The CMAQ Program: Has it Been Effective? Has it Helped Air Quality? Tackling Traffic Congestion Lake Arrowhead, CA Kenneth Adler, EPA Detailee to Senate Environment and Public Works October 21, 2002

Introduction These slides do not represent Senate EPW or EPA policy or positions 1990 Clean Air Act Conformity Program ISTEA and TEA-21 CMAQ Program TRB CMAQ Report Emission from Vehicles: 1990 to 2030 CMAQ Reauthorization Issues Final Observations

1990 Clean Air Act Conformity Program Mandated vehicle emission budgets for nonattainment areas (or lose highway funds) List of Transportation Control Measures Legislative History: “It is clear that the goals of this bill–a healthy and safe air supply for every American–will not be achieved without implementing strategies that effectively limit the growth in vehicle use in the major urban centers where pollution levels are the worst.”

Air Pollution From Vehicles: 1970 to 1990 Vehicle emissions were busting local air quality budgets VMT growth was outpacing vehicle emission control technologies In 1970, vehicles were 36% of total NOx emissions much higher in urban areas 1970 NOx emissions were ~6 grams per mile

ISTEA’s CMAQ Program (1991) Provided a funded mandate for the CAA conformity requirements Eligible projects based on list of Transportation Control Measures in CAA (section 108(f)(1)(A)) Only projects “likely to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards” are eligible. Funds are distributed based on population and severity of pollution CMAQ authorized at $1 billion per year

ISTEA Reauthorization of CMAQ CMAQ was under major attack by “highway” lobby Local officials, environmentalists, and Administration strongly supported CMAQ EPA showed VMT growth was out-pacing vehicle emission control technology CMAQ authorization increased to $1.4 billion Compromise was to continue CMAQ with the NAS study

EPA Slide from ISTEA Reauthorization Debate

Recommendations from the TRB CMAQ Study CMAQ should be reauthorized, air quality should remain a high priority, and AQ agencies should be more involved All CAA pollutants should be covered (PM2.5 and toxics), MPOs should select most cost- effective projects, and consideration should be given to land-use projects Incentives should be provided for better assessment of emission reductions

CMAQ Spending by Project Type:

Air Pollution from Vehicles: 1990 to 2030

U.S. EPA. Heavy Duty Diesel Rule.

Health Impact of Vehicle Emissions

Source: Calculated from OAR Section 812 Study

CMAQ Reauthorization Issues New funding formula (for new NAAQS) Increase in nonattainment areas Use of CMAQ funds for operations Use of cost-effectiveness criteria–research component Diesel retro-fits Pre-1980 vehicles Traffic flow and signalization projects Involvement of AQ managers

Observations CMAQ has kept nonattainment areas on the cusp from losing highway funds What is the air quality benefit? CMAQ is a very popular program Not clear if popularity is due to air quality and congestion benefits Provides cities with their own “pot” of money Supports devolution of highway spending Supports “Smart Growth” funding priorities CMAQ provides alternatives to traditional SOV travel Though much of the money is spent on signalization

Observations Continued CMAQ has not delivered substantial measurable improvements in air quality Similar measurement problems exist for safety, congestion, and economic development benefits of highway and transit projects CMAQ is not targeted to greatest known health risk: PM 2.5 Need to retrofit heavy duty diesel trucks Nationally, emissions technology is now outpacing VMT, but locally VMT growth can still be a problem