The Future of Transportation Conformity

1. The Future of Transportation Conformity Healthy Regions, Healthy People UCLA Extension Public Policy Program October 17, 2005 Sarah J. Siwek & Associates, Inc.

2. 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

3. 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

4. Current Statewide Emissions

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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