Carolina........................ 395 933 42
South Dakota.......................... 21 182 12
Tennessee............................. 846 1,778 48
Texas................................. 2,686 7,159 38
Utah.................................. 284 455 62
Vermont............................... 11 155 7
Virginia.............................. 837 1,665 50
Washington............................ 645 1,677 38
West Virginia......................... 89 306 29
Wisconsin............................. 382 1,665 23
Wyoming............................... 13 297 4
---------------------------------
U.S. Total.......................... 31,980 75,827 42%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Statement of Marsha Kaiser, Director of Planning and Capital
Programming, Maryland Department of Transportation, on Behalf of The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Marsha
Kaiser. I am Director of Planning and Capital Programming for the
Maryland Department of Transportation. I am here today to testify on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). We applaud your continuing commitment to improving
air quality in your State and across the Nation, and thank you for your
leadership in holding this hearing to address transportation congestion
and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ).
In my testimony today, first I will discuss ``next-generation''
refinements to the transportation conformity process to build on the
experience we have gained over the last decade. We would like to see
procedural modifications to conformity to provide for:
The alignment and greater consistency between the
transportation and air quality planning processes, including analytical
tools and planning assumptions;
Greater flexibility to implement cost effective emission
reduction strategies; and
Enhanced consultation on implementation of the new
national standards for ozone and fine particulates.
Second, I will discuss AASHTO's views on the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Program, which we believe should be continued with some
added flexibility to enhance our ability to meet the dual challenges of
congestion and air quality improvement.
transportation conformity
Background. The Clean Air Act closely aligned transportation and
air quality planning through an analytical process called
``transportation conformity.'' The policy objective of transportation
conformity is to coordinate air quality and transportation planning by
ensuring that transportation plans are consistent with plans for
attaining Federal air quality standards.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that all of the State
transportation officials across the country fully support the national
goal of improving air quality and ensuring a healthy environment in all
of our States. After 10 years of experience, transportation and air
quality agencies have learned a great deal about how to better
coordinate their intertwined planning efforts. That experience has also
exposed procedural weaknesses with transportation conformity that we
believe can only be addressed legislatively. After 10 years, it is
appropriate for Congress to consider refinements to the conformity
requirements.
The current transportation conformity regulations were drafted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to implement
provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which more
explicitly defined the process for ensuring that transportation plans
and programs conform to State air quality implementation plans (SIPs).
The dual policy objectives of transportation conformity are to:
Coordinate the transportation and air quality planning
processes; and
Ensure that transportation plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) are consistent with SIPs.
There is generally agreement among the transportation agencies that
implement the conformity process that it has improved coordination
between transportation and air quality plans and has vastly improved
communications between transportation and air quality professionals. In
addition, the process has been successful in raising awareness among
decisionmakers of the connection between transportation and air quality
and has promoted broader involvement in transportation planning by
stakeholders.
Nevertheless, 10 years of experience with transportation conformity
has also exposed some weaknesses in the current procedures designed to
integrate air quality and transportation planning through conformity:
Misalignments and inconsistencies in planning assumptions,
planning horizons, and modeling tools; and
Absence of any flexibility to revise Transportation
Control Measures without first revising the State air quality
implementation plan (SIP).
The impact on transportation programs is substantial. Just since
1997, over 80 nonattainment or maintenance areas have gone into--or
barely missed going into--a conformity lapse, putting billions of
dollars of transportation dollars at the risk. Process inefficiencies
impose an additional administrative burden with sizable opportunity
costs--scarce staff and resources are diverted from addressing the wide
array of existing and emerging transportation policy challenges,
including for example, safety and security or broader environmental and
community objectives.
AASHTO has identified several procedural improvements to the
conformity process improvements which would harmonize the
transportation and air quality planning process and reinforce the role
of conformity to ensure consistency with SIPs. The goal is simply to
strengthen the connection between transportation and air quality
planning by making common sense improvements to the conformity process
that will benefit transportation and air quality agencies alike.
transportation conformity procedure revisions
Provide better integration and consistency in the transportation and
air quality planning processes, timelines and updates, planning
assumptions and modeling tools.
1. Align Planning Horizons
Metropolitan transportation plans are required to have a minimum of
a 20-year planning horizon. The time horizons for SIPs are much
shorter--the SIP time horizons extend only to the attainment date, with
the latest being 2010. As a result, there is frequently a gap of 10
years or more between the horizon year for the SIP and the horizon year
for the long-range transportation plan.
Transportation agencies must demonstrate conformity to the last
year of the plan which means that on-road mobile sources are
constrained to the motor vehicle emissions budget from the attainment
year to the last year of the transportation plan unless SIPs
specifically establish budgets for years after the attainment date yet
within the transportation planning horizon. Also, there can be no
credit taken for technology or other measures that may be available
during the out-years unless those measures have a regulation in place
and implementation is assured.
The mismatch in the timeframes for transportation and air quality
plans has placed an undue burden on the on-road mobile sector where
there are very few measures remaining that can be implemented that will
yield significant emissions reductions. This is especially true as
vehicles continue to get cleaner and Federal controls on vehicles are
phased in. This has caused problems for transportation agencies in
making conformity determinations, which is a criterion for receiving
Federal highway and transit funding.
Recommendation: Require conformity determination on the first 10
years of the transportation plan or to the attainment date, whichever
is the longer time period. For informational purposes, regional
emissions analysis would be done on the remaining years of the
transportation plan.
2. Provide More Predictable and Coordinated Planning Update
Cycles and Consistent Planning Assumptions
Long-range transportation plans, which are for 20 year periods,
must be updated not less frequently than every 3 years. Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be updated every 2 years. In addition,
there are various SIP-related triggers in the transportation conformity
rule that require plan and TIP updates within 18 months of various SIP
actions. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) do not have a regular update
cycle.
This has created a situation where transportation plans are updated
regularly while SIPs are updated on a discretionary and sporadic basis,
resulting in overlapping plan cycles, public confusion, less time spent
on other important planning tasks and a continuous conformity process
in many areas. In addition, the unpredictable nature of the 18-month
SIP triggers for conformity redeterminations has caused uncertainty in
the transportation planning and TIP development processes. Because
transportation plans, TIPs and SIPs must use the latest planning
assumptions each time they are updated, the assumptions used in SIPs
tend to be older than--and inconsistent with--those in transportation
plans and TIPs. AASHTO believes that the conformity process must
provide a more predictable and coordinated transportation and air
quality plan update cycle along with consistent planning assumptions.
Recommendation: Require the update of metropolitan transportation
plans at least every 5 years with transportation conformity
determinations required after each update, unless more frequent updates
of the TIP are needed. Reaffirm that TIPs must continue to be
consistent with plans and eliminate the requirement for a conformity
determination on TIPs because it is duplicative of the conformity
requirement for plans.
3. Provide Coordinated and Consistent Use of Emissions
Models and Emissions Factors
EPA recently released MOBILE6, the new generation of the emissions
factor model used in all States except California. The California
model, EMFAC2000 was released in 2001 and will be updated in the near
future. The conformity rule requires that latest planning assumptions
and emissions models be used in transportation plans, TIPs and SIPs
when they are updated.
Nonattainment areas have 2 years to begin using MOBILE6 (or
EMFAC2001) in conformity determinations with no corresponding
requirement that SIPs be updated during that period using the new
emissions factors model. (There are exceptions to this 2-year phase in
for areas that took credit for Tier II vehicle standards and heavy duty
engine regulations in their SIPs--these areas have either 1 or 2 years
depending on the specific conditions in their SIPs).
The thrust of the transportation conformity requirement was to
provide for an integrated transportation and air quality planning
process. However, requiring that regional emissions analysis be done
with latest emissions model without requiring a SIP revision using that
model prior to use in conformity is contrary to an integrated and
seamless process. In fact, the different estimating techniques and
parameters used in the models result in significant differences in
estimates of current and future emissions levels. Conducting conformity
analysis on transportation plans and TIPs that use one model while SIPs
used an older model creates an apples to oranges comparison, contrary
to congressional intent and rationale for transportation conformity.
Use of latest planning assumptions requires that vehicle mix data
be the most recently available data for use in conformity
determinations and in SIPs. However, because SIPs are not updated on a
regular basis, the vehicle mix data used to develop SIPs may be many
years older than that required for use in transportation conformity
determinations. This has caused problems in several areas simply
because different data was used in the SIP planning process than is
being used in transportation plan and TIP development.
Recommendation: Require that SIP budgets and conformity
demonstrations be based on the same mobile-source emissions factors
model and/or same vehicle fleet mix data. Require the use of the latest
EPA-approved emissions models in SIPs prior to requiring their use in
transportation plans and TIPs. Require the use of the latest vehicle
fleet mix data in SIPs prior to requiring their use in transportation
plans and TIPs.
4. Synchronize Sanction Clocks
In the event of a conformity lapse, there are immediate
consequences in that only certain types of transportation projects may
proceed until the lapse is resolved. In contrast, in the event of a SIP
failure, there is an 18-month period in which to correct the SIP
failure prior to the imposition of sanctions. In essence, a conformity
lapse functions as an immediate sanction with no time permitted to
correct situations that might have led to the lapse.
Recommendation: Align the conformity lapse with same 18-month time
clock for imposition of sanctions for SIP failures in order to provide
a similar amount of time to correct deficiencies in transportation
plans and TIPs.
5. Require Conformity Only for Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas
Transportation conformity determinations must be undertaken for all
nonattainment and maintenance areas. Currently, if an area has
completed its 20-year maintenance period prior to the last year of
transportation plan, the area still must meet conformity requirements
all the way to the last year of the transportation plan--the ``horizon
year'' (e.g., end of 20-year maintenance period is 2006 and the
transportation plan horizon is 2025). Because some areas are
approaching the end of their 20-year maintenance periods, this
situation is beginning to surface. Similarly, when Maintenance Plans
reach their 8-year update point, the new SIP budget need only be for 10
years out, rather than the 20+ years required for transportation plans.
Recommendation: Clarify that conformity determinations are required
only for that time period when an area is classified as nonattainment
or maintenance, and can be suspended when reclassified as attainment.
Provide flexibility to enable transportation agencies to respond to
changing circumstances.
1. Allow Substitution of Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) Without
a SIP Revision
Transportation control measures that are included in SIPs cannot be
added, deleted, or changed unless a formal SIP revision is made with
its accompanying processing delays, and a subsequent conformity
determination. This discourages the inclusion of TCMs in SIPs with the
result that transportation control measures are often included in
transportation plans and TIPs and contribute to meeting emissions
budget, but are only included in SIPs if they are absolutely essential
to achieving needed emission reductions.
Recommendation: Permit the revision or substitution of
transportation control measures that yield equivalent emission
reductions without the need for either a SIP revision or a conformity
determination.
2. During a Conformity Lapse, Consider Emission Reductions
from Other than On-Road Mobile Sources
In the event of a conformity lapse, transportation agencies have
very few tools at their disposal that will generate sufficient emission
reductions to correct a lapse. This is increasingly the case because
vehicle technologies continue to improve and new technologies are being
phased in that will continue to reduce the amount of emissions from on-
road motor vehicles. Further, the cost of emission reductions from on-
road sources is higher than other sectors given the tight controls on
these sources already.
At the same time, there are uncontrolled sources that account for
large portions of emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas
(e.g., marine vessels, off-road vehicles, etc.) Such sources could
generate emissions reductions more cost effectively than on-road mobile
sources. The ability to ``purchase'' emissions credits from other
sources would provide needed flexibility and cost effective emissions
reductions.
Recommendation: In the event of a conformity lapse, permit all
polluting sectors to be included in an analysis of strategies to reduce
emissions in order to correct the conformity lapse and permit the
purchase of emissions credits from other sources.
Develop an inclusive process for implementation of the new National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine
particulates.
1. Require Adequate Consultation
EPA recently held public meetings on the implementation of the new
ozone and PM NAAQS. These new standards are expected to affect many
areas that are not currently nonattainment areas. A significant number
of the new nonattainment areas are rural. The impacts will include
transportation conformity requirements and new areas will need adequate
time to prepare to meet these new requirements.
Recommendation: Require that EPA provide adequate notification of
proposed, new requirements and consult with affected areas sufficiently
in advance of new designations for those areas to be prepared to
address any new transportation-related requirements.
2. Provide an Adequate Grace Period for New Nonattainment
Areas
to Demonstrate Conformity
Congress provided a 1-year grace period for new areas to
demonstrate conformity after the new ozone and/or PM2.5 non-
attainment designations are made. One year may be insufficient for
areas, particularly those that have not had to address conformity
issues in the past.
Recommendation: Allow for a 3-year period for an area to
demonstrate conformity after the EPA makes designations under the ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. Ensure that the SIPs for these areas are
also developed within this timeframe, which is consistent with Clean
Air Act requirements for SIP development within 3 years of a
designation.
congestion mitigation and air quality program (cmaq)
Since the 1970's we have made remarkable progress in reducing air
pollution, including emissions from motor vehicles. According to the
U.S. Federal Highway Administration\1\ emissions from Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) are down 59 percent and emissions from Carbon Monoxide
(CO) are down 43 percent. Emissions from Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are up
slightly (5 percent) for all vehicles, but decreased by more than 30
percent for automobiles. The introduction of Tier II engine and
gasoline standards and heavy duty diesel engine standards are predicted
to decrease NOx emissions by 61 percent and 88 percent, respectively,
by 2030. This is a remarkable success story when we recognize that
these reductions have occurred at the same time we had 37 percent
growth in population, 147 percent growth in gross domestic product and
143 percent growth in vehicle miles traveled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Air
Quality: Selected Facts and Figures, January, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the progress we have made in reducing emissions, the
complementary goal of congestion relief remains a challenge. Too many
Americans are spending time stuck in traffic. Congestion deeply affects
our nation's ability to move goods and services and threatens the
health of our economy. Congestion is no longer confined to urban areas,
peak periods or work trips. According to the Texas Transportation
Institute's 2002 Urban Mobility Study, ``Congestion is growing in
metropolitan areas of every size . . . The average annual delay per
peak road traveler climbed from 16 hours in 1982 to 62 hours in 2000.''
At least fifty percent of the congestion problem is associated with
inadequate capacity. The remainder is caused by non-recurring delays,
which result from vehicle crashes and breakdowns, weather,
construction, special events, poor signalization and even the mix of
vehicle types.
To address the dual goals of relieving congestion and reducing
emissions, a diverse set of strategies and options--tailored to
individual States and regions--is needed. The CMAQ Program was
established in 1992 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) with funding targeted for programs and projects that could
address mobility and air quality needs simultaneously. CMAQ provided
flexibility to fund a wide array of transportation improvements
including more traditional projects such highway traffic flow and
intersection projects, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects as well
as alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies, telecommuting,
intermodal highway facilities, and inspection and maintenance programs.
After 10 years and a $14 billion Federal investment, the CMAQ
Program enjoys broad support, largely attributable to its flexibility
and broad eligibility. We believe that the key to the continued success
of the CMAQ program is continuing and enhancing that flexibility.
aashto recommendations for the cmaq program
Continue the CMAQ Program with funding levels increasing
commensurate with increases in the overall highway program.
Extend the eligibility of CMAQ funds to all types of
projects that reduce congestion or improve air quality, including
traffic flow improvements and Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) capacity
enhancement projects that have air quality benefits.
Permit States to use CMAQ funds in attainment areas if
emissions reductions benefit adjacent non-attainment or maintenance
areas, or in areas identified as high risk.
Eliminate the CMAQ 3-year restriction on highway and
transit projects, including operations and Inspection and Maintenance.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that all of the State
transportation officials across the country fully support the national
goal of improving air quality and ensuring a healthy environment in all
of our States. We strongly believe that environmental stewardship is
very much a part of our fundamental transportation mobility mission,
and continually seek new and innovative, multi-modal strategies to more
effectively unite the two. We stand ready to work with you, the Members
of your Committee and your staff to simplify, demystify and bring
common sense to transportation conformity. And we urge you to broaden
the CMAQ Program to enable funds to be used to more effective target
the dual goals of improving mobility and air quality.
__________
Statement of Melody Flowers, Sierra Club Washington Representative
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the implementation of
Clean Air Conformity and the CMAQ program. The Sierra Club, the
nation's largest and oldest grassroots environmental organization with
over 700,000 members in 65 chapters and over 400 local groups
nationwide, is committed to protecting and strengthening Clean Air
Conformity and the CMAQ program as one of our top priorities in the
reauthorization of TEA-21.
These important programs are aimed at achieving clean air in order
to protect public health and safety. While the improvements in air
quality over the past 30 years have been impressive, we still have a
long way to go. One-half, or more than 142 million, Americans breathe
air that is not healthy, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. It is essential that we maintain conformity between clean air
and transportation rules since transportation is one of the largest
sources of air pollution in many areas. The Sierra Club endorses the
testimony and recommendations put forward today by Michael Replogle.
We would like to take this opportunity to specifically draw your
attention to the mounting number of studies that examine health and
safety questions surrounding the expansion of highways near schools,
hospitals, and other places where children, the elderly and vulnerable
populations spend large amounts of time. These studies link air
pollution near high-traffic areas to cancer, asthma, heart attacks, and
low birth weight babies for people who live in nearby communities.
We have attached 17 peer-reviewed, published studies making this
link between traffic-related air pollution and increased health risks.
We have raised these issues on numerous highway projects from
Washington, DC. to Los Angeles to Las Vegas and Wisconsin.
With highway expansions and constructions proposed in many
populated urban areas across the country, the Sierra Club and public
health professionals are calling on the Federal Highway Administration
of the U.S. Department of Transportation to study the health impacts of
increased air pollution and air toxics on children and neighbors where
these expansions and constructions are planned.
According to Dr. Ronald Rosen, a pediatric oncologist from Las
Vegas, demographic and environmental risk factors are linked to
increasing incidence and trends for certain malignancies. Highway air
pollution and particulate matter aggravate respiratory and
cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, and preliminary data
suggest a relationship to childhood leukemia. Historically and more
recent studies call attention to urban industrialization contributing
to serious public health problems.
Furthermore, Dr. Seth Foldy, city of Milwaukee Medical
Commissioner, States there is mounting evidence that people who live
near highways and other high-traffic areas may be at higher risk for
asthma attacks, lung cancer and other health problems because of motor
vehicle pollution, and that in general, expanding highways will draw
more cars and trucks to neighboring communities and exacerbate these
problems.
The USA Today story printed on March 7, 2003, Lawsuits Pits Risks
and Roads,\1\ focused in particular on the health impacts of the
proposed expansion of US-95 in Las Vegas to ten lanes. Sierra Club is
suing the Federal Highway Administration on the grounds that the agency
failed to adequately consider the health risk associated with increased
air pollution and air toxics from the expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-06-vegas-highway-
usat--x.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies conducted in Las Vegas confirm what similar studies across
the country have shown: that people who live adjacent to large highways
are at a much higher risk for cancer and lung disease because of the
pollution from cars.
More recently, scientists have begun to look at the problem on a
neighborhood scale to estimate how particular sources of air
pollution--including highways--affect nearby communities. These studies
have found that certain pollutants can be 25 times more concentrated
near busy highways, and people who live near high-traffic areas are
more likely to suffer a variety of health problems, like more asthma,
cancer, and low birth weights. People who spend many hours driving in
traffic are at high risk as well.
The good news is that the California Air Resources Board is
considering mapping neighborhoods to warn residents of the pollution
risk. See the Los Angeles Times story attached below.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/la-re-
freeway15dec15.story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask you to require detailed studies to investigate how much of
the health risk could be eliminated if cleaner transportation
services--such as clean buses, rail systems, and improved pedestrian
and bicycling infrastructure--are built in high traffic corridors.
As Congress proceeds to chart the spending of billions of dollars
in Federal transportation funding in the reauthorization of TEA-21, we
need to look at the impact of transportation investments on densely
populated, high-traffic areas, where highway expansions cause the
greatest health problems. These locations are precisely the kinds of
places where public transportation is most practical.
By law, the Federal Highway Administration is supposed to evaluate
public health risks and explore alternatives for transportation
projects. When the agency ignores that part of its responsibility,
neighborhoods get more pollution and communities get stuck with bad
projects and never know what they are missing--clean air.
For a summary of scientific studies on the health risks associated
with high-traffic highways, please contact [email protected],
608-257-4994.
Thank you.
______
Key Studies on Air Pollution and Health Effects Near High-Traffic Areas
air pollution from busy roads linked to shorter life spans
for nearby residents
Dutch researchers looked at the effects of long-term exposure to
traffic-related air pollutants on 5,000 adults. They found that people
who lived near a main road were almost twice as likely to die from
heart or lung disease and 1.4 times as likely to die from any cause
compared with those who lived in less-trafficked areas. Researchers say
these results are similar to those seen in previous U.S. studies on the
effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution. The
authors say traffic emissions contain many pollutants that might be
responsible for the health risks, such as ultrafine particles, diesel
soot, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to cardiovascular and
respiratory problems. (Hoek, Brunekreef, Goldbohn, Fischer, van den
Brandt. (2002). Association between mortality and indicators of
traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study.
Lancet, 360 (9341): 1203-9.)
truck traffic linked to childhood asthma hospitalizations
A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffalo)
found that children living in neighborhoods with heavy truck traffic
within 200 meters of their homes had increased risks of asthma
hospitalization. The study examined hospital admission for asthma
amongst children ages 0-14, and residential proximity to roads with
heavy traffic. (Lin, Munsie, Hwang, Fitzgerald, and Cayo. (2002).
Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State
Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A, Vol. 88, pp. 73-81.)
pregnant women who live near high traffic areas more likely to have
premature and low birth weight babies
Researchers observed an approximately 10-20 percent increase in the
risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to women
living near high traffic areas in Los Angeles County. In particular,
the researchers found that for each one part per million increase in
annual average carbon monoxide concentrations where the women lived,
there was a 19 percent and 11 percent increase in risk for low birth
weight and premature births, respectively. (Wilhelm, Ritz. (2002).
Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los
Angeles County, California, 1994-1996. Environmental Health
Perspectives. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5688.)
traffic-related air pollution associated with respiratory symptoms
in two-year-old children
This cohort study found that 2 year old children who are exposed to
higher levels of trafficrelated air pollution are more likely to have
self-reported respiratory illnesses, including wheezing, ear/nose/
throat infections, and reporting of physician-diagnosed asthma, flu or
serious cold. (Brauer et al. (2002). Air Pollution from Traffic and the
Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic
Symptoms in Children. Am J Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Vol.
166 pp 1092-1098.)
people who live near freeways exposed to 25 times more particle
pollution
Studies conducted in the vicinity of InterStates 405 and 710 in
southern California found that the number of ultrafine particles in the
air was approximately 25 times more concentrated near the freeways and
that pollution levels gradually decrease to near normal (background)
levels around 300 meters, or 990 feet, downwind from the freeway. The
researchers note that motor vehicles are the most significant source of
ultrafine particles, which have been linked to increases in mortality
and morbidity. Recent research concludes that ultrafine particles are
more toxic than larger particles with the same chemical composition.
Moreover, the researchers found considerably higher concentrations of
carbon monoxide pollution near the freeways. (Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Sioutas.
Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major
highway. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. September
2002; Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Shen, Sioutas. Study of ultrafine particles near
a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric
Environment. 36(2002), 4323-4335.)
asthma more common for children living near freeways
A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing
illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of
a child's home to main roads. The risk was greatest for children living
within 90 meters of the road. (Venn et al. (2001). Living Near A Main
Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children. American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Vol. 164, pp. 2177-2180.)
A study of 1,068 Dutch children found that asthma, wheeze, cough,
and runny nose were significantly more common in children living within
100 meters of freeways. Increasing density of truck traffic was also
associated with significantly higher asthma levels--particularly in
girls. (van Vliet et al. (1997). Motor exhaust and chronic respiratory
symptoms in children living near freeways. Environmental Research.
74:12-132.)
children living near busy roads more likely to develop cancer
A 2000 Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of
streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more
likely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to
get leukemia. The study looked at associations between traffic density,
power lines, and all childhood cancers with measurements obtained in
1979 and 1990. It found a weak association from power lines, but a
strong association with highways. It suggested that benzene pollution
might be the cancer promoter causing the problem. (Pearson et al.
(2000). Distance-weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a
risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers. Journal of Air
and Waste Management Association 50:175-180.)
most traffic-related deaths due to air pollution, not traffic accidents
Another study analyzed the affect of traffic-related air pollution
and traffic accidents on life expectancy in the area of Baden-
Wurttemberg, Germany. It estimated that 4325 deaths in this region
would result from motor vehicle emissions compared to 891 from traffic
accidents (over a lifetime). (Szagun and Seidel. (2000). Mortality due
to road traffic in Baden-Aurttemberg--air pollution, accidents, noise.
Gesundheitswesen. 62(4): 225-33.)
emissions from motor vehicles dominate cancer risk
The most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution ever
undertaken shows that motor vehicles and other mobile sources of air
pollution are the predominant source of cancer-causing air pollutants
in Southern California. Overall, the study showed that motor vehicles
and other mobile sources accounted for about 90 percent of the cancer
risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel soot (70
percent of the cancer risk). Industries and other stationary sources
accounted for the remaining 10 percent. The study showed that the
highest risk is in urban areas where there is heavy traffic and high
concentrations of population and industry. (South Coast Air Quality
Management District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study-II. March
2000.)
cancer risk higher near major sources of air pollution, including
highways
A 1997 English study found a cancer corridor within three miles of
highways, airports, power plants, and other major polluters. The study
examined children who died of leukemia or other cancers from the years
1953-1980, where they were born and where they died. It found that the
greatest danger lies a few hundred yards from the highway or pollution
facility and decreases as you get away from the facility. (Knox and
Gilman (1997). Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great Britain
from 1953-1980. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 51:151-
159.)
a school's proximity to freeways associated with asthma prevalence
A study of 1498 children in 13 schools in the Province of South
Holland found a positive relationship between school proximity to
freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck traffic intensity and the
concentration of emissions measured in schools were found to be
significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. (Speizer,
F.E. and B.G. Ferris, Jr. (1973). Exposure to automobile exhaust. I.
Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and disease. Archives of
Environmental Health. 26(6): 313-8. van Vliet, P., M. Knape, et al.
(1997). Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in
children living near freeways. Environmental Research. 74(2): 122-32.)
lung function reduction among children more likely if living
near truck traffic
A European study determined that exposure to traffic-related air
pollution, `in particular diesel exhaust particles,' may lead to
reduced lung function in children living near major motorways.
(Brunekreef B; Janssen NA; de Hartog J; Harssema H; Knape M; van Vliet
P. (1997). ``Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in
children living near motorways.'' Epidemiology. 8(3):298-303.)
asthma symptoms caused by truck exhaust
A study was conducted in Munster, Germany to determine the
relationship between truck traffic and asthma symptoms. In total, 3,703
German students, between the ages of 12-15 years, completed a written
and video questionnaire in 1994-1995. Positive associations between
both wheezing and allergic rhinitis and truck traffic were found during
a 12-month period. Potentially confounding variables, including
indicators of socio-economic status, smoking, etc., did not alter the
associations substantially. (Duhme, H., S. K. Weiland, et al. (1996).
The association between self-reported symptoms of asthma and allergic
rhinitis and self-reported traffic density on street of residence in
adolescents. Epidemiology 7(6): 578-82.)
proximity of a child's residence to major roads linked to hospital
admissions for asthma
A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom, determined that living near
major roads was associated with the risk of hospital admission for
asthma in children younger than 5 yrs of age. The area of residence and
traffic flow patterns were compared for children admitted to the
hospital for asthma, children admitted for nonrespiratory reasons, and
a random sample of children from the community. Children admitted with
an asthma diagnosis were significantly more likely to live in an area
with high traffic flow (> 24,000 vehicles/24 hrs) located along the
nearest segment of main road than were children admitted for
nonrespiratory reasons or children form the community. (Edwards, J., S.
Walters, et al. (1994). Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool
children: relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Archives of Environmental Health. 49(4): 223-7.
exposure to carcinogenic benzene higher for children living near
high traffic areas
German researchers compared 48 children who lived in a central
urban area with high traffic density with 72 children who lived in a
small city with low traffic density. They found that the blood levels
of benzene in children who lived in the high-traffic-density area were
71 percent higher than those of children who lived in the low-traffic-
density area. Blood levels of toluene and carboxyhemoglobin (formed
after breathing carbon monoxide) were also significantly elevated (56
percent and 33 percent higher, respectively) among children regularly
exposed to vehicle emissions. Aplastic anemia and leukemia are
associated with excessive exposure to benzene. (Jermann E, Hajimiragha
H, Brockhaus A, Freier I, Ewers U, Roscovanu A: Exposure of children to
benzene and other motor vehicle emissions. Zentralblatt fur Hygiene and
Umweltmedizin 189:50-61, 1989.)
______
[From USA Today]
Lawsuit Pits Risks and Roads\1\
(By John Ritter)
Las Vegas.--Tens of thousands of workers commute from suburbs to
resort and casino jobs on the glimmering Strip, the economic soul of
this booming entertainment mecca. Many of them creep tediously along
U.S. 95, the most congested road in the nation's fastest growing urban
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Find this article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-
03-06-vegas-highway-usat--x.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the six-lane freeway morphing twice daily into a rush-hour
parking lot, policymakers from the Governor on down ardently support a
plan to widen 95 to 10 lanes.
Bucking the popular project are environmentalists and health
experts worried about pollution from the more than 300,000 vehicles a
day that already troll up and down 95. They cite studies linking higher
levels of foul air along busy urban highways to heightened cancer risks
among people who live and work nearby.
Urban highway ``hot spots'' such as 95 are battlegrounds in many
cities, but here the issue has come to a head. The Sierra Club sued in
January to stop the project. It says the Federal Government failed to
consider health consequences and alternatives to highway construction
as required by law.
Highway projects have been challenged before on environmental and
health grounds, but this is the first such lawsuit based on scientific
research into traffic-generated pollution.
U.S. 95 is a test case with broad implications for urban highway
expansion and population growth in metro areas across the USA. The
outcome not only could send Nevada transportation officials back to the
drawing board but also could delay relief measures for other snarled
roads. It could force planners to give greater weight to solving
congestion with mass transit and even alter the patterns of where
people choose to live.
``We're spending the most money on the most polluting source,
highways, and we're saying we need to balance that out,'' says Brett
Hulsey, national coordinator of the Sierra Club's anti-sprawl campaign.
Besides 95, environmentalists want the Federal Highway
Administration to study the health risks of widening InterState 75 from
Dayton, Ohio, to Cincinnati; building a beltway segment around Denver
called the Northwest Parkway; widening 1-94 in downtown Detroit;
widening 1-94 and U.S. 45 around Milwaukee; expanding 1-10 and U.S. 290
out of Houston; and widening Virginia's portion of the Capital Beltway
around Washington, DC.
highways can't keep up
Beyond health issues, the Las Vegas case spotlights a problem
facing many thriving cities, particularly in the West. Las Vegas has
grown so fast that its highway system hasn't kept up. Congestion
worsens monthly. Yet in the last decade, population spilled over such a
wide area that developing mass transit will be costly.
``We have 6,000 people a month moving here, bringing 4,000
automobiles with them,'' says Jacob Snow, general manager of the
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. ``The worst
thing we could do from an air quality standpoint is stop building
roadways.''
Last month, Federal Judge Philip Pro denied the highway
administration's motion to dismiss the Las Vegas case.
Opponents say the widening will funnel even more traffic onto U.S.
95. ``I'll leave if this project goes in,'' says Barbara Roth, 70, who
moved near what was then a two-lane street 38 years ago. ``The
pollution is going to be terrific because the traffic will back up
immediately, just like it is now. Crazy is the word.''
The judge could stop work on the project and order the highway
agency to reassess health risks. He could order it to consider
alternatives to widening, such as mass transit, as required under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Highway administration officials won't comment on the case. But in
a sign that the highway pollution issue is gaining traction, a
Transportation Department research panel held a forum in January called
``Air Toxics: The Next Poison Pill for Transportation?''
Delaying or killing the 95 expansion would anger many who believe
growth will choke southern Nevada unless its road system expands
rapidly. The 6 miles to be widened have more aggressive drivers than
any other road in the region, a study in January found. An irate Gov.
Kenny Guinn threatened to erect billboards on 95 that say, ``Traffic
congestion brought to you by the Sierra Club.''
At the lawsuit's core is whether high concentrations of auto
emissions such as benzene and 1,3 butadiene, which are known
carcinogens, raise health risks. Opponents of the expansion say they
do:
A Denver study in 2000 found that children living within 250 yards
of highways used daily by more than 20,000 vehicles were eight times
more likely to get leukemia.
A study the same year of InterStates 405 and 710 in Los Angeles
showed that vehicles accounted for 90 percent of the cancer risk from
air pollution, and that the highest risk was in congested, heavily
populated urban zones.
A study in suburban Buffalo last year found that children living in
neighborhoods close to heavy truck traffic had increased asthma risks.
A Sierra Club-financed study of three pollutants concluded that
widening 95 would cause up to 1,400 more cancers per 1 million people
over 70 years, more than 10 times greater than what the Environmental
Protection Agency considers a serious risk.
``It's obvious there's some correlation,'' says Ronald Rosen, a
pediatric oncologist in Las Vegas. He says he has no evidence of more
cancers along 95. The study only predicted higher rates. ``But to
dismiss an environmental group that wants to look at this critically is
really a big mistake.''
transit's limited reach
Environmentalists want more buses, trains and light rail, but
relying on mass transit as much as denser Eastern cities do is
unrealistic in the greater Las Vegas sprawl, experts say. Even in the
most optimistic scenario, transit could handle no more than 15 percent
of trips, says Shashi Nambisan, director of the Transportation Research
Center at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
``People are choosing to live farther and farther out. Commute
times and distances are going up,'' Nambisan says. Low gasoline prices,
the comfort and convenience of personal vehicles, and abundant, cheap
parking also work against mass transit in Las Vegas.
But efforts are underway. Nevada voters in November endorsed a $2.7
billion transportation initiative that includes $1 billion for transit.
The first leg of a 3.6-mile monorail serving the Strip will open next
year. A rapid transit bus line will begin serving northern suburbs next
winter.
Environmentalists complain that bus service was the budget ax's
first victim in the recession. Transit officials say they had no choice
because fewer riders meant declines in operating revenue. Transit's
supporters point to Salt Lake City's two light-rail lines as proof Las
Vegas could do more. Ridership on both lines is nearly double initial
estimates. Still, that system carries only about 1 percent of peak-hour
trips.
Work is progressing despite the lawsuit. Bulldozers are moving
earth, overpasses are being built and new sound walls are going up.
More than 200 homeowners were forced to sell and leave.
Three schools, two community centers, a day care facility, 27
apartment buildings and nearly 400 houses abut this stretch. But many
residents are unaware of health concerns. Rick Winget, principal of
Ruth Fyfe Elementary School, says he's eager to use more of his
playground once a wall replaces a chain-link fence between the school
and the highway. He says no parents have complained about pollution.
``People are really insensitive to the health risks,'' says Jane
Feldman of the Sierra Club's Las Vegas chapter. ``They think cancer
won't happen to them, that it happens long-term. But this is hard
scientific data and it's scary.''
______
[The Times, December 15, 2002]
Too Freeway Close?\2\
(By William J. Kelly)
Homes along the Southland's busy highways may be more affordable,
but new studies show possible health risks linked to increased
pollution.
At sunset, Regina Kennard's house stands in the shadow of an
elevated stretch of InterState 15. Attracted by the home's
affordability and its proximity to, the onramp for her daily commute to
work at a mortgage company in Orange County, Kennard moved from Ontario
to Fontana more than a year ago and joined countless other Southern
Californians who live along a freeway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Find this article at http://www.latimes.com/classified/
realeStatella-re-freeway15dec15.story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mother of two chose the 4,729-square-foot lot next to the
freeway because it was bigger than those farther up the street. She
purchased the 1,977-square-foot home new last year for $189,900.
``I wanted a big yard,'' said Kennard, who keeps the windows shut
at night because of the din. ``I should have been more concerned. I
didn't realize the noise.''
Even further from her thoughts were the long-term health effects of
freeway pollution. Like most buyers, Kennard was unaware of emerging
scientific research that shows air pollution immediately downwind of
freeways can be more than 4 to 10 times higher than average levels
throughout much of Southern California.
``There's a building body of data that living next to a freeway has
adverse health effects, particularly among children,'' said Ira Tager,
a UC Berkeley epidemiologist who is studying how air pollution affects
asthmatic children for the California Air Resources Board. Work by a
variety of health researchers and environmental agencies is finding
that the highly concentrated pollution from autos and trucks increases
the incidence of asthma, respiratory infections and cancer in people
residing along freeways and other heavily traveled thoroughfares.
The studies, some of which have come out in California during the
last year and others that are ongoing, are attracting attention as new
homes and condominiums have become more common along freeways because
of the shrinking availability of land suitable for building and the
increasing demand for housing.
If buyers are unaware of the health dangers, so are builders.
``It's new information to me,'' said Tim Piasky, director of
environmental affairs for the Building Industry Assn. of Southern
California, who noted that individual builders cannot track every
study.
``We count on our regulatory agencies to set the requirements,'' he
said. ``Unless there are requirements, builders will use the maximum
area.''
There are no current requirements or recommendations for buffers
between homes and freeways, but the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research has drafted new planning guidelines for cities and counties,
which are responsible for regulating local land use. The guidelines,
according to associate planner Brian Grattidge, ask cities to consider
whether it is appropriate to zone housing right next to freeways, given
the emerging studies on air pollution.
The California Air Resources Board will issue its first official
warning in the spring and advise, but not require, that builders create
buffer zones between future residential developments and freeways.
``People who construct new homes should consider having at least
100 meters [less than a tenth of a mile] between them and the
freeway,'' said Shankar Prasad, health advisor for the board.
Buyers have long been aware of home health risks ranging from
groundwater contamination--think Erin Brockovich--to the interior
culprits of leaded paint, mold and asbestos. But most haven't
considered air pollution levels along freeways, according to real
eState broker Remy Agaton, who is selling the home of Lydia Fabres,
just one house north of InterState 10 in West Covina. Like Kennard,
Fabres did not know about the studies showing higher pollution levels.
``Out of 100, maybe 10 are concerned about the noise, and they
never ask about the pollution,'' said Agaton of Jasrel Real EState
Brokers Inc. in the city of Industry. Buyers are more concerned about
amenities, such as good schools and proximity to shopping and
transportation routes, said Agaton, who has sold many homes near
freeways in her 17-year career.
Fabres, a single mother of four teenagers, said that the location
is what attracted her to the West Covina home. She worked in the
health-care field near downtown Los Angeles when she purchased the
house 3 years ago after a divorce, and freeway proximity saved the busy
mother time.
``It was an advantage,'' she said. ``When you came home it was
close.'' It also was close enough for her children to walk to school, a
nearby park and the West Covina Plaza.
The noise bothered the family at first, and Fabres said she was
fleetingly concerned about pollution. However, she found that the
location and features of the three-bedroom, two-bath home with a den
and large backyard outweighed those concerns. Fabres is taking time off
from work to sell her home and move to Walnut for its schools and
proximity to Mt. San Antonio College, where her children, who have no
respiratory disease, plan to continue their education after completing
high school.
In addition to saving time, buyers are often attracted to freeway-
close homes because of lower prices, according to real eState industry
executives. Fabres, for instance, is asking $275,000 for her home.A
couple blocks farther north of InterState 10, a comparable three-
bedroom home in the same neighborhood sold for $289,900 in mid-
November.
``Home prices near freeways generally are less expensive,'' said
John Burns, president of John Burns Real EState Consulting in Irvine. A
rule of thumb, he said, is that these homes cost the buyer about $5
less per square foot than a comparable home in the same area far enough
away that buyers do not perceive the freeway as a negative.
But researchers are beginning to document the drawbacks. Large
doses of pollutants emitted by motor vehicles can irritate the
respiratory system and exacerbate asthma and chronic bronchitis, from
which 10 percent to 20 percent of the population suffers, according to
Dr. John Balmes of UC San Francisco. Published studies examining the
respiratory health of people along freeways show a 75 percent to 100
percent increase in asthma because of the higher concentration of air
pollutants, said Balmes, former president of the California Thoracic
Society, the medical section of the American Lung Assn. of California.
Some of the pollutants, including benzene and diesel soot, are known
carcinogens.
One study published earlier this fall in the Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Assn. shows that the level of so-called ultra-fine
particles, which are emitted from automotive tailpipes but are too
small to be visible, was four times higher just downwind and east of
the 405 Freeway in Westwood. About a fifth of a mile downwind, the
level of the particles gradually fell to the same level as upwind of
the busy freeway, wrote the research team, headed by William C. Hinds,
a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA.
Carbon monoxide, a good indicator for a range of other automotive
emissions, also fell sharply a fifth of a mile downwind of the freeway.
__________
Statement of the Associated General Contractors of America
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the largest
most diverse trade association in the construction industry. The
association's 33,000 members include 7,500 of the nation's leading
general construction contractors engaged in the construction of
highways, bridges, tunnels, airport runways and terminals, buildings,
factories, warehouses, shopping centers and both water and wastewater
treatment facilities. AGC members perform construction contracts for
states and other recipients of Department of Transportation (DOT)
funding and are, therefore, directly impacted by changes in
administration of the Federal-aid highway program. AGC is pleased to
provide the following comments on Clean Air Act Transportation
Conformity requirements.
clean air progress
Americans have made great progress in cleaning the air. Over the
past 30 years national emission trends have been declining. All of the
years throughout the 1990's have had better air quality than any of the
years in the 1980's, demonstrating a steady trend of improvement. Air
quality has improved nationwide primarily because motor vehicle
emissions have decreased substantially even as vehicle travel has
increased rapidly. From 1980 through 1998, overall motor vehicle
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) was reduced 41 percent,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were reduced 10 percent, and carbon
monoxide emissions were reduced 35 percent. This improvement came
despite a 72 percent increase in travel during that period.
These reductions are the result of an array of cleaner fuels that
have virtually eliminated lead and other pollutants and reformulated
gas that reduce smog and tailpipe emissions. New engine technology and
vehicle design and construction have reduced tailpipe emissions in the
average car in use today by 95 percent compared to the average car in
use in the 1960's.
EPA studies show that air quality by 1996 had improved to the point
that 80 percent of Americans lived where air quality met the standards
for six criteria air pollutants, nearly double the amount from 10 years
earlier. Since 1996 air quality has continued to improve. In the past
10 years, the average number of days the air in major metropolitan
areas failed to met Federal ozone (smog) standards has been cut in
half. Violations of the national standards for carbon monoxide have
been virtually eliminated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
studies estimate that an additional 32 million tons of emissions per
year (22 percent) will be eliminated between 1997 and 2015 because of
better motor vehicle technology. All of this progress despite
significant increased motor vehicle usage.
overview of transportation conformity
Transportation conformity provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
attempt to coordinate transportation planning and air quality planning.
The CAA requires metropolitan areas with air quality problems to
demonstrate that future transportation projects will not impede the
area's ability to attain air quality standards established by the Act.
Under the CAA the EPA is required to establish national Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants. If an area
exceeds the Federal standard for any one of these six pollutants, it is
designated as a nonattainment area. States must submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) detailing how these nonattainment areas
will be brought into compliance. The SIP typically includes a specific
motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) capping emissions from
transportation sources. Nonattainment areas are then required to
demonstrate, using various calculations and models, that car and truck
emissions associated with current and future road, highway, and transit
projects listed in the area's transportation plan are below this
budget. This demonstration is called transportation conformity. If the
metropolitan area cannot demonstrate that car and truck emissions from
new roads and highways are below the motor vehicle emissions budget,
the area falls into a transportation conformity ``lapse'' where many
new road and transit projects cannot move forward.
transportation conformity requirements
Under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (as amended in ISTEA and TEA-21),
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for each urban region
develop a long-term regional transportation plan and a short term
transportation improvement plan (TIP). Section 176 of the CAA links air
quality planning with transportation planning by requiring both of
these transportation plans to match, or ``conform'' to the SIP.
Transportation conformity must be demonstrated once every 3 years,
although numerous other triggers render this requirement almost
meaningless. For example, conformity must be demonstrated every time a
significant change is made to a transportation plan and within 18-
months of a State Implementation Plan modification that effects the
motor vehicle emissions budget. This overabundace of conformity
triggers means that planning organizations are continually performing
overlapping demonstrations. The resulting web of incongruous deadlines
impose a minefield of procedural traps for nonattainment areas to fall
into. As Judge Williams in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C.
wrote, ``the Act's conformity requirements are astonishingly confusing,
and could if interpreted as stringently as possible seriously disrupt
state and local transportation planning.''
ramifications of failing to demonstrate conformity ``lapse''
One of the principle disruptions to state and local transportation
planning from transportation conformity requirements is the
consequences of a conformity ``lapse''. A conformity ``lapse'' occurs
when a conformity determination for a transportation plan or TIP has
expired and is no longer valid. A conformity lapse may be caused by
several situations such as: (1) not meeting the required 3-year period
for conformity redetermination of a transportation plan or TIP; (2)
certain State Implementation Plan consequences; (3) not redetermining
conformity within 18 months of a specific State Implementation Plan
modification; or (4) a potentially successful citizen suit that
invalidates the conformity determination or the motor vehicle emissions
budget on which the conformity determination was based.
Only certain types of projects can advance during a conformity
lapse. FHWA will not fund active highway design and right-of-way
acquisition projects during a conformity lapse. Only those highway
projects which have received full funding and/or approval prior to the
conformity lapse may continue. A conformity lapse applies to both road
and transit projects. Moreover, lapses impact both federally funded and
non-federally funded but regionally significant projects (since these
projects require Federal approval).
Conformity lapses have caused significant problems across the
country. In Atlanta, for example, a conformity lapse suspended over
$700 million in much needed road work. In the Southern California Air
Quality Management District, $0.5 and $2 billion in transportation
projects were subject to postponement during a 1998 and 2001 conformity
lapse, respectively.
Conformity lapses have several deleterious impacts. Financially,
delays increase project costs due to normal cost escalation factors and
contractors needing to reschedule planned work. Costs also increase due
to delayed traffic congestion relief (for example, the Houston-
Galveston Area Council estimates that traffic congestion costs the
Houston area approximately $2 billion per year). Delays due to
conformity lapses also effect road safety. According to the U.S. DOT,
poor road conditions or obsolete road and bridge alignments are a
factor in 12,000 highway-related deaths each year--that's four times
the number killed in fires and a third more than die annually of asthma
and bronchitis combined.
Conformity lapses are almost never caused by a nonattainment area
building too much transportation infrastructure, but are almost always
caused by procedural problems with the timing of multiple deadlines for
revising the motor vehicle emissions budget, revising the
transportation plans, and/or lawsuits.
Currently there are 142 nonattainment areas which contain 414
counties nationwide that are out of compliance for ozone alone with
more out of compliance for other pollutants. An additional 194 areas
which include 656 counties may soon be in nonattainment status when EPA
imposes new standards for ozone and particulate matter.
conformity process does not improve air quality
The transportation conformity process is expensive and burdensome
and has not been shown to have a significant impact on improving air
quality. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) in testimony
before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July
30, 2002 (GAO-02-988T p. 10), said that, ``Only 31 percent of the
planners responding to our survey found the process of demonstrating
conformity to be effective in helping their areas achieve air quality
goals (40 percent found it to be ineffective).'' GAO also stated that,
``[T]he current clean air and surface transportation requirements and
programs do not directly encourage communities to consider more
innovative transportation projects or alternative land development
strategies as a means to reduce emissions. Nor do they encourage
communities to take action that will preserve the clean air that they
still enjoy.'' (Id. at 15-16).
In addition, the conformity process is being used as a means to
prevent transportation improvement projects from being built, not
because of their impact on air quality but as a tactic to prevent any
transportation improvement project from being undertaken.
Transportation project opponents use legal challenges and other
maneuvers to disrupt the planning process and stop project
construction. This activity undermines safety improvements, increases
the cost of the projects significantly and can undermine clean air
objectives. Delaying or and stopping transportation improvements has no
beneficial impact on air quality and can have a negative impact by
keeping congestion relief projects from moving forward. Idling in
traffic significantly increases air pollution. Eliminating bottlenecks
and traffic congestion can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by as much
as 45 percent and ozone forming VOCs by 44 percent. Automobiles operate
at a higher efficiency at higher speeds and emission rates for major
air pollutants increase at slower speeds. Congress should reconsider
whether the costs associated with the transportation conformity process
result in equal benefits.
Recommended Reform
separate transportation and air quality planning
Steps should be taken to improve the process and keep it from being
used merely as a means for delaying necessary transportation
improvement projects as follows:
Transportation planning and air quality planning should
not be linked. There is no air quality improvements that result from
the conformity process.
Reducing the Number of Conformity Triggers and Increasing the Time
Between Conformity Determinations
Non-attainment areas are continually and exhaustingly
performing transportation conformity demonstrations. Although the Clean
Air Act requires a conformity demonstration once every 3 years,
numerous other triggers render this requirement meaningless. Under
EPA's rules, non-attainment areas must demonstrate conformity each time
EPA proposes or approves a control strategy implementation plan
revision which affects an existing motor vehicle emissions budget, each
time the EPA modifies a control measure that impacts the motor vehicle
emissions budget, and each time a transportation control measure is
added, modified, or deleted. Conformity demonstrations are also needed
each time the metropolitan planning organization needs to add or modify
a project in its transportation plan (since a road or transit project
cannot generally move forward unless it is specifically included in a
conforming transportation plan). This overabundance of conformity
triggers means that planning organizations are continually performing
overlapping demonstrations, wasting valuable time and resources. As the
GAO stated in its recent assessment of the transportation conformity
requirements: ``According to DOT program managers, some planners have
found the requirement to update their transportation plans and meet the
conformity test at least every 3 years to be too burdensome. Because of
the complexity and time involved in preparing the plan and
demonstrating conformity, it can take some areas more time than 3 years
to complete their plan updates, after which time they need to begin the
update process all over again. The tight timeframe inhibits them from
devoting their attention or resources to developing more strategic
transportation solutions or adopting new and better models for
assessing emissions and analyzing transportation plans, among other
things.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environment Protection: The Federal Government Could Help
Communities Better Plan for Transportation That Protects Air Quality,
United States General Accounting Office, Testimony Before the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO-02-988T, July 30,
2002, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity demonstrations are a prolonged
and arduous process. The metropolitan planning organization (typically
a local council of governments) must conduct extensive emissions
modeling and inventory work. All conformity demonstrations must go
through an interagency consultation process and other agency scrutiny
that involves EPA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and state
agencies. Conformity demonstrations must also go through public notice
and comment and public hearing procedures.
Once a conformity demonstration is complete (often after
more than a year and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work),
each conformity demonstration becomes subject to a potential lawsuit
from environmental organizations and others who are unhappy with such
issues as urban sprawl, the construction of certain road projects, or
the area's mass transit choices. Transportation conformity lawsuits
have occurred across the country; including Houston, Atlanta,
Sacramento, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City. These suits force local
governments or other interested parties to mount legal defenses which
are expensive and time consuming. The costs of these legal defenses
take funds that could otherwise be used to provide services to the
public. The potential repercussions of a successful lawsuit or
repercussions for failing to demonstrate conformity are the withholding
of Federal highway funding or the halting of road and transit projects,
including those that do not receive any Federal funding.
For the above reasons, the number of conformity triggers
should be reduced to one, whether that one trigger be a specific date
in time or the time at which the transportation plan is approved.
In addition to reducing the number of conformity triggers,
the length of time between mandatory conformity demonstrations should
be increased from 3 years to at least 5 years. As stated above, many
metropolitan planners are already having trouble meeting the 3 year
requirement. Since most road projects take at least 15 to 20 years to
plan and construct, projects will still have several opportunities to
be included in a conformity demonstration.
Along with reducing the number of conformity triggers and
the length of time between conformity determinations, a method is
needed whereby metropolitan planners can add or modify a road or
transit project (to some degree) without the need for a full conformity
demonstration. Currently, planning organizations must essentially go
through a full conformity analysis in order to make certain changes to
a road or transit project. This exercise is unnecessary and a waste of
valuable local, state, and Federal resources.
grandfathering
Up until 1999, transportation improvement projects that
had reached a certain stage in the review and approval process could
continue through the design and construction phase despite a conformity
lapse. These projects were said to be ``grandfathered.'' A Federal
Court ruled in 1999 that EPA did not have the statutory authority to
permit grandfathering. State departments of transportation were put
under a constraint on what activities they can undertake during a
conformity lapse. As a result, $700 million in transportation projects
in Atlanta were halted and projects throughout the country have been
threatened.
AGC recommends that transportation projects that are included in a
conforming plan and TIP should be allowed to move forward to
construction if an area later has a conformity lapse. Project design
and right of way acquisition should be allowed to continue during a
conformity lapse.
use of the latest planning assumptions
The Clean Air Act requires that all conformity
demonstrations be based on the latest planning assumptions.
Specifically the Act states that ``the determination of conformity
shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such
estimates shall be determined from the most recent population,
employment, travel and congestion estimates as determined by the
metropolitan planning organization or other agency authorized to make
such estimates.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 42 C.F.R. Sec. 7506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conformity problems can result if modeling assumptions
change between the time the motor vehicle emissions budget from the
State Implementation Plan was created and the time that conformity must
be demonstrated. For example, if a nonattainment area sets a motor
vehicle emissions budget at 156 tons of NOx per day and later realizes,
prior to its next conformity determination, that the number should
really be 165 tons per day (because of new inventory information
regarding the number of sport utility vehicles in the area), the
metropolitan area could have a difficult time demonstrating conformity
to the lower number. This problem could lead to a transportation
conformity lapse because it would take several months to revise the
motor vehicle emissions budget through the notice-and-comment
rulemaking process.
The Clean Air Act should be clarified to stipulate that
the most current modeling assumptions are those assumptions used in the
creation of the latest motor vehicle emissions budget. In the
alternative, the Act should be amended to include a time-delay before
new planning assumptions must be used in a conformity determination.
ramifications of conformity failure vs. sip failure
When an area fails to demonstrate conformity and enters
into a conformity lapse, the consequences of the lapse are immediate.
On the other hand, if an area fails to submit or implement an adequate
State Implementation Plan, there is a range of time, a minimum of 18 to
24 months, before sanctions are imposed. This disparate treatment is
not warranted. Transportation planners should also have time to remedy
problems before sanctions are imposed. Most of the time conformity
lapses occur only for a few short months due to a technical or
procedural error. Rather than the current ``gotcha'' system, planners
should be given a short period of time to rectify minor problems before
public transportation projects are halted. This would save communities
millions of dollars without negatively impacting air quality (since
roads and highways in the TIP are not even built, let alone in
operation).
limit law suits
Special interest groups have successfully used legal
challenges to advance no-growth strategies. They have demonstrated the
ability to delay and in some cases curtail development of significant
transportation projects throughout the country. Limits should be placed
on ``citizen suits'' filed under the authority of the CAA.
conclusion
AGC strongly urges Congress to reconsider the impact of the
transportation conformity process on motorist safety, economic
development and even air quality improvement.
For further information contact Brian Deery, Senior Director,
Highway Division, AGC of America, 703-837-5319, [email protected]
Leah Wood, Environmental Counsel, Environmental Law, AGC of
America, 703-837-5332, [email protected]