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