There
are a couple of major issues with transportation conformity that need to be
addressed in reauthorization of TEA-21. First, we must address the CMAQ program funding
levels and apportionment formula. Second,
we need to take a hard look at the air quality benefits and cost effectiveness
of transportation control measures (TCMs) aimed at reducing vehicle
travel.
When the Senate was debating the
1990 CAA amendments, expectations were very high that transportation controls
were a cost-effective and simple way to make large reduction in vehicle
emissions.
One reason for the role of TCMs in
the conformity program is that historically the growth in the amount of vehicle
travel was anticipated to offset much of the gains from EPA vehicle emission standards.
More recently, vehicle travel is having a
smaller and smaller impact on emissions.
-- The impact of cleaner cars and trucks on
future vehicle emissions is shown by the EPA data on Chart 1.
-- This chart is significant because current
projections show that emission levels continue to decline, even as VMT (vehicle
miles traveled) increase
The
steep decline in NOx and VOC emissions suggests that the impact of vehicle
travel on emissions is substantially less than it was in the 1970s-1990s. In TEA-21, Congress expressed its strong
support for the CMAQ (SEE-MACK) program, increasing budget authority from ~$1
billion per year to ~$1.6 billion per year.
At the same time, however, the Congressional
debates raised questions concerning the program’s efficacy.
In
response, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation
Research Board (TRB) to evaluate the program’s benefits and cost-effectiveness.
This study came to several conclusions
regarding the CMAQ program and the cost-effectiveness of transportation control
measures. First, the report concluded that CMAQ was an extremely popular
program and should be continued, potentially at an increased level of
funding. Secondly, emission reductions
from TCMs are “generally small” and more expensive than technological
approaches.
Lastly, technology and regulations
like new-vehicle emission and fuel standards and vehicle scrappage programs “generally
have been more successful than most CMAQ strategies relying on changes in
travel behavior.”
As the TEA-21
reauthorization proceeds, further discussion is needed to better understand the
effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and role of TCMs and conformity in meeting
our transportation and clean air goals.
Another
concern to be addressed is the need for more information and tools to deal with
particulate matter (PM 2.5) pollution, and to prepare for the new PM 2.5 NAAQS.
While it is known that PM2.5 represents a
serious health risk, and that most transportation related PM 2.5 emissions come
from diesel engines, more information and research is needed on the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for different PM 2.5 control strategies.
Finally,
transportation and air quality officials have raised concerns that conformity
is becoming increasingly process driven, and that the result, cleaner air, is
becoming a secondary factor. Moreover, there are ambiguities in the statute and
regulations being resolved in litigation, which increasingly indicates a lack
of clarity that Congress should address.
Let me conclude by thanking the
fifteen cities that responded to the Chairman’s and my request for information
on their experiences with the conformity program. Your responses are very
helpful and will certainly help inform the reauthorization process. I
ask unanimous consent to include these responses in the record of this hearing.
