![]() ![]() |
U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Reauthorization Home > Events > Peters, July 30, 2002 |
STATEMENT OF
|
Type of Project | Amount Obligated ($ Millions) | Percent |
---|---|---|
Transit | $2,700 | 43% |
Traffic Flow | $2,042 | 32% |
Shared Ride | $260 | 4% |
Demand Management | $214 | 3% |
Bicycle/Pedestrian | $198 | 3% |
Inspection and Maintenance and Other | $445 | 7% |
States with no Nonattainment or Maintenance Areas | $430 | 7% |
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the amount of CMAQ funding used for emissions I&M programs. Both Illinois and New Jersey have used CMAQ funding extensively for this purpose. In fact, 75 percent of New Jersey's recent CMAQ funding has been used for its I&M program. This is noteworthy because I&M programs have proven to be important strategies for meeting Federal air quality standards, demonstrating relatively large emission reductions, especially in acute ozone nonattainment areas.
Some CMAQ projects and programs, for example those supporting vehicle I&M programs, have registered notable emissions reductions. According to the States' annual CMAQ reports, I&M programs can yield about 5 tons per day in VOC in Illinois to over 40 tons per day in New Jersey. Regional projects, like traffic management centers and other projects that contribute to a modern, intelligent transportation system, also demonstrate larger emissions reductions than local or corridor level projects. Finally, we foresee greater potential for projects that advance new vehicle and fuel technologies. On the transit side, funding for bus replacement, removing older higher polluting vehicles from city streets in favor of newer models, has shown results, as have heavy-duty diesel retrofit programs and the introduction of alternative fuels.
Further, even the more traditional transportation control measures (TCMs), such as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV), turn lanes, and new buses, funded under the CMAQ program can help our State and local partners achieve other goals in addition to improving air quality. They improve our quality of life, by reducing pollution, by relieving congestion, and by allowing us to walk or bike in a more pleasant environment.
Finally, the flexibility of the CMAQ program supports experimentation by our partners in the States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to meet travel demand in the most environmentally-sensitive ways. In addition to ITS services, intermodal projects, and I&M programs, the CMAQ program has funded:
- Station cars and car-sharing programs
- Telecommuting
- Parking cash-out programs
- New vehicle technologies, including fuel cell vehicles
- Alternative fuels
- Public-private partnerships
- Transit-oriented development
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released a comprehensive assessment of the CMAQ program. A number of findings and recommendations were offered, with the study concluding the program is valuable to State and local governments and should be continued. The assessment highlighted in particular the importance of the program's flexibility, encouragement of innovative approaches to reduce emissions, and support for new partnerships across jurisdictions.
In recent discussions, our stakeholders have raised several issues about the CMAQ program and its role in the overall surface transportation program. The first involves concerns about the CMAQ funding formula. The statutory formula apportions funds to the States based on the population living in nonattainment and maintenance areas and the severity of the ozone and CO pollution problem. However, the statutory formula does not include factors for the EPA's new air quality standards. Thus, a State whose nonattainment population will grow under the new EPA standards will receive no comparable increase in CMAQ funding. The NAS report and others in the air quality community have also pointed out the importance of addressing the new fine particulate matter standard, because of the mortality impacts associated with this type of pollution.
Expanding the eligible use of CMAQ funding for operating assistance constitutes a second issue. One of the current strengths of the program is the focus on improvement projects, which could be diminished by providing assistance for routine operations. Currently, we provide operating assistance for up to three years under the CMAQ program for new services to help them get established
A third issue that has been raised is whether to expand CMAQ funding to areas outside of existing nonattainment and maintenance areas. In January of this year, we published a Federal Register notice maintaining our current policy of limiting funding to nonattainment and maintenance areas, but allowing projects to be funded that are in close proximity to, and primarily benefiting, a nonattainment or maintenance area. Comments to the docket revealed that our stakeholders are divided on the issue of funding outside of existing nonattainment and maintenance areas, although the majority of States and MPOs favored retention of our current policy.
We will consider these issues as we develop our reauthorization recommendations.
Conformity refers to a requirement of the CAA that is designed to ensure that Federally-funded or approved highway and transit projects conform to the air quality goals and priorities established in a State's implementation plan (SIP). For programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, we determine whether highway and transit projects conform to a State's SIP by comparing the total expected air quality emissions from the whole transportation system within the nonattainment or maintenance area, including the expected emissions that would result from projects contained in the transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP), with the emissions budget for motor vehicles in the SIP.
A failure or inability to make a conformity determination by the required deadline is referred to as a "conformity lapse." During a conformity lapse, the use of Federal highway and transit funds is restricted. Currently, most areas of the country are in conformity. But, as of July 22, 2002, five areas are in a conformity lapse.
Fulfilling the transportation conformity requirements has created stronger institutional links between two sets of agencies - transportation and air quality - that operated quite independently of each other prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). This interagency consultation has played a crucial role in the development of more realistic and achievable transportation and air quality plans. In addition, the transportation conformity provisions have been instrumental in fostering improvements to the travel demand and emissions modeling processes, because of the specificity of data necessary to meet conformity requirements.
We now have almost a decade of experience in implementing the transportation conformity provisions of the CAAA and, despite successes, our stakeholders indicate that there remain opportunities to improve the transportation conformity process. Transportation conformity was intended to form strong linkages between the transportation and air quality planning processes. However, there is a concern among transportation agencies-and even some air quality agencies-that transportation plans and SIPs are not synchronized with one another due to different planning horizons and update frequencies. This sometimes causes "lapses" in conformity, often disrupting the transportation funding process. While transportation plans have very long planning horizons and have to be updated frequently, most air quality plans have comparatively shorter planning horizons and are updated less frequently.
TEA-21 and the CAA require that transportation plans must cover at least 20 years and be found conforming for that entire time period. However, air quality plans have much shorter planning horizons, often only 5-10 years, resulting in a "mismatch" in which transportation plans must consider emissions controls in the absence of comprehensive air quality planning. Without comprehensive air quality planning, there is no analysis of the most cost-effective emissions controls across all sources beyond the end of the SIP timeframe. If an MPO has a conformity problem in the time frame beyond that covered by the SIP, it has limited options for achieving substantive emissions reductions with programs over which the transportation agencies have control. Traditional TCMs have little impact on regional emissions levels, and such strategies will provide even fewer reductions in the future, as technology continues to reduce total mobile source emissions. Although MPOs bear the responsibility of assuring that plans conform to air quality budgets, they do not have the authority under current law to establish more effective measures, like I&M programs or reformulated fuels. That process of identifying future control strategies is the intended purpose of the SIP.
This "mismatch" can be further aggravated by differences in the frequency with which transportation plans and air quality plans are updated. Conformity determinations for transportation plans must be made at least every three years, must be based on the latest demographic and travel information, and must use the latest emissions estimation model. However, air quality plans are not updated on a regular cycle, and may reflect out-of-date assumptions or may have been developed using an outdated emissions estimation model. When a conformity analysis is performed in such a situation, it is impossible to determine whether the emissions associated with the transportation plan are truly consistent with the emissions budget in the air quality plan. This may be because the transportation plan emissions were estimated under one set of assumptions and model, while the emissions budget was developed under another. Our stakeholders have reported that such situations have occurred and are likely to happen again with the recent release of a new emissions estimation model.
EPA, in coordination with U.S. DOT, has allowed a 2-year grace period before States have to use the new emission model, MOBILE6, for conformity. EPA also requires that SIPs that are started after the official release use MOBILE6. While the Clean Air Act does not require SIP updates in all cases, EPA guidance encourages States to evaluate the effects of MOBILE6 early to plan for any needed SIP updates to accommodate change.
Our stakeholders indicate that conformity lapses have occurred because areas could not complete the complex, comprehensive transportation planning and conformity processes within the required time frames, even though they met their emissions budgets. Data collection, model development, public outreach, and consensus building can all take a considerable amount of time and resources. MPOs also face other daily challenges of ever-increasing congestion, transportation needs due to economic growth, protection of water quality and other environmental resources, efficient freight management, safety, and security.
Many of our stakeholders have suggested bringing the planning horizons and frequency of updates of both the transportation plans and air quality plans much closer together. Some have suggested a shorter planning horizon, and less frequent updates, while others have suggested a longer air quality planning horizon. We note that some area have opted to voluntarily extend their air quality planning horizons.
In any case, some stakeholders have suggested it is in the best interests of an effective, integrated process that the air quality plans and the transportation plans are both using the latest, and most consistent, set of planning assumptions, and that the air quality plans include the necessary control measures to ensure timely attainment of the standards. Stakeholders have stated that this would also help us anticipate air quality problems and correct them in a more proactive and coordinated transportation and air quality planning process.
The "mismatch" issue also extends to the consequences associated with an area's failure to demonstrate conformity versus an area's failure to submit or implement an adequate SIP. When an area is unable to demonstrate conformity and enters into a conformity lapse, the consequences of the lapse on Federally funded or approved highway and transit projects, as well as regionally significant non-Federal projects, can be immediate. Alternatively, under the CAA, if an area fails to submit or implement an adequate SIP, there is a range of time, a minimum of 18 to 24 months, before sanctions are imposed, during which the State can remedy any problems. Some of our stakeholders suggest that a similar delay in impacts should be considered for the conformity process.
The Department recognizes the value of transportation conformity, and is committed to reducing motor vehicle emissions. Over the years, we have worked closely with EPA and our State and local stakeholders to improve the transportation conformity process. We are committed to better coordinating the transportation and air quality planning processes and will continue to work with EPA and our stakeholders to identify ways to remedy the mismatch issues, including consideration of possible remedies in the development of our reauthorization proposal.
In conclusion, the Department of Transportation is committed to continuing the progress made over the last thirty years in reducing motor vehicle emissions and strongly supports the goals of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity provisions. Improving transportation safety and mobility, while protecting the environment and enhancing the quality of life for all of our communities, are compatible goals. I am proud of the successes we have achieved under the CMAQ program by providing flexible funding for innovative transportation projects that improve air quality and by improving interagency cooperation between transportation and air quality agencies. However, I also recognize that additional improvement in the coordination of the transportation and the air quality planning processes can be achieved.
Integrating transportation and environmental decision-making can effectively advance environmental stewardship and improve our efficiency in meeting our nation's mobility needs.
The American public demands and deserves both mobility and clean air, and we must remain focused on providing the highest level of service and environmental protection that we can provide.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to working with you as we prepare for reauthorization of the surface transportation programs.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
U.S. DOT Home Page |
Privacy and Disclaimer |