The Future of Transportation Conformity Healthy Regions, Healthy People UCLA Extension Public Policy Program October 17, 2005 Sarah J. Siwek & Associates, Inc.

2 Context 1990 Clean Air Act of strengthened transportation and air quality planning connection Transportation funding was to be the lever There were high expectations about changing transportation investment decision-making and emission impacts of certain strategies Transportation conformity regulation issued in 1993 Five amendments since that time Litigation forced changes to the regulation 1999 Supreme Court decisions resulted in 2004 amendments

3 Lessons Learned Awareness of linkages between transportation and air quality has increased Transactional costs of compliance high Investment decisions not materially changed Transportation control measure (TCM) emissions impacts highly over-rated Technology impacts key to compliance E.g., Post-2010 NOx issues minimal

4 Current Statewide Emissions

5 Current Status SAFETEA-LU Mandates Change Reduce transaction costs Reduce administrative burdens Promote cost-effective strategies for CMAQ and funding (Over $3 Billion spent in CA since 1991) Especially on and off-road diesel retrofits 12-month grace period before conformity lapse

6 Current Status (cont’d.) PM2.5 Questions Requirements vis a vis hot-spots Analysis tools needed Strategies needed to reduce fine particulates Particulates and air toxics connection

7 Current Status (cont’d.) Air Toxics Increasing Public Health Concern Las Vegas Lawsuit Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach I-710 needs rebuilding yet community opposition is high; will metro areas in CA be able to upgrade existing infrastructure given community concerns?

8 Where Are We Going? Recognition of key role of trucks and non-road mobile sector New focus on ports and airports Non-road strategies and technologies are of paramount importance Transportation conformity does not impact these sources General conformity governs these sources yet fundamentally different than transportation conformity De minimis exemptions

9 Transportation Conformity Future New regulations in development to reflect SAFETEA- LU requirements PM2.5 Hot-spot rule in development FHWA to monitor hot-spot locations at five sites pursuant to Las Vegas lawsuit While SAFETEA-LU requires cost-effectiveness analysis of CMAQ projects, will project selection change?? MPOs and States are more sophisticated; compliance with conformity can be managed

10 Air Quality Implications EPA needs to step up where it has jurisdiction Does the political will exist? Non-road reductions essential Technology development needed (e.g., tanker ships, rail locomotives, aircraft) Ships, rail, and aircraft represent special challenges Jurisdictional issues (e.g., international, national…not California specific) Funding Balance between environment and economy needs to be achieved

11 Where Should We Focus? Land use and transportation connections are important Let’s not kid ourselves, if emission reductions are THE goal, invest in the most cost-effective strategies Diesel retrofit on legacy fleet essential to reductions Provide incentives to private sector and realize immediate results (e.g., Gateway and POLA/POLB program)

12 Conclusion Transportation conformity has evolved; MPOs can manage the process ---- albeit at a cost Technology has been, and continues to be, where the significant reductions occur Transportation agencies tinkering at the margins unless cost-effective reductions seriously considered ---but the dilemma is the competition for transportation funding Public discourse has been helpful