During debate on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, I strongly supported the requirement that transportation planning decisions be evaluated in the context of their impact on air quality. Emissions from the transportation sector were already growing at alarming levels in many of our nation's urban and suburban communities, making it difficult if not impossible to achieve ozone pollution reduction goals.
Over the decade since enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments, those trends have continued. While air quality has improved at the national level, tens of millions of Americans remain exposed to unhealthy air. According to EPA, in 1997 there were still approximately 107 million people nationwide who lived in areas with air quality pollution above the primary health-based standards. Residents of Connecticut have already experienced several exceedences of ozone standards this summer. Certainly a range of sources contribute to air pollution, but motor vehicles are a significant player. Motor vehicles are the responsible for at least 30% of the nation's smog-causing pollution. Between 1990 and 1997, while U.S. population increased 31%, vehicle miles traveled increased 127%. And while emissions improvements in passenger cars have been steadily increasing, the market for light trucks and SUVs -- which emit three times as much pollution as cars do -- has more than doubled since 1991. The need to ensure that public investment in transportation complements our efforts to reduce air pollution has never been greater.
Clearly, the implementation of the conformity provisions in the Clean Air Act has not proceeded as originally planned. Deadlines for submission and review of state implementation plans slipped, while the need to plan to meet local infrastructure needs has continued.
I believe that the current guidance put forward in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals represents a sensible compromise. The guidance makes clear that grandfathering of projects cannot be extended too far into the future and I think it is important that we recognize that we are now considering grandfathering road projects 12 years beyond the original intent of the law -- without abdicating our responsibility to protect public health. The current guidance also retains the principle that transportation investment must be considered in conjunction with currently conforming state implementation plans. It sets the standard for approving projects at the point when a funding commitment is being made, thereby eliminating an incentive to pre-approve projects at early design phases that are often years away from construction.
At the same time, clear commitments of federal funding are vital for transportation planning in our communities. We must ensure that consideration of a project's air quality impacts occurs in a way that does not restrict or arbitrarily limit the ability of state and local governments to plan ahead. I therefore continue to strongly support the provisions in the guidance which do not prescribe how or where emissions reductions should be achieved. The options should be open across sectors, and with a full range of technological and policy tools. In addition, funding for projects that are held up in a temporary conformity lapse should not mean that states have to be caught up in years of red tape when they demonstrate compliance. Similarly, adequate consultation and notification must be provided to communities throughout the planning and approval process.
All of us here today recognize that sound transportation investment plays an important role in protecting environmental quality, and that investment decisions have consequences that last for decades. I am hopeful that we can come to resolution of the concerns about implementation of the transportation conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act.