O P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T
Senator George Voinovich
Hearing on Transportation and
Air Quality
Tuesday July 30, 2002
----------------------------
Mr. Chairman, thank
you for calling today’s hearing on Transportation and Air Quality. I believe it is important to examine the
effectiveness of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and
conformity.
As the past Chairman
and current ranking member of the Clean Air Subcommittee, and the past Chairman
of the Transportation Subcommittee, I understand full well the importance and
significance of the overlap between highway planning and air quality.
When I began my term
as Governor, 28 Ohio counties were in non-attainment for ozone. I spent considerable effort to get them into
attainment. In addition to working with
utilities to reduce their emissions, I implemented an automobile emissions
testing program, called E-check, to help bring Ohio counties into
compliance. At that time, Ohio was one
of only a few states to have an enhanced auto emissions test in its urban
areas.
This program was a
success. According to a 1997 EPA
report, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which are major
components in the formation of ozone and are emitted by cars and trucks, have
been dramatically reduced between 1970 and 1996 in Ohio. Emissions of VOCs were reduced by 49% and
NOx by 26%. Additionally, air toxins in
Ohio were reduced from approximately 381 million pounds in 1987 to 144 million
pounds in 1996. Due to these
reductions, all 88 Ohio counties have met the national air quality
standards. But this was not an easy
battle.
The E-Check program
was criticized because it required vehicle owners in smoggy areas to pay for
annual emissions testing and to make the necessary repairs. Due to its unpopularity, Ohio's General
Assembly passed a bill revoking the program.
However, I stood up for the program and vetoed the bill because I
believed it was an important and necessary step to cleaning up Ohio's air.
I believe hard
choices like these are important. The
conformity program has helped encourage cleaner air and transportation planning
has benefitted from coordination with the air quality planners.
As we move forward
with the reauthorization of the Highway Bill we must reevaluate the conformity
and CMAQ programs and be willing to make hard choices if we are not getting the
benefits that we should be getting, or if the program should take on a new
dimension.
Mr. Chairman, the
National Academy of Sciences issued a good assessment on CMAQ. They have made some good recommendations and
some constructive criticism and we should take their advice. In fact I wish they were testifying today.
I hope the Committee
will use this time for a good hard evaluation of the program and I would like
to outline a few areas in which deserve attention today and in the coming
months.
Ø
First, we need to examine the timing issues
between the Air Quality SIP (State Implementation Plan) process and the
transportation TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) process. We need to see if there is room for
improvement between the two processes.
Ø
Are the CMAQ projects getting us the best air
quality reductions for the money we are spending, in other words are they
cost-effective? The NAS study has
recommended that we broaden the pollutants covered to include for example
particulate matter and to allow more cost-effective programs such as vehicle
scrappage programs be funded at the local level.
Ø
If the typical CMAQ project is not
cost-effective, are there more cost-effective measures such as using the funds
to retro-fit diesel engines? So often
we spend money on projects to make us all feel better. I always say we need to work harder and
smarter and do more with less. Maybe
its time we re-evaluate the types of projects we have been funding and shift
the focus to deal more with existing air quality problems.
These are just a few
of the topics I hope we can address before we move forward with the
reauthorization of the highway program next year.