120 likes | 141 Views
Explore the evolving landscape of transportation conformity post-1990 Clean Air Act, highlighting key lessons learned, current statewide emissions status, and critical focus areas for the future. Understand implications on air quality, strategies, and regulatory changes in the transportation sector.
E N D
The Future of Transportation Conformity Healthy Regions, Healthy People UCLA Extension Public Policy Program October 17, 2005 Sarah J. Siwek & Associates, Inc.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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)
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