Testimony of
Marsha
Kaiser
Director
of Planning and Capital Programming
Maryland
Department of Transportation
On Behalf of
The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Clean
Air, Climate Change
and
Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
Committee
on Environment and Public Works
March 13, 2003
Founded in 1914, AASHTO represents the departments concerned with highway and transportation in the fifty States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Its mission is a transportation system for the nation that balances mobility, economic prosperity, safety and the environment.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Marsha Kaiser. I am Director of Planning and Capital Programming for the Maryland Department of Transportation. I am here today to testify on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). We applaud your continuing commitment to improving air quality in your state and across the nation, and thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing to address transportation congestion and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ).
In my testimony today, first I will discuss “next-generation” refinements to the transportation conformity process to build on the experience we have gained over the last decade. We would like to see procedural modifications to conformity to provide for:
· The alignment and greater consistency between the transportation and air quality planning processes, including analytical tools and planning assumptions;
· Greater flexibility to implement cost effective emission reduction strategies; and
· Enhanced consultation on implementation of the new national standards for ozone and fine particulates.
Second, I will discuss AASHTO’s views on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, which we believe should be continued with some added flexibility to enhance our ability to meet the dual challenges of congestion and air quality improvement.
Transportation
Conformity
Background. The Clean Air Act closely aligned transportation and air quality planning through an analytical process called “transportation conformity.” The policy objective of transportation conformity is to coordinate air quality and transportation planning by ensuring that transportation plans are consistent with plans for attaining Federal air quality standards.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that all of the State transportation officials across the country fully support the national goal of improving air quality and ensuring a healthy environment in all of our States. After ten years of experience, transportation and air quality agencies have learned a great deal about how to better coordinate their intertwined planning efforts. That experience has also exposed procedural weaknesses with transportation conformity that we believe can only be addressed legislatively. After ten years, it is appropriate for Congress to consider refinements to the conformity requirements.
The current transportation conformity regulations were drafted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to implement provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which more explicitly defined the process for ensuring that transportation plans and programs conform to State air quality implementation plans (SIPs). The dual policy objectives of transportation conformity are to:
· Coordinate the transportation and air quality planning processes; and
· Ensure that transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) are consistent with SIPs.
There is generally agreement among the transportation agencies that implement the conformity process that it has improved coordination between transportation and air quality plans and has vastly improved communications between transportation and air quality professionals. In addition, the process has been successful in raising awareness among decision makers of the connection between transportation and air quality and has promoted broader involvement in transportation planning by stakeholders.
Nevertheless, ten years of experience with transportation conformity has also exposed some weaknesses in the current procedures designed to integrate air quality and transportation planning through conformity:
· Misalignments and inconsistencies in planning assumptions, planning horizons, and modeling tools; and
· Absence of any flexibility to revise Transportation Control Measures without first revising the State air quality implementation plan (SIP).
The impact on transportation programs is substantial. Just since 1997, over 80 nonattainment or maintenance areas have gone into – or barely missed going into -- a conformity lapse, putting billions of dollars of transportation dollars at the risk. Process inefficiencies impose an additional administrative burden with sizable opportunity costs – scarce staff and resources are diverted from addressing the wide array of existing and emerging transportation policy challenges, including for example, safety and security or broader environmental and community objectives.
AASHTO has identified several procedural improvements to the conformity process improvements which would harmonize the transportation and air quality planning process and reinforce the role of conformity to ensure consistency with SIPs. The goal is simply to strengthen the connection between transportation and air quality planning by making common sense improvements to the conformity process that will benefit transportation and air quality agencies alike.
Provide better integration and consistency in the transportation and air quality planning processes, timelines and updates, planning assumptions and modeling tools.
1.
Align Planning Horizons.
Metropolitan transportation plans are
required to have a minimum of a 20-year planning horizon. The time horizons for
SIPs are much shorter – the SIP time horizons extend only to the attainment
date, with the latest being 2010. As a result, there is frequently a gap of ten
years or more between the horizon year for the SIP and the horizon year for the
long-range transportation plan.
Transportation agencies must demonstrate
conformity to the last year of the plan which means that on-road mobile sources
are constrained to the motor vehicle emissions budget from the attainment year
to the last year of the transportation plan unless SIPs specifically establish
budgets for years after the attainment date yet within the transportation
planning horizon. Also, there can be no credit taken for technology or other
measures that may be available during the out-years unless those measures have
a regulation in place and implementation is assured.
The mismatch in the timeframes for
transportation and air quality plans has placed an undue burden on the on-road
mobile sector where there are very few measures remaining that can be
implemented that will yield significant emissions reductions. This is
especially true as vehicles continue to get cleaner and federal controls on
vehicles are phased in. This has caused problems for transportation agencies in
making conformity determinations, which is a criterion for receiving Federal
highway and transit funding.
Recommendation: Require conformity determination on the
first ten years of the transportation plan or to the attainment date, whichever
is the longer time period. For informational purposes, regional
emissions analysis would be done on the remaining years of the transportation
plan.
2.
Provide More Predictable and Coordinated
Planning Update Cycles and Consistent
Planning Assumptions.
Long range transportation plans, which are for twenty year periods, must be updated not less frequently than every three years. Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be updated every two years. In addition, there are various SIP-related triggers in the transportation conformity rule that require plan and TIP updates within 18 months of various SIP actions. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) do not have a regular update cycle.
This has created a situation where transportation plans are
updated regularly while SIPs are updated on a discretionary and sporadic basis,
resulting in overlapping plan cycles, public confusion, less time spent on
other important planning tasks and a continuous conformity process in many
areas. In addition, the unpredictable
nature of the 18-month SIP triggers for conformity redeterminations has caused
uncertainty in the transportation planning and TIP development processes.
Because transportation plans, TIPs and SIPs must use the latest planning
assumptions each time they are updated, the assumptions used in SIPs tend to be
older than – and inconsistent with -- those in transportation plans and TIPs. AASHTO believes that the conformity process
must provide a more predictable and coordinated transportation and air quality
plan update cycle along with consistent planning assumptions.
Recommendation: Require the update of metropolitan
transportation plans at least every five years with transportation conformity
determinations required after each update, unless more frequent updates of the
TIP are needed. Reaffirm that TIPs must
continue to be consistent with plans and eliminate the requirement for a conformity
determination on TIPs because it is duplicative of the conformity requirement
for plans.
3.
Provide Coordinated and Consistent Use of
Emissions Models and Emissions Factors
EPA recently released MOBILE6, the new generation of the
emissions factor model used in all states except California. The California
model, EMFAC2000 was released in 2001 and will be updated in the near
future. The conformity rule requires
that latest planning assumptions and emissions models be used in transportation
plans, TIPs and SIPs when they are updated.
Nonattainment areas have two years to begin using MOBILE6
(or EMFAC2001) in conformity determinations with no corresponding requirement
that SIPs be updated during that period using the new emissions factors model.
(There are exceptions to this two-year phase in for areas that took credit for
Tier II vehicle standards and heavy duty engine regulations in their SIPs—these
areas have either one or two years depending on the specific conditions in
their SIPs)
The thrust of the transportation conformity requirement was to provide for an integrated transportation and air quality planning process. However, requiring that regional emissions analysis be done with latest emissions model without requiring a SIP revision using that model prior to use in conformity is contrary to an integrated and seamless process. In fact, the different estimating techniques and parameters used in the models result in significant differences in estimates of current and future emissions levels. Conducting conformity analysis on transportation plans and TIPs that use one model while SIPs used an older model creates an apples to oranges comparison, contrary to Congressional intent and rationale for transportation conformity.
Use of latest planning assumptions requires that vehicle mix data be the most recently available data for use in conformity determinations and in SIPs. However, because SIPs are not updated on a regular basis, the vehicle mix data used to develop SIPs may be many years older than that required for use in transportation conformity determinations. This has caused problems in several areas simply because different data was used in the SIP planning process than is being used in transportation plan and TIP development.
Recommendation: Require that
SIP budgets and conformity demonstrations be based on the same mobile-source
emissions factors model and/or same vehicle fleet mix data. Require the use of the latest
EPA-approved emissions models in SIPs prior
to requiring their use in transportation plans and TIPs. Require the use of the latest vehicle fleet
mix data in SIPs prior to requiring
their use in transportation plans and TIPs
4.
Synchronize Sanction Clocks
In the event of a conformity lapse, there
are immediate consequences in that only certain types of transportation
projects may proceed until the lapse is resolved. In contrast, in the event of a SIP failure, there is an 18-month
period in which to correct the SIP failure prior to the imposition of
sanctions. In essence, a conformity
lapse functions as an immediate sanction with no time permitted to correct
situations that might have led to the lapse.
Recommendation: Align the conformity lapse with same
18-month time clock for imposition of sanctions for SIP failures in order to
provide a similar amount of time to correct deficiencies in transportation
plans and TIPs.
5.
Require Conformity Only for Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas.
Transportation conformity determinations
must be undertaken for all nonattainment and maintenance areas. Currently, if
an area has completed its 20-year maintenance period prior to the last year of
transportation plan, the area still must meet conformity requirements all the
way to the last year of the transportation plan – the “horizon year” (e.g., end
of 20-year maintenance period is 2006 and the transportation plan horizon is
2025). Because some areas are
approaching the end of their 20-year maintenance periods, this situation is
beginning to surface. Similarly, when
Maintenance Plans reach their 8-year update point, the new SIP budget need only
be for 10 years out, rather than the 20+ years required for transportation
plans.
Recommendation: Clarify that conformity determinations are
required only for that time period when an area is classified as nonattainment
or maintenance, and can be suspended when reclassified as attainment.
Provide flexibility to enable transportation agencies to respond to changing circumstances.
1. Allow Substitution of Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) Without a SIP Revision
Transportation
control measures that are included in SIPs cannot be added, deleted, or changed
unless a formal SIP revision is made with its accompanying processing delays,
and a subsequent conformity determination. This discourages the inclusion of
TCMs in SIPs with the result that transportation control measures are often
included in transportation plans and TIPs and contribute to meeting emissions
budget, but are only included in SIPs if they are absolutely essential to
achieving needed emission reductions.
Recommendation: Permit the revision or substitution of transportation control
measures that yield equivalent emission reductions without the need for either
a SIP revision or a conformity determination.
2. During a Conformity Lapse, Consider Emission Reductions from Other than On-Road Mobile Sources
In the
event of a conformity lapse, transportation agencies have very few tools at
their disposal that will generate sufficient emission reductions to correct a
lapse. This is increasingly the case because vehicle technologies continue to
improve and new technologies are being phased in that will continue to reduce
the amount of emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Further, the cost of
emission reductions from on-road sources is higher than other sectors given the
tight controls on these sources already.
At the same
time, there are uncontrolled sources that account for large portions of
emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas (e.g., marine vessels,
off-road vehicles, etc.) Such sources
could generate emissions reductions more cost effectively than on-road mobile
sources. The ability to “purchase”
emissions credits from other sources would provide needed flexibility and cost
effective emissions reductions.
Recommendation: In the event of a conformity lapse, permit
all polluting sectors to be included in an analysis of strategies to reduce
emissions in order to correct the conformity lapse and permit the purchase of
emissions credits from other sources.
Develop an
inclusive process for implementation of the new National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulates.
1. Require Adequate Consultation
EPA recently held public meetings
on the implementation of the new ozone and PM NAAQS. These new standards are expected
to affect many areas that are not currently nonattainment areas. A significant number of the new
nonattainment areas are rural. The
impacts will include transportation conformity
requirements and new areas will need adequate time to prepare to meet these new
requirements.
Recommendation: Require that EPA provide adequate
notification of proposed, new requirements and consult with affected areas
sufficiently in advance of new designations for those areas to be prepared to
address any new transportation-related requirements.
2. Provide an Adequate Grace Period for New
Nonattainment Areas to Demonstrate Conformity
Congress
provided a one-year grace period for new areas to demonstrate conformity after
the new ozone and/or PM2.5 non-attainment designations are made. One year may be insufficient for areas,
particularly those that have not had to address conformity issues in the
past.
Recommendation: Allow for a three-year period for an area
to demonstrate conformity after the EPA makes designations under the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Ensure that the SIPs for
these areas are also developed within this timeframe, which is consistent with
Clean Air Act requirements for SIP development within three years of a
designation.
Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Program (CMAQ)
Since the 1970s we have made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution, including emissions from motor vehicles. According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration[1] emissions from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are down 59 percent and emissions from Carbon Monoxide (CO) are down 43 percent. Emissions from Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are up slightly (5%) for all vehicles, but decreased by more than 30 percent for automobiles. The introduction of Tier II engine and gasoline standards and heavy duty diesel engine standards are predicted to decrease NOx emissions by 61 percent and 88 percent, respectively, by 2030. This is a remarkable success story when we recognize that these reductions have occurred at the same time we had 37 percent growth in population, 147 percent growth in gross domestic product and 143 percent growth in vehicle miles traveled.
Despite the progress we have made in reducing emissions, the complementary goal of congestion relief remains a challenge. Too many Americans are spending time stuck in traffic. Congestion deeply affects our nation’s ability to move goods and services and threatens the health of our economy. Congestion is no longer confined to urban areas, peak periods or work trips. According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2002 Urban Mobility Study, “Congestion is growing in metropolitan areas of every size…The average annual delay per peak road traveler climbed from 16 hours in 1982 to 62 hours in 2000.”
At least fifty percent of the congestion problem is associated with inadequate capacity. The remainder is caused by non-recurring delays, which result from vehicle crashes and breakdowns, weather, construction, special events, poor signalization and even the mix of vehicle types.
To address the dual goals of relieving congestion and reducing emissions, a diverse set of strategies and options – tailored to individual states and regions – is needed. The CMAQ Program was established in 1992 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) with funding targeted for programs and projects that could address mobility and air quality needs simultaneously. CMAQ provided flexibility to fund a wide array of transportation improvements including more traditional projects such highway traffic flow and intersection projects, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects as well as alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies, telecommuting, intermodal highway facilities, and inspection and maintenance programs.
After ten years and a $14 billion federal investment, the CMAQ Program enjoys broad support, largely attributable to its flexibility and broad eligibility. We believe that the key to the continued success of the CMAQ program is continuing and enhancing that flexibility.
AASHTO Recommendations
for the CMAQ Program
· Continue the CMAQ Program with funding levels increasing commensurate with increases in the overall highway program.
· Extend the eligibility of CMAQ funds to all types of projects that reduce congestion or improve air quality, including traffic flow improvements and Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) capacity enhancement projects that have air quality benefits.
· Permit states to use CMAQ funds in attainment areas if emissions reductions benefit adjacent non-attainment or maintenance areas, or in areas identified as high risk.
· Eliminate the CMAQ three-year restriction on highway and transit projects, including operations and Inspection and Maintenance.
Mr. Chairman,
I want to assure you that all of the State transportation officials across the
country fully support the national goal of improving air quality and ensuring a
healthy environment in all of our States.
We strongly believe that environmental stewardship is very much a part of
our fundamental transportation mobility mission, and continually seek new and
innovative, multi-modal strategies to more effectively unite the two. We stand ready to work with you, the Members
of your Committee and your staff to simplify, demystify and bring common sense
to transportation conformity. And we
urge you to broaden the CMAQ Program to enable funds to be used to more
effective target the dual goals of improving mobility and air quality.
[1] U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Air Quality: Selected Facts and Figures, January, 2000