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
The CMAQ Program: Has it Been Effective? Has it Helped Air Quality?
Tackling Traffic CongestionLake 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 requirementsEligible 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 pollutionCMAQ authorized at $1 billion per year
ISTEA Reauthorization of CMAQ--1996
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 $1.4 billion
Compromise was to continue CMAQ with the NAS study
EPA Slide from ISTEA Reauthorization Debate
Recommendations from the TRB CMAQ Study
CMAQ should be reauthorized, air quality should remain a high priority, and AQ agencies should be more involved
All CAA pollutants should be covered (PM2.5 and toxics), MPOs should select most cost-effective projects, and consideration should be given to land-use projects
Incentives should be provided for better assessment of emission reductions
CMAQ Spending by Project Type: 1992-1999
Transit
Traffic Flow
Shared Ride
Ped/BikeDemand Mngmnt
Other
Transit
Traffic Flow
Shared Ride
Ped/Bike
Demand Mngmnt
Other
Air Pollution from Vehicles: 1990 to 2030
VMT, Population, and GDP Growth Trends: 1970-2020(projected annual growth rates, 1998-2020)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.019
70
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
Sca
le:
1970
val
ue
= 1
Vehicle Miles
Of Travel2.2% annual
growth projected
U.S. Population0.8% annual
growth projected
Mobile 6 Emission Factors
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
VO
C a
nd
NO
Xg
ram
s p
er
mile
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
PM
2.5
g
ram
s p
er
mile
VOCe NOx PM 2.5
19601970
19801990
20002010
20202030
20400
1
2
3
4
5
6
VM
T (
trill
ions
of m
iles)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
VO
C a
nd N
Ox
(mill
ion
of to
ns)
VMTVOCNOx
Chart 1: VMT and Vehicle Emissions
Sources: 1) EPA. National Air Quality and Emissions Trend Report. 1999. 2) U.S. EPA. Heavy Duty Diesel Rule. 2001.
Vehicle Emissions as a Percentage of Total Emissions
26%
21%
14% 14%
36%
29%
13%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1996 2007 2020 2030
VOC
NOx
U.S. EPA. Heavy Duty Diesel Rule.
Health Impact of Vehicle Emissions
Mortality
Hospital Admissions
Acute Symptons
Chronic Bronchitis
Respiratory Sympton
Social Cost Ozone ($)
Social Cost PM 2.5 ($)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Millions of Dollars per Year
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Thousands of Incidences per Year
OzonePM2.5Ozone ($)PM 2.5 ($)
Ozone and PM 2.5 Mortality and MorbidityFrom On-Road Vehicle Emmissions
Health Benefits of Reducing VMT by 10% in 2010
$90
$453
$908
$1 -$5 -$4
-50
150
350
550
750
950
1150
Atlanta Houston LA
mill
ion
s o
f d
olla
rs
PM 2.5
Ozone
Source: Calculated from OAR Section 812 Study
CMAQ Reauthorization Issues
New funding formula (for new NAAQS)Increase in nonattainment areasUse of CMAQ funds for operationsUse of cost-effectiveness criteria–research component Diesel retro-fits Pre-1980 vehicles Traffic flow and signalization projects
Involvement of AQ managers
ObservationsCMAQ 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