AUTOMOTIVE AIR POLLUTION
AND HUMAN HEALTH
A Seminar in Hartford, Connecticut. October.1975
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Airand Hazardous Materials Division. Region I. Boston, Mass.
.-
\
UJ
•
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AIR POLLUTION
AND HUMAN HEALTH
A Seminar: October 9, 1975
Hartford, Connecticut
Michael Leon, Project Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AIR POLLUTION AND HUMAN HEALTH
A Seminar: October 9, 1975
Preface i
I. Introductions:
Governor Ella Grasso 1
Commissioner Joseph Gill 4
Commissioner Samuel Kanell 5
II. Presentations:
Ronald E. Engel, D.V.M. , Ph.D 8
"The Development of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and Current Research in Health Effects of Air Pollutants"
Thomas J. Godar, M.D 15
"The Physiological Effects of Automotive Air Pollutant"
Douglas S. Lloyd, M.P.H., M.D 25
"Monitoring the Effects of Air Pollution"
III. Panel Discussion
Donald Lynch 30
Janus Stolwijk 31
Robert Gubala 35
Diane Hoyer 37
Henry Beal 39
Roy Coughlin 41
Questions and Responses 45
-------
On October 9, 1975 a seminar was held in Hartford, Connecticut to
discuss the issues of the health effects of automotive pollutants. The
purpose of the seminar was threefold: to present the positions of the
Governor and the Commissioners of Health, Environment Protection, and
Transportation on the Connecticut Transportation Control Plan, to provide
an educational report of the health effects of automobile related pollu-
tants, and to discuss the feasibility of various pollution control
strategies.
The seminar was designed to involve a variety of participants
representing different interest groups in the state. It offered a rare
opportunity for the Governor and the Department Commissioners to be
presented with different and conflicting views on the nature of the
pollution problem and its possible resolution.
The seminar was sponsored by the Connecticut Departments of Environ-
mental Protection, Transportation, and Health, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the Connecticut Lung Association, the Connecticut
Transportation Coalition, and the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.
Interest in conducting such a seminar was stimulated by the need to
inform the citizens of Connecticut of automobile related pollutant
health hazards. The Transportation Control Plan, as mandated by the
Clean Air Act, is required to contain strategies which will allow
Connecticut's air quality to meet the national ambient air quality
standards.
The proceedings of the seminar are divided into three sections.
The first contains the presentations given by Governor Grasso, Commis-
sioner Joseph Gill, Department of Environmental Protection, and
Commissioner Samuel Kanell, Department of Transportation. The second
section contains the presentations made by Dr. Ronald Engel, Acting
Director, Health Effects Division, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Thomas Godar, President,
Connecticut Lung Association; and Dr. Douglas Lloyd, Commissioner of
Health. These provide the concerned citizen with updated information on
the nature of the health effects problem, how these effects have impacted
Connecticut, and how current research might affect the standards set for
these pollutants. The last section contains a transcript of the panel
discussion which included representatives from the Departments of Environ-
mental Protection and Transportation, the Connecticut League of Women
Voters, the Connecticut Road Builders Association, and the Southern New
England Telephone Company. This panel discussed the issue of public
acceptability of various strategies, and brought to light some of the
conflicts which arise in attempting to develop a comprehensive plan for
air pollution control.
-------
It is clear that an effective combination of strategies will have
to be implemented in Connecticut to attain and maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical
oxidants. Some of these strategies will be expensive; all will require
significant changes in our attitudes about personal transportation. We
must realize, however, that many of these programs have multiple benefits
and that the costs of carrying out these strategies must be weighed
against the benefits of reduced health care costs and property damage.
Additionally, such measures as the carpool program may save the average
participant $350 to $400 per year in auto operating expenses, and are
consistent with the goals of our National Energy Policy. When these
positive benefits are quantified, we can begin to realize that our
present habits may be costing us more than we first thought, and a
change in our trans-portation habits may result in a healthier environment
at lower cost.
Michael Leon
March 1, 1976
ii
-------
INTRODUCTIONS
-------
GOVERNOR ELLA GRASSO
I want you to know that it is my great pleasure to open the seminar
on a most important issue, the effect on health of those air pollutants
which come chiefly from motor vehicles. Finding solutions to this
pressing problem is vital to all of us, as we know that the solution
will not be easy to achieve, but sessions such as this give both public
officials and the people of our State a good opportunity to listen, to
learn and to exchange ideas. They can help us as we reach out in search
for solutions to our mutual problems.
In this seminar we are focusing on one particular set of solutions
to deal with one source of air pollution - the automobile. This is
important, but we should not lose sight of the fact that almost every-
thing we do and use affects the environment in which we live. As farmers,
as workers, as manufacturers, we remove resources from the earth and
transform them into useful products; in the process, however, we generate
waste and discharge it into our air and our water. As householders and
consumers, we use up the food and the products we produce. We leave
behind the unused or unwanted portions as waste to be disposed of by
burning or burying.
One effect of all this activity is progress. Another is a legacy
of pollution. Some of the pollution is seen at once. For example, an
oil spill on the coast threatens sea life and recreation. Air pollution
emergency episodes instantly make breathing difficult for those who have
respiratory diseases. Because these problems are obvious, oil spills
and air emergencies clearly demand immediate remedies, and fortunately
receive attention from the public and the government. Therefore, they
create less impact than the second type of pollution, the subtle variety
which acts over a period of time. These environmental problems with
long-term potential for harming the health and the well-being of people
are more difficult to solve precisely because they are subtle. They are
not observable by the people who one day may be affected or who are
already affected. Fluorocarbons are an example of such an environmental
problem. They are especially subtle; positive proof of the damaging
impact of fluorocarbon solutions has still not been completely documented.
And an equally subtle impact can be attributed to pollutants from motor
vehicles. Carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants, commonly known as
smog, are the two major pollutants caused by automobiles.
While these are major problems, a significant portion of our people
in our State can no more detect the pollution from motor vehicles than
they can the potential danger of fluorocarbons. Data from the National
Center for Health Statistics show that approximately 94,000 people in
Connecticut suffer from asthma, 20,000 from emphysema, 102,000 from
-------
chronic bronchitis, and 20,000 from other chronic complications. In
other words, a quarter of a million Connecticut residents are affected
directly by exposure to high air pollution levels.
Unfortunately, Connecticut's contributory share of these kinds of
air pollutants is not low. The Department of Environmental Protection
has reported pollution levels more than four times higher than the
Federal standards; levels at least twice the Federal standards have been
reported at every single station established in our State to measure
oxidants. And why do we experience such extreme values? To a large
extent the smog comes to Connecticut carried by the prevailing winds
from New York and New Jersey, and quite likely from as far away as the
Mid-Western and Mid-Atlantic states. However, Connecticut also contributes
its own share of the problem. The chief ingredient of smog in Connecticut
come from motor vehicles, accounting for 75% of our smog concentrations.
Carbon monoxide, the second pollutant we are discussing today, comes
almost 100% from the use of motor vehicles.
What can be done to lower these pollutant levels? We cannot rely
solely on the new emission control on automobiles. Therefore, we have
started a concerted public and private campaign to deal with the automobile.
We must begin to evaluate our transportation system in cost terms that
we have not previously considered. We must demand more effective partici-
pation by the Federal government in programs to encourage alternative
means to the use of motor vehicles. Good public transit is essential.
It is also expensive. At present we are promoting programs to increase
public transportation use and we're using the computers, as we announced
earlier, to encourage carpooling. But it seems to me that we must also
begin to educate the public about the total cost of transportation; the
cost of using our own automobiles. At current prices a person who
relies on his or her car driven an average of 12,000 miles a year,
spends over $2000 a year to pay for depreciation, maintenance, insurance
and gasoline. We must consider why our transportation system forces us
to spend such sums and whether less costly alternatives can be made
available.
We are moving to meet these challenges. In some.cases these alterna-
tives will require government subsidies. I hope that we can move fast
enough, because trying to get the aid in this difficult economic time is
not easy and adds new complications to the dimension of our problem. We
cannot fool ourselves about the total costs of public transit, and who
must ultimately pay for it. The pace with which programs are implemented
cannot be faster than the rate at which money becomes available to pay
for them. This is why I have indicated that the Federal role in transit
is so very vital. State government simply cannot do the job alone.
-------
Even with growing Federal-State cooperation in transportation, balancing
a transportation system budget and considering the needs of our environment
are difficult goals to attain. Still, there is one thing that we do
know. However difficult and in some ways costly these solutions are, we
must discuss them and begin to implement some of them. The decisions we
make as public officials and as citizens affect the health and well-
being of all people from our State.
As I look around, I recognize many of you who are here today. I
know that you have come, not only to learn how health may be affected by
pollution, but also to voice your opinion about available solutions to
the problem. These are the suggestions we are asking for, and these are
the suggestions that can affect government policy. Therefore, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to welcome you. We want your help,
your advice, your guidance and your experience because this is an area
in which all of us have a very deep concern and a strong commitment for
action. Thank you very much for coming.
-------
COMMISSIONER JOSEPH N. GILL
Health problems caused by air pollution are felt very close to
home. They can affect our friends, our relatives, ourselves. Much of
the pollution comes from close to home, too. We rely on our cars to
satisfy every transit need — going from home to shopping, to schools,
to play, to work. The cumulative effect of our decisions to drive to
all these places, however, is too much pollution and too much adverse
impact on our citizens' health. Levels of both photochemical oxidants
and carbon monoxide are clearly too high. Much of the photochemical
oxidant pollution, or smog, it must be said, comes from places not so
close to home. It may come from other parts of Connecticut — or from
other states where reliance on motor vehicles is as great or greater
than in Connecticut. Virtually all of the carbon monoxide is purely a
local problem caused by too much traffic becoming congested on a road
network which cannot carry the load. The result is that no environmental
department alone can address adequately this issue of pollution reduction.
It will take the combined efforts of the state and local agencies which
deal in transportation planning, the agencies of other states which deal
in environmental and transportation matters, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency whose standards we have set out to achieve, the state
and local health agencies which can help identify the affected population,
and the private organizations, including environmental, labor and
construction groups, whose special interests are directly affected by
the decisions we make on these issues.
I'm happy to say that representatives of all these groups are here
today, some as speakers, some as members of the audience. I'm particularly
glad to have as my co-host, Dr. Douglas Lloyd, and he is represented
today by Dr. Barrett. Dr. Barrett will be speaking to you later in this
seminar. My other colleague is Commissioner Sam Kanell, from the Department
of Transportation, and I am taking pleasure now in presenting Sam Kanell
who will have a few words for you relative to the problems of transporta-
tion and air pollution. With your permission.
Joseph N. Gill is the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Protection
-------
COMMISSIONER SAMUEL KANELL
I am impressed by the number of people who are here today to discuss
something which we all seem to take for granted, or only say "what can
we do about it." I hope we will end up doing something about it today.
I have attended more meetings where more people come by cars and go home
by cars and say there are too many cars on the road.
I suppose most people say that "There are too many cars on the road
and we should get those other people off the road because I need the car
for my special activities," "I have to leave early and the bus doesn't
run at the time I leave," or, "I come home early," or, "I may carry
bundles with me," or, "I have to shop on the way." Isn't that true of
all of us? We all recognize that the car is the most serious factor in
polluting the atmosphere. What are we going to do about it?
Many people tell me "you ought to run more buses - give me a bus
the meets my needs and then I'll give up my car." Others tell me that
"I'll never give up my car". I don't think we have yet reached the
point of a compulsory restriction on cars, but that's apt to come — it
must come. Limit the use of cars. Yet, I suppose in the broad sense
I'm saying more than limit the use of cars. I'm really saying, change
our way of life because our way of life is geared to the car, as Commis-
sioner Gill pointed out.
Some people have heard me tell this story in the past that when I
lived in Branford I always walked to high school or bicycled; never
thought of cars in those days. Now the parking lots at schools are
bigger than the schools, the high schools, and since nobody walks to
high school or bicycles to school — I shouldn't say nobody, but very
few — we have to build gyms to give these young people their exercise.
Well, in my day you got your exercise going to and from school. I
suppose I shouldn't get too personal about this sort of thing, but I get
my exercise when I bike to and from work. It's only seven miles each
way and I feel fine doing it. Now, when I went on to college, I took
the trolley to college. There was a trolley in those days. It was
clean, slow, sure, and efficient. It didn't pollute the air. Shall we
go back to the trolley? Can we go back to a village form of life? Can
we go back to a way of life where we're not dependent upon cars, don't
have a situation where much of our city is paved, given over to parking
lots and city streets? Can we go back to the village form? Give up all
these things that are predicated upon the car? It is too easily said,
not easily done. Like most other things, we have to do it in stages.
Now, when people tell me to run more buses, they must realize that every
time you run a bus it will cost more money, because there is no bus
service that we are now sponsoring that I can say is reasonably self-
supporting. There are a few private companies that are doing well, that
do not require support, but they are exceptions. There is no rail
Samuel Kanell was the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
Transportation
-------
passenger service in this country that is self-supporting. It requires
public support because the very simple rules, the facts of life, are
that the cost to run the service exceeds the fare box revenue. Therefore,
the difference is being made up in one form or another by public grants.
So, yes, it is possible to run more buses at high cost, but we
should obviously first run buses to meet the needs. How can we meet the
needs when there is such a disparity among them? It's impossible to run
a bus system that meets the needs of each individual to go shopping, for
work, and all the other activities that make up our daily lives. So,
we're getting a compromise. We're trying to marry the private car and
the bus. By that I mean, it is impractical to run a bus by the door of
each individual. Our suburbs have developed in such a fashion that most
people don't live on bus lines or trolley lines, or within a block of
bus or trolley lines. Therefore, the compromise: to establish commuter
bus parking lots. We would drive a relatively short distance and then
have the commuter bus service available to take you to a downtown area
in a very short time by express route. That's a partial answer. It's
not the complete answer.
On additional rail service, I'm glad to report that we finally
convinced AMTRAK to run more convenient rail service on the Hartford to
Springfield, Hartford to New Haven route. This will make it more attrac-
tive and more possible for people to commute by rail to and from their
places of work. I use the word commuting because many more people
travel at peak hours to and from work. Of course, there is some ridership
throughout the day, but the biggest concentration, and often the reason
for pressure to widen roads and build expressways, is to meet peak hour
needs. If we can reduce peak hour needs by having more people give up
the convenience of their car and use some form of mass transportation,
it will substantially reduce the need to expand highway facilities.
Now, in meeting peak hour needs, we do so both by commuter bus, and
carpooling, which Governor Grasso has referred to. As you receive your
motor vehicle registration forms, you will have a form to fill out,
giving us a few simple facts about where you're going from and where you
are going, so we can match you up with somebody in your neighborhood who
has a similar destination. We hope that we can reduce the number of
single occupant vehicles by a significant number.
It is well known that we don't have a readily available electric
car or a car that completely meets pollution standards. But total
reliance on technology can not be the answer. We should have far more
emphasis on how we can minimize the use of cars, how we can make better
use of our mass transportation facilities, and how we can encourage
employers to modify their employees' commuting habits. Every time I
meet with employers, I try to give them my sales pitch telling them how
to make it more convenient for their employees to use public transportation.
-------
I think it's a sad commentary when you see some of our major employers,
whether insurance companies, factories, or even schools, having parking
lots that occupy a large portion of the space around these facilities. I
encourage employers to utilize a monthly bus pass arrangement. A monthly
bus pass costs $14.00 a month on the Connecticut Company single fare
system. You can ride as many times as you x^ant. I suggest that employers
could buy these passes at $14.00 and resell them at $10.00. Sure, they
are absorbing $4.00 a moth as their share of the support, but I would
suggest that the $4.00 a month support is relatively small in contrast
to the cost of providing and maintaining a parking space, in contrast to
the expense of keeping that car on the road, and the adverse effects on
our air. There is no argument that the worst polluter is the automobile.
The question is how each of us can make his own contribution. How can
we jointly contribute towards reducing air pollution? I look forward to
answers from the seminar. Thank you.
-------
PRESENTATIONS
-------
DR. RONALD ENGEL
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to
protect and enhance our environment today and for future generations to
the maximum extent possible under the laws enacted by Congress. EPA's
mandate is to mount an integrated, coordinated attack on environmental
pollution in cooperation with State and local governments. EPA has a
very special and strong obligation—in carrying out the Clean Air Act
and other legislation—to work with the citizens of this country, primarily
through their elected officials at the State and local levels, not
simply after the fact, but in the very formulation of our regulations,
guidelines and plans.
EPA is often asked how it establishes standards to protect human
health and welfare and the general environment from the harmful effects
of pollution. At times, EPA is accused of setting standards that are
too stringent, not stringent enough, or both. And at times, EPA is also
accused of not having enough data to set a particular environmental
standard.
Environmental standards are made, not born. They do not spring
full-blown from the imagination of a mad scientist, nor from a crystal
ball. Environmental standards are the product of a comprehensive Federal
Process intended to assure that:
Standards do indeed protect human health and welfare and the
environment.
Standards are based on the soundest possible scientific and
technical information.
Standards meet all requirements of the law under which they are
issued, and they are legally enforceable.
Standards reflect sound public policy.
When social decisions and value judgments must be made and when
risks must be balanced against benefits, the standards contain
a margin of safety protective of the public health.
Air Standards
The Nation's air pollution control program is carried out under the
Clean Air Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-604), which broadens and accelerates the
air pollution control program as launched by Congress in 1963 and amended
Ronald E. Engel, D.M.V., Ph.D., is the Acting Director of the Health Effects
Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
8
-------
in 1965, 1966, and 1967. The Act authorizes EPA to take whatever action
is necessary, including seeking a court order to shut down polluters,
whenever air pollution poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health. This emergency power was given to EPA to deal with air pollution
"episodes" — periods when adverse weather conditions produce stagnant
air that allows pollutants to reach abnormally high concentrations.
The 1970 Act created for the first time a truly nationwide program
to control air pollution with major provisions for setting and enforcing
standards. A number of different kinds of Federal standards are authorized.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for pollutants for which air quality criteria have
been issued. The standards rest on data compiled in Criteria Documents
which EPA has published on individual pollutants. The documents reflect
the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent
of all identifiable effects on public health and welfare which may be
expected from the presence of varying quantities of the given pollutant
in ambient air. The Clean Air Act requires the states to adopt implemen-
tation plans-after holding public hearings—to meet those standards.
EPA has issued National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six air
pollutants—sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide. We continue
to study other pollutants to determine if additional standards are
needed or will be needed.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are given in two parts—
primary and secondary. A primary standard is designed to protect public
health. It sets a limit on the amount of a pollutant in the ambient air
that is protective of human health. A secondary standard protects
public welfare. More stringent than a primary standard, a secondary
standard sets limits on the amount of a pollutant that is safe for
clothes, buildings, metals, vegetation, crops, and animals.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not applicable to all
pollutants, however. Those that, according to the Clean Air Act, "may
cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness" are designated
as "hazardous pollutants." Legislative mandates require EPA to establish
standards entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) for their control.
-------
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
Limiting emissions from existing factories and plants is only part
of the air pollution control program. Another objective is to control
emissions from new plants that, according to the law, "may contribute
significantly to air pollution which causes or contributes to the endan-
germent of public health or welfare."
Motor Vehicle Emission Standards
Motor vehicles, the major source of air pollution in many urban
areas, are also covered by EPA standards. Here the targets are carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. The latter two pollutants
are necessary for formation of photochemical oxidants and nitrogen
dioxide.
The Federal Government began setting emission levels for automobiles
several years ago, based on the then existing state-of-the-art. As auto
emission control technology has improved, standards have been tightened.
The Clean Air Act required carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions
from 1978 model year cars to be reduced at least 90 percent below 1970
levels, and nitrogen oxides from 1978 cars to be reduced at least 90
percent below 1971 levels.
Fuel Standards
EPA is authorized to control or prohibit the use of ingredients in
motor vehicle fuels that endanger public health and welfare or significantly
impair the performance of emission control devices on motor vehicles. To
protect public health, EPA has promulgated regulations that require a
phased reduction in the lead-additive content of "regular" and "premium"
gasolines by 1979; however, enforcement of the regulations has been
suspended pending resolution of ongoing litigation. To ensure proper
functioning and optimal operation of catalytic converters, EPA has
promulgated regulations requiring service stations to provide one grade
of lead-free (0.05 grams/gallon) and phosphorous-free (0.005 grams/gallon)
gasoline. The regulation became effective in mid-1974, in time for the
1975 model year vehicles equipped with catalytic converters—the device
chosen to control emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Progress Made Under Standards
The basic purpose of our air quality standards remains the same
today as it was five years ago when the Clean Air Act was adopted: to
protect the public health by a gradual reduction to far safer levels of
the high and hazardous levels of oxidants and other pollutants in the
air we breathe. For example, since our carbon monoxide standard was
first set, we have developed a great deal of new information on the
health effects of carbon monoxide. That information conclusively demon-
strates that health effects are even more serious than we originally
believed.
10
-------
Although considerable controversy surrounded the promulgation of
the ambient standards, and that controversy continues, I believe the
best information available today supports maintenance of the current
standards. These standards are scientifically defensible, although room
exists for honest differences of opinion concerning interpretation of
the supporting data. As more information becomes available, the margin
of safety with respect to protection of public health and welfare becomes
better defined.
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
Photochemical Oxidants
Photochemical oxidants have been found to have effects more serious
than only stinging eyes and sniffles. There is evidence that people
begin to suffer eye irritatipn when exposed for a short time to 0.10
parts per million of these substances in the air. Among athletes and
children at play even brief exposure can cause "impaired performance."
Persons who suffer from asthma can experience more attacks when exposed
to oxidants. Studies have apparently correlated the frequency of traffic
accidents with oxidant levels that dull the senses, impair vision, and
increase driver irritability.
Laboratory experiments with animals substantiate the health effects
observed in humans. After brief exposure to oxidants, mice are more
susceptible to bacterial infection and their physical activity is decreased.
Longer exposure produces structural changes in cell membranes and heart
muscle. Other laboratory animals exposed to oxidants exhibit chronic
bronchitis, emphysema, and reduced stability of the cells that protect
the deep lung against infection. Hamsters exposed to oxidants for five
hours evidence a breakdown of white blood cells.
In light of both old and new evidence, the present primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for photochemical oxidants of 160 micrograms
per cubic meter maximum concentration for one hour is reasonable. The
evidence does not warrant a different air quality standard at this time.
New evidence, however, does reduce considerably any previous uncertainty
with respect to the oxidant standard. The evidence has also reduced the
margin of safety for the protection of public heal,th and suggests re-
evaluation of "significant harm" levels. The fact that some fractions
of the population are being exposed to levels of oxidant several times
that of the standard many days of the year requires, in my opinion,
aggressive implementation of existing and proposed control strategies.
Nitrogen Oxides
The health effects of nitrogen oxides appear to be concentrated in
the respiratory system and result from long-term exposure. For example,
studies of Chattanooga, Tennessee, schoolchildren have shown that
11
-------
respiratory illnesses directly attributable to nitrogen oxides increased
sharply during exposure periods of three to six years. The same studies
disclose significantly decreased lung function among the children. And
among children exposed to nitrogen oxides for two and three years, the
number of cases of bronchitis increased significantly.
These increased rates of acute respiratory disease in humans are
consistent with results of laboratory animal experiments using much
higher doses of nitrogen dioxide. Several studies in animals show
relationships between nitrogen dioxide exposure and impaired resistance
to respiratory pathogens.
Thus animal experiments as well as human population studies affirm
a relationship between nitrogen dioxide exposure and impairment of
resistance to human respiratory pathogens. The question of the dose
rate most responsible for the health effect—that is, repeated short-
term peaks versus long-term average concentrations—cannot be definitively
answered. Evidence from animal studies suggests that repeated short-
term exposures of six hours per day for three months are sufficient to
interfere with the body's natural defense mechanisms. Prolonged exposures
at the same nitrogen dioxide concentration did not cause a further
excess in mortality of exposed animals.
Hydrocarbons
At concentrations usually found in the outdoor or ambient air,
hydrocarbons do not have any known direct effects on humans or animals.
But their role in formation of photochemical oxidants means they have a
definite indirect impact on both people and animals.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide combines with the hemoglobin in red blood cells to
form carboxyhemoglobin. This compound interferes with the life-
sustaining transfer of oxygen from lungs to body tissues and the return
of carbon dioxide from tissues to lungs.
Recent studies show that men with mild heart disease, after exposure
to 90 minutes of rush-hour traffic on Los Angeles freeways, exhibited
striking changes in their electrocardiograms and tolerance to exercise.
The levels of carboxyhemoglobin in their blood were increased by five
percent. Peeffle exposed for one hour or less to relatively high levels
of carborfmonoxide, after heavy work, were found to have more than
double the normal levels of carboxyhemoglobin found in a person at rest.
Carbon monoxide also affects the central nervous system. Young automobile
drivers exposed to carbon monoxide reacted more slowly to braking signals.
12
-------
It seems evident from these and other research findings that the
current National Ambient Air Quality Standard for carbon monoxide allows
very little margin of safety when examined in the light of most recent
information. Prudence dictates that the standard not be relaxed. Neither
is there compelling evidence at this time to indicate making it more
stringent.
SUMMARY
As new studies are carried out, we will continue to add to the fund
of knowledge concerning the associations of disease with environmental
factors. New evidence will sometimes support our standards, while other
evidence will require review of the standards. Our recommendations,
necessarily based on existing knowledge, are best judgment estimates.
However, we have the obligation to refine these estimates, especially
when we recommend standards requiring large expenditures for control of
pollutants concerned with energy production and transportation.
The 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were developed in an
atmosphere of widespread frustration with the lack of progress under
pre-existing legislation. The Administration recommended establishment
of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Congress introduced the
concept of statutory deadlines by specifying time frames for setting and
achieving health-related ambient standards and emission standards for
motor vehicles. EPA Administrator Russell Train has testified in support
of deadlines, affirming their value as an action-forcing device. Recent
history has shown that the use of deadlines, coupled with a determined
effort, can produce major progress.
There has been significant progress in reducing auto emissions,
although it is less than the full amount we need. The emission limits
for 1972 through 1974 model automobiles call for reductions of about 65%
in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, as compared to comparable uncontrolled,
pre-1968 automobiles. Our most recent surveillance testing of cars in
use indicates that, in their first year of operation, the 1974 models
achieved about a 60% reduction for both pollutants. The reductions for
1973 and 1972 models are about 50% and 45% respectively. Data from EPA's
air quality monitoring network indicate that the percentage of readings
for carbon monoxide exceeding the standard has declined nationally by
more than 50%. Also, for the limited areas in which sufficient data now
exist to define a trend, concentrations of photochemical oxidants have
shown improvements.
13
-------
It is no accident that the effort to clean up our air and the need
to conserve energy, land, and other natural resources have converged to
place an increasingly high premium upon both the unrestrained use of the
private single-passenger automobile in our urban areas and upon patterns
of growth and development that force our citizens to rely almost exclusively
upon that means of transportation.
I would suggest, in fact, that the growing need to be far more
efficient and conservative in the use of all our natural resources—
energy, air, water, land, and all the rest—offers us a very real chance,
in all our major metropolitan areas, to shape and reshape our physical
patterns of growth in ways that will create far more opportunities for
far more people to enjoy a far higher quality of life. That, in my
judgment, is the basic choice that now confronts cities across the
country.
14
-------
DR. THOMAS GODAR
DR. GODAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Noel, ladies and gentlemen. To
be the President of the Lung Association, one has to be reasonably
attentive — have a good attendance record at meetings, be interested in
public health and also be willing to stick your neck out if you think
there is a cause. I think that's probably my major qualification for
the position.
The Connecticut Lung Association for many years has been very
concerned with air quality in Connecticut and, unfortunately, it really
has received very little support as well as very little public attention.
What it does encounter often is polarization, with either close to total
indifference or hysteria. Therefore, I think one of the reasons that we
need to apply careful attention with a scientific basis to the air
pollution problem is to avoid allowing serious degradation of our already
substandard air quality while also avoiding hysteria. You have to
arouse the public, inform people, and at the same time prevent over-
reaction, because excessive or unfounded reaction can lead to economic
disaster.
On the other hand, it's all too easy to say that, "I bicycle to and
from work." Commissioner Kanell and I have been at two meetings. On
each occasion he's talked about all the people at the meeting and how
they all drove their cars, and actually he drove his car too. So did I,
unfortunately. We are often on opposite sides of the fence, and on this
occasion as well I'm certain that neither of us have the answer to the
transportation problem at the moment. One thing is certain; Connecticut's
ambient air quality is a problem. If there's any question that-.,a problem
exists, may I speak to you not only on behalf of the Lung Association,
but as a physician who happens to see primarily respiratory disease
patients every day.
There are a quarter of a million patients in this state who suffer
significantly from respiratory disease, and they are the barometers of
air pollution. As surely as those of you who have arthritis know when a
storm is approaching because your joints begin to bother you, so are
they aware of weather changes and pollution changes well in advance of
the announcement over radio or television because their respiratory
system is immediately affected. They are highly sensitive. This is a
quarter of a million people who pay taxes, who have rights, and to whom
we find ourselves making the following comments: "If the air pollution
levels are high, stay indoors, turn on the air conditioner, don't do
anything, don't go shopping, don't drive your car, and don't do this and
don't do that." The big question, one wonders, is where in fact are
their rights? Should we not really consider that cleaning the air is
more reasonable than forcing these people into a cave with a closed door
and an air conditioner?
Thomas Godar, M.D. is President of the Connecticut Lung Association
15
-------
I'm also concerned that people are not aware of the fact that they
may be developing respiratory disease by virtue of their contact with
the common pollutants. The lack of awareness is caused by the fact that
you have to lose about half of your lung tissue before you are conscious
of a breathing problem. We are fortunately born with a very latge
reserve in the respiratory system, which gives us the privilege of
slowly destroying reserve lung tissue through smoking and by breathing
dirty air, without our being conscious of this process. In fact, we may
remain unaware of the fact that we are limited in any way until many
years have gone by. This does not mean that we are not accumulating
damage, not only from cigarette smoking, but also from the somewhat less
obvious, less intense, ambient air pollution. Rather, it points out
that an even greater danger exists because we don't find an immediate
symptomatic reaction to this tissue destruction, and we continue to
"feel" healthy when we may not be. Many studies have been able to
detect these subtle effects, and I'll quote a few of these reports
later.
I don't want to create hysteria, but as a matter of fact, this is
the problem that those of us who see patients are confronted with: the
lack of awareness of disease in early stages. I would estimate 50% of
your function must be gone before you realize that you have a problem
and present yourself for any sort of an evaluation or treatment. If you
have minimal symptoms, what do you ascribe them to? Obesity, deconditioning,
"haven't been doing much lately," getting older. There are thousands of
excuses for having mild shortness of breath. The net result is that
when we report the number of people with established lung disease in
Connecticut, you may rest assure that it is only the tip of the iceberg,
and those of us who make it a business of evaluating patients with lung
disease can tell you that, frankly, the incidence is probably double
that which is commonly appreciated. Part of that is the fault of the
medical profession. We are not recognizing early lung disease. We have
not really been trained to do so until recent years and there is a large
bulk of patients with established lung disorder based on both smoking
and common ambient air pollution who are not detected, who are not
advised and, therefore, who probably are not among those concerned with
ambient air quality.
The human lung has a number of defenses against the ordinary pollu-
tants. If you stop to think about it, the respiratory system is the one
system in which we are literally taking into ourselves the environment
in the form of the ambient air every single minute of every day. We are
breathing dirty air into the lungs and somehow the lung has to tolerate
that continuous abuse throughout a lifetime. The air must be conditioned.
16
-------
We must add moisture. It cannot be anything less than at 100% humidity
when it reaches the air sacs, and it must be at body temperature regardless
of the ambient air temperature. Now, that's quite a startling requirement,
and as far as I know, only the respiratory system of the living animal
is capable of such a phenomenal conditioning of the ambient air for its
own use. Any small change in the respiratory tract, beginning from the
upper tract to the lung itself, may affect our ability to condition this
inspired air. Therefore, if the air conditioning of the respiratory
tract is impaired through contact with pollutants, as it is, the net
result invariably will be that we will have an intolerance to cold air,
an intolerance to mild irritants in the air, and we will, in fact, have
a common resulting symptom, which is cough. Many of us do cough period-
ically, and regard it as normal, but it is not. It's an index in most
of us of a low level of bronchitis. So, those who are cigarette smokers
and cough daily are getting a daily signal of this disease. Normally,
the respiratory system has a better series of defenses than coughing.
First of all, the mucus membrances of the respiratory tract are warm and
moist because they are very rich in blood supply. The objective is to
trap large particles that enter the respiratory tract. The particles I
am talking about are something in the order of 50 microns, which is a
very, very small part of a millimeter. One micron is I/1000th of a
millimeter. Now, these particles are suspended in the air for a period
of time and may be the very particulates that make up our dirty-
appearing ambient air. They are readily trapped in the mouth and nose,
and one never inhales the larger ones into the lung. A system of curved
air passages also allows others slightly smaller to impact or deposit at
the moist mucus membranes and never go beyond the upper airways.
However, the very small particles, one to five microns in diameter,
can be deeply inhaled to the very air sac, the alveolus, where you and I
are exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide with the blood stream at the
deepest points of the lung. So what? If the concentration of particles
inhaled is in excess of the capacity of the system to clear them, they
deposit permanently. Hence, the lung becomes black. As bad as that
looks when we examine the lung at post mortem, it has very little meaning
except that, if this carbon and other particulates deposit in the lung,
they may absorb inhaled gases and in so doing, may retain and prolong
the effects of inhaled ambient air pollutants, such as the nitrogen
oxides, sulphur dioxides and perhaps even ozone. The air passages of
man also have small hairs we call "cilia", which are continuously sweeping
upward toward the mouth and nose. On these little hairs which are
sweeping back and forth at a rate of 1200 times per minute — so rapid
it's very hard even to photograph without special techniques — is a
17
-------
very microscopic, thin layer of mucus, which our own bronchial mucus
glands are producing. Now, what is the purpose of these little sweeping
hairs and the layer of mucus? We call it the mucociliary apparatus.
It's an escalator and it carries pollutants that enter your lung and
that are trapped on this layer of mucus, back up to the throat. Many of
the particulates are being swallowed every day without our even being
aware of the escalator cleansing system. They are automatically cleared.
This is part of your normal lung defense mechanisms.
Particles deeply inhaled into the lung are ordinarily cleared
within three or four hours. We can impair this clearance mechanism by
damaging the cells that support the cilia. We can impair the sweeping
action by increasing the thickness of the mucus blanket, through stimula-
tion of the mucus glands subsequent to contact with cigarette smoke and
other irritants. We can create cough and a large volume of sputum or
mucous; what we call bronchitis. In fact, if you cough and raise some
sputum each day for three months or more, and for two consecutive years,
you indeed have "bronchitis." So, for those of you who smoke, you
undoubtedly have some element of bronchitis.
What does a cough mean? It means the cilia are damaged or destroyed,
and it means the mucus blanket escalator that clears inhaled particles
from the lung is not working effectively. The reason you're coughing is
that your normal drainage mechanism is not working. Cough is then
abnormal, and evidence of disease. Now, this process is commonly precip-
itated by contact with pollutants. Therefore, we regard pollutants as a
secondary cause for chronic bronchitis. It is not as potent in inducing
bronchitis as the ordinary American cigarette, but it is the number two
factor in chronic lung disease and a common aggravating factor.
Deep within the lung, as Dr. Engel alluded to, we have cells that
are scavengers. They pick up bacteria, viruses, and absorb and ingest
particles that get trapped deep in the lung tissue. These scavenger
cells can be overwhelmed also, and when these cells are overwhelmed by
particles or pollutants, they die and release enzymes. The enzymes that
are released are very similar to the meat tenderizer that you might use
these days, and are capable of digesting lung tissue. In one type of
this lung tissue destruction, which we call emphysema, the disease is
indeed produced by digestive action of enzymes which emanate from our
own cells after they have been killed or damaged by heavy contact with a
variety of pollutants. Many of these pollutants are industrial pollutants
and have been studied extensively, but the same principles can be applied
to ordinary ambient air pollutants.
18
-------
The other thing that concerns us is that we have reason to believe
that this process is not only seen in adults, but in children as well.
Studies indicate that this damage to the defense mechanisms of the lung
is beginning in childhood and has been detected in laboratory tests as
early as the second grade. Certainly in urban centers where pollution
levels are high, these early effects have been noted.
The question we are constantly asked is, if one is a cigarette
smoker and so is exposed to this high, intense personal pollution, does
ambient air pollution mean anything in comparison? The answer came
initially from a study in a very distinguished British journal, The
Lancet, in 1970. A study was done among smokers and non-smokers in a
very polluted city <— Birmingham, England — and compared with a similar
group in a rural community with a population that was balanced, socio-
economically by age, sex and all other factors. The study looked at the
effect of pollution in producing cough and sputum, or what I've called
bronchitis, in those two communities, and looked at cigarette smokers
and non-smokers. It was expected that non-smokers would have more
complaints if they lived in the urban area, and they did. The incidence
of bronchitis was, in fact, twice as high. Most amazing, however, was
that among heavy cigarette smokers, the incidence was almost twice as
high among those living in urban areas compared to those heavy smokers
in rural areas. I think that's impressive. That is the effect of air
pollution "breaking through" the phenomenal and overwhelming effect of
of cigarette smoking, which is admittedly a much more intense form of
pollution.
That was the first strong evidence. Evidence in this country came
from an interesting study, and one of the few that Dr. Engel did not
allude to in his discussion. This was a study comparing an American
city, St. Louis, which apparently is not particularly clean, and Winnepeg,
Canada, which has relatively clean air. This is in the Archives of
Environmental Health, 1969, The two cities have the following comparisons:
the sulphur oxide levels in St. Louis are 13 times higher; the nitrogen
level is seven times higher; the hydrocarbon levels are six times higher;
and particulates, (the particles that give the air the "dirty" appearance)
are in fact twice as high in St. Louis as in Winnepeg. Three hundred
lung specimens were examined at post mortem in both cities. The comparisons
after matching of the patients by age, sex, occupation, and smoking
habits were very interesting. It revealed two overwhelming facts:
there was four times more severe destruction of lung, emphysema, in the
St. Louis group among cigarette smokers than there was in smokers of
Winnepeg, Canada. A factor of four. This could only be attributed to
air pollution. There was no severe emphysema among any non-smokers in
either city, but moderate and mild emphysema was much more common in St.
Louis among non-smokers than in Winnepeg, Canada. This was similar to
19
-------
the study done in England. In fact, the incidence of mild to moderate
emphysema was three times higher among St. Louis residents than it was
in Winnepeg. That's very impressive data.
Emphysema is a destruction of lung tissue itself, affecting the
exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The destruction of tissue is
permanent, and it is not replaced. Bronchitis is, at least partly, if
not entirely reversible if the pollutant or the irritant or the mechanism
causing it is removed. Quite obviously, emphysema is regarded as a very
serious problem, one that requires close monitoring. We are concerned
with evidence of this kind because we have people with moderate emphysema
who are non-smokers. Many of us have heard that living in New York City
now is similar to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. I hear this
all the time because I have many patients who are smokers who are not
interested in stopping and are looking for all kinds of interesting
reasons not to stop cigarette smoking; one of which is "Good heavens,
living in New York is like smoking two packs a day, so why quit smoking?"
Well, we've already said that even among heavy smokers, the incidence of
severe disease is significantly higher if you are in a heavy pollution
area, but whether you are a smoker or non-smoker, the status of the
ambient air should be a primary concern.
I would like to address a couple of remarks with regard to two
pollutants in particular. Sulphur dioxide is a gas which is produced
primarily by the burning of heating fuels, and had not been considered a
major automobile emission. Now, with the advent of the catalytic1 converter,
we are turning out not only sulphur dioxide, but also sulphuric acid, an
end product which may be a very damaging element to the lung. Mechanics
are already complaining that this new emission from the modern automobile
engine is often hard to tolerate in the confines of a garage. They can
smell the acid and I have a feeling that it will probably be more potent
than perhaps even nitrogen oxides and ozone for some specific individuals.
Clinically, we are already diagnosing symptoms among people who are
exposed. No one knows, as yet, what this new emission will do, but
there are some who speculate that it will be worse than the alternative
prior to the catalytic converter.
A combination of sulphur dioxide and particulates is, apparently,
synergistic. By synergism, we mean that if you add two and two, you get
ten. They are not simply additives, but in fact, promote effects by
their combination. This is true of other pollutants as well. For many
years we had great difficulty understanding why patients with one disease
were bothered not only by pollution levels, but by high humidity as
well. When you inspire air, you humidify it completely in the respiratory
tract to 100% relative humidity. Why should humid air bother you since
you humidify it anyway? It's always been perplexing. I believe the
answer comes from pollution studies which demonstrate that if you take
-------
sulphur dioxide and particulates, which are synergistic, and expose
animal or man to this mixture with 40% relative humidity or less, the
results are much less impressive than when you increase the relative
humidity of the air mix in which the pollutants are found to 80%. With
this combination of SC>2 and particulates, and 80% relative humidity, the
effect on both animal and patient is maximized. This offers a probable
explanation for an intolerance to very humid days on the part of many of
our patients with respiratory disease.
Other studies which I reviewed briefly prior to this conference
also revealed some low level health effects, particularly in Great
Britain. There, they observed effects that occur in children and adults
at levels very close to our ambient air quality standards. This does
not mean that the standards have to be rolled back. However, it does
imply that we had better take a very careful look and be sure that we
are not, as Dr. Engel implied, encroaching on what we think has been a
proper standard with a safety margin.
Nitrogen oxides are of considerable concern to us, not only because
they lead to the production of ozone but because of their own primary
effects. There have been a number of studies — and one done in Chattanooga
is particularly good one — in which the concentrations were studied
carefully and compared with concentrations of particulates. It seems
that N02 is more potent than particulates in producing respiratory
complaints particularly among school children. I think that's terribly
significant data. The same studies were done on animals years ago and
received very little publicity. In the late 1960's, Dr. Boren, in
Milwaukee, performed a very interesting experiment. Feeling that nitrogen
oxides were damaging to lung tissue, and wondering if it was a mechanism
for producing emphysema, he designed an experiment with animals. Exposing
them to N02, he noted that there were remarkably very, very few effects
on lung tissue. He then exposed the animals to particulates and, again,
the lung got black but nothing seemed to happen to the structure. He
repeated the experiment by giving the animals N02 followed with particulate
inhalation, and there was slight damage to the lung. He did the final
experiment by giving the particulates first, then giving the gas mixture,
and discovered that it produced classical emphysema very much like what
we see in humans. The point is, the sequence of particulates and gases
probably allows for absorption of the gas, retention in the lung, and a
continued long-term effect on lung tissue. So, the experiment apparently
simulates the condition in many cities - in Connecticut as well - where
we are combining particulates and N02 and, are probably thereby producing
some emphysema.
21
-------
It is not always possible to study animal reaction and relate the
experimental results directly to man. One has to be fairly careful.
Therefore, we do need, as has been implied, two types of approaches: one
is epidemiological, where we look at what happens to man in our own
environment, poorly controlled as it is; the other is to look at experi-
mental animals, where the environment can be controlled specifically. If
we see results of pollutants on respiratory health in both areas, I
think it is reasonable for us to believe that we have a problem.
In 1974, levels of ozone were recorded at three to four times the
primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard in both urban and rural
areas in Connecticut. In one community the violation of the standard
occurred 23 days out of the month of July. This happens to be a community
where there were plans for another highway. Now, you can debate whether
the highway would help or hurt, but the point is that there was already
a very heavy burden of a common and serious pollutant in that particular
area. And this city is not alone. The entire State of Connecticut has
a serious problem with ozone, second only to Los Angeles. Now, there
have been questions about ozone and its effect. Ozone is not a gas which
is persistent in its level. It fluctuates. The peak occurs several
hours after the peak in traffic because its production requires a combin-
ation of N02, hydrocarbon and the photochemical action of sunlight.
Therefore, the peak effect may not persist for hours, but may exist only
for one hour, varying with air mix, winds, and sunlight levels. For
that reason it's extremely difficult to quantify the peak levels; never-
theless we must still deal with these short term, intense exposures and
their effects.
Ozone has been studied in no less than 700 animal experiments by
Dr. Hubbard of Harvard University, as Dr. Engel mentioned. These studies
are now five years old; in fact, most of the evidence we are quoting is
not new. It's been there for everyone to look at for years, but there
has been no action. There it sits, year after year, accumulating, and
no one is willing to respond to this evidence that demonstrates how
hazardous our dirty air is to health.
The clearance of bacteria from the lung in the experiment on animals
was markedly impaired by exposure of these animals to ozone at levels
varying from 0.1 to one part per million, for only a three-hour period.
There is little doubt that we can transfer some of this to man. Dr.
Pond, in 1972, published a study in which she exposed rabbits to 0.4
parts per million of ozone, slightly above the level experienced in
several urban areas of Connecticut in the summer of 1974. This is
coming very close to home. These rabbits, with a six-hour per day
exposure, five days a week for seven months, developed classical emphysema,
with damage of lung tissue and damge to the vessels of the lung. The
changes were similar to those experienced with human emphysema.
22
-------
Dr. Bates, Professor of Physiology at McGill University, the most
conservative and distinguished of respiratory physiologists to come
along in decades, came on board with other pollution fighters in 1971
after sitting back and very cautiously watching the data, having concluded
that he could no longer sit still and say nothing. He felt the evidence
was now so overwhelming that it was time for action, and he made it a
subject for a distinguished address in the Waring Lectures. He has
since studied normal human subjects in a chamber, using levels of ozone
that are only double those that we have been exposed to in some of our
communities in Connecticut within the last year. As a result of a two-
hour experiment he concluded that normal people cannot tolerate this
ozone level even for short periods of time. Using fairly subtle laboratory
techniques, he found abnormal air flows and abnormal elastic qualities
in the lung. He also discovered abnormalities in oxygen transfer in
those lungs after a two hour exposure, even when ten totally normal
young subjects were tested. What do you suppose happens to the quarter
of a million people with lung disease in this state who have enough
trouble when the air is clean? They pay taxes: must we tell them,
"While the ozone level is high, stay indoors, turn on your air conditioners,
don't go shopping, don't do this, don't do that"? This group includes a
large number of asthmatics who are children.
Because Dr. Engel has covered carbon monoxide in reasonable detail,
I would only like to say that we are suddenly becoming aware of the
seriousness of carbon monoxide. It is likely that the carbon monoxide
in ambient air may be contributing to the otherwise unexplained heart
attacks occurring, not only in men, but in women who are not smokers and
who may not have other predisposition for heart disease. It is probable
that the reason cigarette smoking, which induces very high carbon monoxide
levels, is so associated with heart attach is because of the carbon
monoxide loading on hemoglobin, which eliminates much of the oxygen
transport to our cells.
In addition, good experiments using laboratory animals have shown
that vascular disease of the arterial system of the body may, in fact,
be related to carbon monoxide levels. Disease of the arteries is very
prevalent in smokers who may experience carbon monoxide binding of their
red blood cell hemoglobin to levels of ICHand 15 percent. In other
words, 10 or 15 percent of the oxygen carrying capacity of the red blood
cells is displaced by carbon monoxide. This causes impairment of oxygen
delivery to tissue and may cause death of tissue cells; especially
sensitive would be the heart.
Regarding transportation control strategies, I can only so that I
do not believe we have any other choice but to develop positive solutions
to reducing these harmful automotive air pollutants. To continue searching
23
-------
for more evidence to establish the fact that we have a problem, is only
a delay. If the National Academy of Science figures are correct, some
20% of our population nation-wide is highly susceptible to pollutants,
and has an exceedingly increased impairment in health as a result of
that exposure to pollutants. Twenty percent of the population is a
large body. I would like to suggest that, if 20% of the population chose
to vote for certain individuals, we might actually see some change.
Thank you.
24
-------
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAROLD BARRETT
Thank you very much. Although Dr. lloyd is unable to be here
today, he wants you to know that he is always willing to meet with
individuals and groups to discuss matters involving the health of the
citizens of this state and looks forward to working with many of you in
the future.
First of all, I wish to express my beliefs that this seminar repre-
sents a step in the right direction. It represents a cooperative effort
that several agencies and organizations are making in an attempt to
improve the health and wellbeing of the people that we serve. It has
been my contention for many years that the best approach to solving
problems that confront us is one that is comprehensive and brings together
all the forces associated with the problem.
Here in Connecticut, we are now taking a comprehensive look, for
example, at the problem of cancer, its causes and cures. This effort
involves the people at Yale University Cancer Center, Connecticut Chapter
of the American Cancer Society, the State Health Department, the University
of Connecticut, and many other concerned organizations. As with that
approach, today's seminar represents a commitment on the part of several
departments and other groups which have been previously enumerated to
you.
I want to make it clear that, as Commissioner of the State Health
Department, I wholeheartedly support this effort and pledge that my
agency will do everything it can to see that the health of our citizens
is protected from the effects of pollution of all kinds.
According to the latest statistics, at the present time there are
approximately 95,000 people in Connecticut with asthma; another 100,000
with chronic bronchitis; 20,000 with emphysema; 20,000 with chronic lung
conditions; and 10,000 with active or inactive tuberculosis. Roughly,
that means that a quarter of a million people in this state suffer from
major diseases of the respiratory system. This is in addition to another
half a million or so who suffer from hay fever and other allergies;
chronic sinusitis and other lesser respiratory conditions.
What this means is that there are a lot of people here in our state
who have problems affecting the respiratory system, a lot of people who
are going to be affected by air pollution and other environmental problems.
These are the people who stand to be hit the hardest when the quality of
our air in Connecticut is ruined by pollutants. But just because you
may not have these problems, don't think that you are going to escape
the effects of air pollution. It is a rare bird, indeed, who fails to
Dr. Harold Barrett is Deputy Commissioner of Health, State of Connecticut
Dr. Barrett presented this paper for Commissioner Douglas Lloyd
25
-------
recognize that air pollution is harmful not only to people, but also to
animals, plants and even the inanimate world around us. A fast growing
number of studies indicate that air pollution causes damage to your
respiratory system, affects your heart by placing additional burdens on
it, and may also cause damage to other parts of the body. These have
been, in part, enumerated by the two previous speakers.
For years now we have been aware that air inversions over urban
centers have increased pollution in our cities and have brought about a
corresponding increase in the number of admissions to our hospitals
brought on by respiratory problems. And on the other side of the coin,
there are a number of studies that show that the number of hospital
admissions for respiratory illnesses decrease as pollution levels drop.
We know that air pollution causes constriction of the air passages,
slows down and stops the flow of mucus, immobilizes bacteria destorying
cells of the respiratory system, and so forth. This was beautifully
outlined by Dr. Godar in his presentation.
There are many studies currently being conducted throughout the
country to measure the health effects of air pollution in general. One
of the first systematic studies of air pollution sponsored by the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, was known as CHESS. As many of you
know, CHESS is an acronym for the Community Health and Environmental
Surveillance System. This was a national program of standardized epidem-
iologic studies designed to measure simultaneously environmental quality
and substantive health indicators in sets of communities throughout the
country. The purpose of the program was to evaluate the existing environ-
mental standards and to document the health benefits of air pollution
control. CHESS has now been replaced by a newer program called CHAMP,
which stands for Continuous Health Air Monitoring Program. Indeed, we
wish it were a. champ that would lick this problem.
This program has set up 24 stations in the United States to provide
continuous monitoring of air quality. The information gathered at these
stations is transmitted to the computers at the Program's headquarters
at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, where it is constantly
being evaluated. These programs are coordinated with local Public
Health agencies, universities, and private research institutes in order
to provide, as far as possible, consistency in design in the methods of
collecting, processing and analyzing data among the various studies.
Communities selected for the studies were chosen in sets involving high,
intermediate, and low exposures to sulphur oxides, nitorgen oxide,
particulates, and photochemical oxidants. The areas chosen were Los
Angeles, Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Alabama, New York, New Jersey, and
Charlotte, North Carolina.
26
-------
Some of the findings of the researches in these programs are quite
interesting. For example, it was found that there was a very consistent
pattern of excess chronic bronchitis among residents of more polluted
communities. In studies done in the Chicago and New York areas, it was
found that there was a consistent excess of acute respiratory disease rate
reported among people living in more polluted neighborhoods. In other
sections of the study, it was reported that asthma attack rates were most
closely related to stepwise increases in the levels of suspended sulphates.
And, also total suspended particulates and suspended sulphates were
positively and stepwise correlated with daily asthma attacks. Additionally,
investigators found that significant aggravation of periopulmonary symptoms
could be attributed to elevated suspended sulphate levels.
I realize that most of these findings relate to sulphur oxides, not
directly to auto air pollution. But I cite them to determine, first of all,
that there is significant evidence to link certain types of air pollutants
with chronic major health defects. Also, the CHESS and CHAMP programs
have been cited as outstanding examples of systematic monitoring programs
and the types of information that they can provide for researchers in this
field.
Now I would like to address my remarks directly to the health effects
of air pollution caused by motor vehicles. Of the severe pollutants emitted
by motor vehicles, the ones with principal concern to human health are
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons as precursors of photo-
chemical oxidants, principally ozone, and lead. In a recent address, Dr.
Carl M. Shy, the Acting Director of the Human Studies Laboratory of the
National Environmental Research Center at Research Triangle Park in North
Carolina, addressed this very same topic. He expressed concern that our
knowledge of the adverse health effects of motor vehicle emissions is
unfortunately very limited because in past years there was the lack of
systemic, systematic, biological studies of the problem. It was his belief
that we should, optimally speaking, possess a health intelligence system
that would provide us with information that would span the biologic spectrum
of response from the most severe consequences of death and disease to more
subtle reactions to pollutants. For example, we can say that in general,
higher concentrations of carbon monoxide are required to cause death than
to produce more subtle changes. Most health professionals will agree that
health effects of this extreme nature are definitely adverse and should
be prevented if at all possible. However, we cannot establish the
necessary relationship between lower responses, such as increased in the
carboxyhemoglobin saturation of the blood above base line levels and
subsequent risk of disease.
27
-------
Another important component of this health intelligence system would
require acquisition of health effects data by means of epidemiological
clinical and toxicological studies. That is, when a pollutant - disease
relationship is found in epidemiologic studies of free living populations
can be verified with other well-controlled human exposure studies, and
when these results are further pursued by means of experimental animal
studies over a broad range of exposures, the argument for a true cause-
effect relationship is very strong.
I will disgress for a moment to say that one of our Directors in Health
was impressed with what he felt was the increasing incidences of upper
respiratory problems and he broached the topic to the State Health Department
of "could we look at where the sales of cars with catalytic converters has
been made and see if we could make this kind of correlation." Unfortunately,
I'm afraid that this is something that is a little bit larger than the
State of Connecticut, but it is the kind of thing that perhaps can be done
and, where we can further correlate it with the clinical effects, the
increased attendance at clinics and in doctors' offices and so on, we may
find that such a study would produce very interesting results. Unfortunate-
ly, this framework for an ideal health intelligence system which Dr. Shy
described does not really exist and, therefore, we are lacking much needed
help and information about the adverse consequences of automotive emissions.
But this should not deter environmentalists and Public Health officials
from protecting people against the hazards we are aware of and we can duck.
We do know that pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, photo-
chemical oxidants and lead do have adverse effects on the health of humans.
We do know that these pollutants have increased in intensity as the number
of automobiles in this country has increased. We do know that unless strict
air quality standards are established and strictly enforced, the problem is
going to get worse and not better. We do know that when there was a severe
gasoline shortage during the Winter of 1974, and there was a tremendous drop
in the amount of driving that was done, deaths from all causes, especially
heart and chronic lung disease-, dropped. This was reported in studies in
two California counties. Epidemiologists reported this finding in the
current issue of the British Journal Nature. It said that they believe that
reduced exposure to pollutants and vehicular exhausts may have been the
most significant factor in explaining the unusual decline in mortality
during the first three months of 1974. I think you're probably used to
reading in our newspapers that the cause was the reduction in accidents
because of the decrease in speed. But this other reduction is the little
known statistic of the gasoline shortage.
We know that these things could be true. As Dr. Shy stated in his
address, we need to do more in monitoring the effects of pollution. We
must provide more systematic studies of the health effects of automobile
28
-------
emissions so that we can provide the documentation that will prove once
and for all the danger that these pollutants, not only the gross responses,
such as death and major diseases, but also the more subtle responses the
human body makes to them.
I am encouraged to learn that a study of this kind is being conducted
at Yale University as a regular part of the curriculum. I am not familiar
with the details, but officials of the Connecticut Lung Association have
assured me that a study of air pollutants in Connecticut is underway at
Yale. In addition, similar research is presumably being conducted at the
State's Veterans' Hospital in Rocky Hill.
With the fine examples of such programs as CHESS and CHAMP, with new
research such as that being initiated right here in Connecticut and with
cooperative efforts such as this seminar today, I believe that we are on
the right track towards solving the problem of air pollution. Once again,
let me say that I share your concern about these problems and I look forward
to working with you and other concerned citizens so that we may work
together to improve the health of the people of Connecticut.
These are Dr. Lloyd's remarks with a couple of my own embellishments.
Thank you.
29
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
-------
MR. DONALD LYNCH
Thank you Mr. Moderator. May I express my thanks for being asked
to participate on this panel. I have to express my regrets, however,
for not being able to spend all my time here today. Acceptance was made
without knowing the exact date or hour and, unfortunately, I have made
commitments for later on this afternoon and evening. I did make acceptance
with the understanding that I might be accompanied by someone with more
expertise in this field and, fortunately, for you who are gathered here
today, I am accompanied by a gentlemen who meets the criterion. But
first, may I make a few comments.
It is my opinion that the call for this seminar is an example of
how a possible, I say possible, erroneous conclusion is presented and
accepted as true fact. The panel topic implies that the health of our
citizens must be assured by forcing the citizens to give up their automo-
biles , when it is an acknowledged fact that improvements to our road
network will eliminate stop-and-go traffic, decrease the energy used
and, therefore, decrease pollutants from the motor vehicles. Combining
this with the continuing reduction of automotive pollutant emissions
from new cars and the phasing out of older cars, we may well eliminate
the need to force our citizens to give up their automobiles.
Connecticut is fortunate to have the air quality it has as evident
from the DEP report for "1974". Only two of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards were not completely met. Those were eight hour averages
of carbon monoxide concentration and for oxidants. The CO standard will
be met rapidly as a result of reduced emissions from new cars. Meeting
the oxidant standards is difficult problem, which will require cooperation
from citizens, business, State agencies and even from other states and
the Federal government. We are ready to make our contribution in the
form of improvements in the road network, which can reduce emissions per
vehicle mile traveled. Now, it is with pleasure that I would like to
introduce to you Dr. Janus Stolwyk, Professor of Epidemiology at Yale
University, who has participated in National Academy panels on cost and
benefits of motor vehicle emission controls and on motor vehicle emission
standards. He will carry on for me because I have to go. Thank you Mr.
Moderator.
Donald Lynch is the Executive Secretary of the Connecticut Road Builders
Association
30
-------
JANUS STOLWIJK
As Mr. Lynch has indicated, I come to you with a somewhat different
perspective than those who are directly in charge and involved in the
attainment of the air quality in Connecticut that we all would like. I
have the perspective of one who has participated in the studies that
have to deal with ambient air quality standards, with cost and benefits
of the health benefits of such standards, and also in the determination
of emission standards.
Dr. Engel has told us about the process of the formulation of the
standards. As he intimated, at regular intervals such standards are
reviewed at the request of a variety of officials and institutions' such
as panels of the National Academy of Science. It is a tribute to the
judgment and the insight and the knowledge embodied in the EPA that
these standards, ever after their first promulgation in 1971, have held
up to even the closest scrutiny and the greatest degree of complaints
and objections that have been raised. The standards, in effect, have
not been effectively attacked, nor has it been found to be necessary to
lower the standards because they were not strict enough to begin with.
There is a possible exception, perhaps, the nitrogen dioxide standard,
because there were problems in the measurement techniques that were used
originally in the studies that had to do with nitrogen oxide. Until
very recently I was not very familiar with the Connecticut air quality,
but on going through the Department of Environmental Protection Summary
Report for 1974, I'm happy to see that the air quality in Connecticut
has made very consistent improvement over the years since 1970. Most of
that has been found to be true in particulates and in sulphur oxides and
largely as a result of fuel switching by utilities and other large
users, and as a result of other emission control strategies administered
by EPA. The nitrogen oxide standard also is very consistently met in the
State of Connecticut. The values apt>ear to be consistently below at
least the annual average standards as they have been promulgated bv EPA.
But we really are dealing with the problems having to do with the
emissions by motor vehicles as they affect Connecticut citizens. We
have heard a very elaborate presentation by Dr. Godar, a very excellent
one, a very thorough one, on the dangers of these pollutants to human
health. One of the studies that I have been associated with and that
was referred to by our Commissioner of Health, was an assessment of the
benefits to be achieved by the reduction of emissions from motor vehicles.
This consisted of nation-wide assessment of all the pollutant levels as
monitored by EPA all over the country, and by the structuring of dose
Janus A.J. Stolwijk, Ph.D., is a Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University
School of Medicine
31
-------
response relationships to pollutants as they formed the basis for the
various standards that have been developed and as they were used by EPA
in the promulgation of the standards. And based on all the pollutants
and the number of people exposed to them and the dose response relationship,
it is possible to make national estimates of the total number of people
suffering from certain symptoms or aggra-vation of symptoms. Within
this study, Connecticut would show up to be a state which is very modestly
affected by air pollutants. In fact, it's a state that is very fortunate
because I believe the DEP has done a very effective job in approaching
the quality that is required to reach the national air quality ambient
standards.
The DEP has a very difficult problem ahead of it in the achievement
of the optimum standard. We have all heard the seriousness of the
effects that occur and, of course, the nation had, in Los Angeles, a
situation which is very much more serious than the situation here. Los
Angeles will achieve 100 to 200 days of the type that Connecticut exper-
iences during 30 or 40 days a year. One of the difficulties that is
recognized by DEP and by those who have looked into it is that the air
coming into Connecticut is already over-burdened by photochemical oxidants
as well as by precursors, and it is going to be a very difficult problem
for DEP and for the state to attempt to deal with that particular problem,
since jurisdictions obviously do not extend beyond the boundaries of the
state. Similarly, to the extent that we add a burden of photochemical
oxidants or precursors of photochemical oxidants to the air as it passes
over the state, we will be increasing the burden to our border states,
Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The problem here is a very difficult
one. The process by which photochemical oxidants are produced from the
precursors, the conditions under which this occurs, and the efficiency
with which this occurs are all very difficult to evaluate. Nobody at
this point I think understands thoroughly how this process takes place
and what is involved.
One of the problems we have is that photochemical oxidants have
been increasing all over the state and over very wide regional areas,
although the emission of hydrocarbons over the state and these areas has
been decreasing over the last ten years or so. The problem that we may
have to contend with is that the wider distribution of nitric oxides,
primarily from our production facilities, may be contributing to a more
efficient conversion of naturally photochemical precursors in areas
which are characterized by heavy traffic. Whatever the case may be, it
is going to present a very difficult and a very stubborn problem to
solve, as it has been a very difficult and very stubborn problem to
solve in the Los Angeles basin. The Los Angeles basin has achieved in
the last few years — as you know, they are a little bit ahead of the
32
-------
reduction of emissions from motor vehicles because of their special
California standards — achieved a reduction in the number of days in
which photochemical oxidants was exceeded. It is to be hoped that
similar roll-backs along the East coast will also result in the improvement
of the quality of the incoming air, as well as a decrease in the emissions
which are added by the State of Connecticut itself.
I would like to add one other comment which leads into the overall
area of transportation control. When the National Academy panel dealing
with cost and benefits of emission reduction of automotive emissions was
charged with finding out what various alternatives would be — and
especially what the cost of transportation control strategies and what
the benefits of transportation control strategies would be - there were
a number of very disturbing findings that appeared. One is that, unless
there is a completely integrated approach, the difficulties are likely
to be displaced from one place to another. In other words, strategies
which improve the traffic flow or impede the traffic flow in one area,
may bring about a change which may be positive or negative in another
area, a downtown area, and at the same time may adversely affect the
overall air quality for the region, especially as far as photochemical
oxidants over-burden is concerned. And, similarily, the decisions that
have to do with provision of public transit and measures to encourage
use of public transit also can, in the wider region, have adverse effects
and can result in no overall improvement. One of the problems is that,
especially with the newer motor vehicles which have better control, if
you do not reduce the total number of trips — that you, let's say
shorten the trip by driving to a commuter parking lot and take a bus
into the city - you are likely to reduce emissions by only a very minor
amount. The reason is that with the modern cars most of the emission
occurs over the first one or two miles, and the emissions in the remaining
stage of the ten miles of a typical commuting trip are very much lower
than those of the first or second mile.
As a result, transportation control strategies need to be worked
out a little more comprehensively than in the manner in which the contrac-
tors for EPA tend to produce them. They tend to be not terribly careful
with local conditions, and I think the DEP and the Department of Trans-
portation could make very considerable contributions to improvements
based on better knowledge of local conditions.
There is one other factor which has come to light in the last few
months which is of considerable importance in achieving the quality of
air, as far as photochemical oxidants is concerned. It appears now that
automobiles manufactured since 1969 which were supposed to have very
limited amount of evaporated emissions from the tank and from the carbu-
retor and fuel lines, in fact do not have this reduction. In fact, cars
33
-------
manufactured at this time probably are emitting considerably more from
the fuel tank and the carburetor, as well as from the fuel stilling
process itself, than ever comes out of a tailpipe. I believe that if
suitable measures are taken in that particular area, we may find that
the burden of hydrocarbon emissions from vehicular traffic may go down
more rapidly than we could dare hope from just controlling the emissions
out of the tailpipe.
These are some of the comments that occurred to me as one who has
looked not specifically at the Connecticut situation, but has been
involved in a number of deliberations having to do with the strategy at
the national level.
34
-------
MR. ROBERT GUBALA
The topic that was given to the panel was "How can the people of
Connecticut reduce their reliance on motor vehicles to reduce the health
problem caused by automobile pollutants," and in that charge to the
panel I found the word "reliance" in the topic subject to be very important.
"Reliance" is defined as dependence, but it's also defined as a condition
of attitude. I believe that if we can condition our attitudes to leave
that automobile in the garage for trips that could be better made in
another way, we collectively can cut our energy dependence and cleanse
the air as well.
Now, how can we do this? And a better question, how can we do this
in the near term? In this time of national, state, local fiscal problems,
the answer to these questions seems to lie in both the government and
the citizenry in general using the existing and the new services which
have, as their base, the transportation facilities that are already in
place. And by this I mean the extensive highway systems which our taxes
have paid for. And I mean bus transit, and I mean carpooling integrated
into these facilities as mainstays and not as stepchildren to the private
automobile.
You and I travel from our home to work in a 3,000 pound rolling and
stopping capsule that consumes a gallon and a half of fuel and emits on
the order of one pound of carbon monoxide, a quarter of a pound of
hydrocarbons, and a third of a pound of nitrogen oxides for a typical
commute between Enfield and Hartford. This is a very heavy price to pay
for a conditioned reliance on the private automobile.
You say, what alternatives do I have? Over one million automobile
drivers in this state will be contacted through their registration
renewals and informed of the advantages of carpooling. They will be
given a telephone number that will be manned (I think) 24 hours a day by
personnel who will take down information and, in turn, attempt to find a
commuter match. This is a way of turning dialogue into action. The
Department of Transportation operates express commuter bus runs. Most
recent is a run opened between the Century Hills Housing Complex in
Rocky Hill to Hartford. Weekly ridership on these commuter bus runs is
25,000. There is room for more patrons, and monthly bus passes are
available for all the commuter bus runs, making it palatable economically.
These runs have been received very enthusiastically by the public. The
best part of this program is that they use the highway facilities that
are already paid for as their travelways, thereby making better use of
that resource.
Robert Gubala is an Environmental Engineer for the Connecticut Department
of Transportation
35
-------
The Department of Transportation funds city and suburb meter bus
transit, as well. The Hartford system consists of 37 routes, over 300
miles of road, using a bus fleet of 200. New Haven is served with 100
buses; Stamford with 24. Transit districts in Wallingsford, Westport,
Danbury, Bethel, the Valley and Bridgeport, as well as the communities
of Waterbury and Torrington provide services in their locales. The
population centers in this state are served, and high ridership can
ensure a continuation of their service and can act as a springboard for
them to get better service.
We are also trying to provide greater services for the carpoolers,
whose numbers we expect should increase as a result of this new matching
program. The Department of Transportation has located 100 commuter
parking lots and parking areas at interchanges throughout the State.
This is to facilitate match-ups, to allow easy participation in the Dark
and ride program. On the Connecticut turnpike commuters, especially
carpooling commuters, have available to them a reduced price ticket
book, and it's applicable for carpools of three or more persons. I'd
like to dwell on this one a little bit because I received statistics
today that were rather sad. We sold 1300 of these commuter carpool pass
books in August of 1975, which is the same month we sold 52,000 of what
are known as regular commutation books. These are one person per car
books. Fifty-two thousand books. Now, it just doesn't seem reasonable
to me that 52,000 people have to buy a book so that they can travel
individually on the Connecticut Turnpike when in fact, a very reduced
priced book was available for commutation of three or four persons.
There has to be a replacement of rhetoric with action.
Now, where rail can draw from high population densities to central
points of employment, some progress has been made. Hartford has recently
publicized a ten-trip Amtrak ticket which is available in the Enfield-
Hartford corridor, and there is on-going the $72 billion dollar modern-
ization of the New Haven line and a continued subsidization of the West
commuter service. The Department has organized a special team for
grantmanship, to gather money from the Urban Mass Transit Administration,
to lighten the subsidies in this state and to improve the capital equipment,
Nine operating assistance applications and six capital assistance appli-
cations are being processed by UMTA.
How can the people of Connecticut reduce their reliance on the
automobile? By carpooling with their co-xvorkers; by joing with other
25,000 other weekly commuters on the express bus runs; by riding the
trains, by using our carpool lot locations; and by riding the urban
center buses. In the final analysis, it comes down to a personal decision
to become part of the solution or remain part of the problem.
36
-------
MS. DIANE HOYER
I represent the Transportation Committee of the League of Women
Voters of Connecticut. In January of 1975, our membership reached a
consensus supporting the development of the balanced transportation
system for Connecticut. Our interest in this subject began in 1970 with
concern about the health effects of air pollution and League support of
the Clean Air Act. Our present goals are familiar: to improve air
quality, save energy and give our citizens freedom to move about regardless
of age, income or physical capability. Citizens must be included at all
levels of transit planning in order to create a system that will meet
their needs.
A balanced system includes a variety of modes while focusing on the
following: frequent, convenient bus service; supplementary demand-
responsive transit service; and expanded, revitalized rail service to
regional cities. All feasible modes should be considered, including
carpools, taxis, bicycles and sidewalks. Speaking of sidewalks, a world
bank report extols walking in this pedestrian pose. I quote, "A foot
path can carry 1,100 persons per footwork per hour. Pedestrians can
walk very close to each other even in opposite directions. Cost includes
a small expense for shoes."
The use of public transit and carpools must be actively encouraged
with strong economic incentives to use them. Fare and scheduling arrange-
ments should be made with stores, industries and entertainment centers.
Disincentives, such as restricted, expensive urban parking, as well as
highway tolls during peak commuter traffic would be rather persuasive
deterrents. Easily available schedules and information provided through
newspaper advertising, exclusive bus lanes and bus shelters should be
provided to reach and attract potential riders.
Public education about the Clean Air Act could help convince drivers
to become less car dependent. Young people need mobility, but must they
drive cars? Citizens of all ages informed of the effects of automotive
air pollutants might choose to become riders if they have access to
convenient frequent and reasonably priced public transportation.
In 1974, the Capitol Region METRO questionnaire results provided
6,703 responses (a 3%% return) to questions on transportation. Five
thousand, one hundred fifty-nine (5,159) of those responding were drivers.
Their two major problems with bus service were "it doesn't run near my
house" and "it doesn't run when I need it." The three most persuasive
factors for increased use were: if it were more convenient, if it cost
less than a car to use, and if it were faster. Provided with a better
system, 4,089 said they would use it.
Diane Hoyer is the Chairperson of the Transportation Committee,
Connecticut League of Women Voters
37
-------
The "Draft Proposed Transportation Control Plan" proposes specific
control measures which would reduce air pollution — carpooling; employer
incentives stressing vanpooling and payroll deduction of public transit
fares; bikeways; and public transit programs. These programs focus on
express commuter bus service, rail service and dial-a-bus systems.
Commuters have responded very favorably to the express bus approach,
which indicates public readiness for effective service. Many people
have indicated they would be very receptive to the use of light rail
vehicles where a fixed corridor could provide the fastest transit.
Rail service has been a neglected mode of transportation for too
long. The state is purchasing rights-of-way with tracks which could be
upgraded and supplied with railway cars, as proposed for the Hartford-
Enfield line. Existing rail lines offer the possibility of providing
this least polluting and most energy-efficient form of travel.
These control measures are just the beginning of any state plan to
improve air quality. We must make sure they are implemented and expanded
into a long-range commitment to public transportation by our state
agencies.
In conclusion, let me say that all of us can be part of this solution
to automotive air pollution by reducing our own use of the automobile.
Meanwhile, we must work persistently for the development of a multi-
mobile integrated system of transportation to serve all the people.
Thank you.
38
-------
MR. HENRY BEAL
I would like to describe briefly what the current version of the
Connecticut Transportation Control Plan contains.
1. The Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program that we will
pay for whenever we buy a new car.
2. The State-wide Carpool Plan in which individuals are notified
through their registration form that the carpool is available to them.
They will receive an application so that they may join it with some
convenience.
3. Employer Incentive Plans. This is directed at the business
community: firms that employ more than 50 persons will be asked to
undertake a program to reduce the number of automobiles that arrive at
their plant or place of business by a variety of means of the employer's
choice. They can range from incentive programs to capital intensive
programs. I'll mention some of them that we considered:
a. Posting schedules and making clear what public transit is
available for use by the employees;
b. Negotiating with representatives of transit districts
and transit operators to obtain improved transit service
to mutually accomodate business hours and transit schedules
in the area so that the employees may arrive in the area
more conveniently;
c. Distributing carpool applications to each employee and
then actively encouraging them to join the carpool program;
d. Placing the employees on a four-day work week;
e. Providing van-type vehicles to groups of eight or more
employees who agree to operate it and pay the cost of
operating the van-type vehicle for the purpose of commuting;
f. Physically restricting a certain percentage of the parking
spaces made available to employees, or assigning a certain
percentage of the parking lots to persons who carpool;
g. Making available public transit passes at cost or with
subsidy to employees;
Henry Beal is the Director of the Air Compliance Unit, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
39
-------
h. Offering incentives for use of bicycles by providing
a safe, locked bicycle facility and removing physical
obstructions and providing changing facilities and
changes of that type.
4. Another business-oriented strategy is the mandatory retrofit on
heavy duty gasoline powered vehicles, those vehicles over 6,000 pounds.
This is a strategy that is now going into effect in the State of New
York. New Jersey is also considering it. We have told them that we
will consider it and made an effort to put it in place in order to
produce a uniform, area-wide approach to retrofit a vehicle.
5. Another business oriented strategy is vapor recovery at retail
gasoline stations. Dr. Stolwijk mentioned that evaporated losses may be
as great as those from vehicles in operation. I can't tell you the
relative values, but I do know that the evaporated losses from retail
gasoline stations are very substantial, millions of gallons of gasoline
annually are lost through evaporation from retail gas stations. There
are recovery devices that can be put on them.
6. Other programs are more oriented to what government, or government
in combination with individuals, might do. Bikeways, for instance. The
bikeway is not designed so much for recreation as it is an integral part
of an urban area transportation system.
7. Inspection and Maintenance programs require government to bite
the bullet on a fairly extensive program that will affect each of the
citizens in the state by requiring them to undergo a mandatory vehicle
inspection each year before their car can be registered. A program that
we like is going into place in Arizona has started January 1, and it is
one that involves close coopera-tion between government and private
industry in its operation.
8. Finally, we propose the use of a system that we call CONNAIR by
government transportation planners at all levels, state, regional and
local. It is a planning mechanism which requires, as we see it in this
regulation, that air quality criteria be built into any transportation
plan, and that any such plan would be determined to be unacceptable to
the extent that it did not plan for adequate reduction in pollution
levels. Those are the eight strategies.
40
-------
ROY COUGHLIN
Since I had a hand in bringing this conference about, I'm very
pleased to be a participant. This panel has before it a serious ctuestion
to address. Let me first answer the question I am most often asked when
I appear at various meetings on air pollution, transportation, energy
conservation, land use planning, railroad reorganization, and other
issues. That question is, ''Why is the telephone company here?" Some of
you may have the same question in mind. I hope my comments today will
provide an answer.
A corporation's first objective should be the proper conduct of its
business. In recent years a new dimension has been recognized — the
responsibility to conduct business in a socially acceptable manner. It
is now clear that the public expects, even demands that business assume
this obligation. Periodic studies done for AT&T prove that the public
viewpoint has not been diminished by considerations of a recessed economy,
unemployment or other pressing national problems.
Today, a corporation's next most important objective may very well
be conservation of resources — with its employees being its most important
resource. The health and well being of that resource directly affects
the health of the business and the cost of its product. 40 million
workdays are lost each year to respiratory illness alone, in a work
force of 90 million persons. Incidents lasting more than 7 days reflect
25% of all benefit payments made for sickness. Southern New England's
bill, extrapolated from those figures, could be as much as $300,000
yearly, a bill which you the telephone user will pay.
A business can no more deny its dependence upon its employees than
it can deny the special relationship which exists between employee and
employer. It may be second only to the family unit in its influence.
Corporate conduct influences employee pride, therefore performance:
employees respond positively or negatively to evidence of what they
perceive to be the corporate conscience. This special relationship can
be put to work to bring about major accomplishments.
Policy statements and advertising slogans do not convince the
employees or the public of sincerity — only company actions will do
that in today's enlightened, questioning society. Today's private
citizen is far more than merely concerned — his or her concern has been
sharpened by the whitestones of sophistication and knowledge.
Roy Coughlin is the Environmental Affairs Supervisor, Southern New
England Telephone Company
41
-------
It is acknowledgement of these new dimensions to the corporate
existence which caused Southern New England Telephone to embark on an
environmental program which has received widespread recognition. It is
all-encompassing, touching every part of the operation, and extending
beyond in the form of cooperative involvement with agencies, groups and
persons whose goals appear consistent with environmental demands as we
view them.
One facet of our three-year old program is the reduction of air
pollution. A civilized nation has been described as one whose people
have to travel to backward areas to breathe fresh air. On ''60 Minutes''
in September, Mike Wallace said, "That human beings can prevail at all
is a tribute to man's ability to hold his breath'.
The principal thrust of our transportation effort was to offer our
13,300 commuter polluters some attractive alternatives to using low-
occupancy, high-cost, energy-inefficient automobiles and to reduce
travel by our 3,100-vehicle company fleet, second in size only to the
state's. In the belief that optimized utilization of existing facilities
makes more economic sense and requires less personal readjustment than
exotic innovation, we undertook the following:
1. We promote carpools of 4 or more — we now have, in New Haven
for example, 210 pools with 933 passengers. These cars have convenient,
free, reserved parking spaces in the company parking lots.
2. We promote chartered bus pools which we modestly call Superbus.
There are now 10 such buses, established and run by commuting groups of
employees and the general public, with moral supnort by the company.
These buses carry 429 pasengers daily, for a total of more than five and
a half million miles traveled annually.
3. We conduct employee transportation surveys, the responses
providing us with potential markets for pools, buses, and other approaches.
We also cooperate with outside agency surveys.
4. We have worked with the Department of Transportation in accel-
erating implementation of commuter parking lots to support pooling
efforts.
5. We actively promote public transportation.
6. We operate buses to carry our many trainees to and from our
company schools, in lieu of their automobiles.
7. We operate shuttle bus service between company buildings to
eliminate use of fleet vehicles.
42
-------
8. We are studying work hour adjustment and work-at-home programs
to accomodate public transportation and to reduce travel.
9. We are promoting the use of telecommunications techniques
within the company to avoid travel.
10. We are including in the criteria for building additions and
changes such questions as the impact upon area transportation and the
means considered to resolve potential problems.
11. We have tightened controls on use of our fleet, and in fact
have reduced the fleet in number and in vehicle size.
12. We provide bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces, and encourage
the use of bicycles and walking for all the obvious reasons, including
good health.
13. To reduce emissions, we fine-tune our vehicles to stringent
California standards.
14. Soon, we hope to be the first Bell System operating company and
the first corporation in Connecticut to implement vapooling, which we
modestly call Supervan; we will use a standard 12-passenger van, purchased
by the company for groups of commuting employees. The fares collected
will pay back all costs. In this activity, we are proudly imitating 3M,
a vanpooling pioneer, now operating 75 such vehicles.
Incidentally, our transportation program has saved more than 700,000
gallons of gasoline during 1974. We figure that 20 percent of our
employees no longer drive alone or use a car at all, which means that
about 2 thousand fewer cars are on the road.
These figures are very useful for bragging, but in reality they are
insignificant when compared to the problem. More important than the
statistics, however, is the fact that this is a contribution to the
solution, which added to others, becomes significant. And, perhaps even
more important, it establishes an atmosphere for enthusiasm, which beats
mandate everytime.
I think the actions I've just described provide practical approaches
by business and employees to answering today's traffic questions, how to
reduce reliance on the motor vehicle. I am a natural optimist whose
experience has been that people can get much more done if they don't
know all the reasons why they can't. However, my optimism is clouded by
certain shortcomings which I observe, and which I hope that some of you
in the audience will agree exist and will use your influence to help
overcome.
43
-------
A major reason for the success of the luxury automobile is man's
inclination to acquire for himself society's ultimate rewards — the
ability to purchase more goods and services. We must examine our own
attitudes and develop a sense of pride in not needing irrelevant awards
and status symbols, but rather in being able to conserve and preserve.
It's no disgrace to be wise, although we sometimes seem to think so.
I see many agencies, federal, state and local, dealing with transporta-
tion planning, many with vastly different objectives, without coordination
of major actions. I see no convincing expression by the Federal Government
of national urgency to motivate people, as we see in time of war or deep
depression. The Federal Government too often feels it has demonstrated
the need by funding a study, then funding its recommendations. I do not
see the government able to convince people that the national need to
change is greater than the personal need not to change.
We have no national health policy. Representative James Hastings
of New York has called for a national conference on the development of
such a policy, based primarily upon prevention. I think such a policy
would help define the actions we must take.
The Statistical Yearbook tells us a dismal story — that various
forms of pollution have contributed to reducing life expectancy by five
months. How many millions of medical research dollars and manhours have
been offset by this terrible regression?
I see very limited use of established marketing techniques to sell
public transportation. There is a lot to be learned from private enterprise
in this area. I would like to see EPA or HEW begin to quantify medical
costs relating to air pollution, and benefits related to the solutions
in much more specific terms than currently available; state or regional
figures are needed to measure the true value of control programs.
It is important, I feel, that we continue what I hope this seminar
will have started — to spotlight the direct correlation between good
health for Americans and the mechanics of controlling our bad habits.
I hope I have answered why the Telephone Company is here. To
answer another question, "why I am here, let me say that some of my best
friends are asthmatics." Thank you.
44
-------
THE MODERATOR: There are a number of areas we touched on. Let me
exercise the Moderator's perogative and point out two that strike me as
being areas that ought to be clarified and perhaps contain differences
of opinion which we can explore. I hear Dr. Stolwijk telling us that,
if we rely on a park and ride bus, and if people in modern cars which
aren't very efficient for the first couple of miles, drive that first
couple of miles to the parking lot and get on a bus, he said the worst
of the damage has been done and we may, in fact, be getting nowhere, or
I think he said we'd be regressing. I would ask Dr. Engel or Dr. Godar
to respond to that and perhaps have some clarifaction from Dr. Stolwijk.
DR. ENGEL: I don't know whether I can give you the answer, because
that's out of my field, but I do know that in the emission control autos
prior to the catalytic converter, this is very true. I'm not sure - as
I say, it's not my field — I'm not sure whether that's true of the
catalytic converter, but it was definitely true of emission control
vehicles.
MR. BEAL: It is sort of my field, and the catalytic converter does
have a cold start and a hot soak problem. At the early part of the trip
and at the end of the trip, it emits many more pollutants than it does
when it is warmed to its optimum operating temperature and is underway.
I might attribute that particular mode of operation to an intentional
design. Unfortunately, it may discourage the use of park and ride
facilities by tending to minimize their effectiveness. There are two
directions we can move on that conclusion. You can say, well, we give
up; we'll just have to keep driving. Or you can become somewhat more
ambitious and say as Dr. Stolwijk has suggested, that you will get much
greater benefit by simply making the trip unnecessary. To make the trip
unnecessary requires a very good collection system where you pick people
up and a very good distribution system where you let them off, a much
more difficult public transit planning chore than providing a fixed
route, express bus service. Much more difficult.
THE MODERATOR: Dr. Stolwijk, if I may, you raised the question.
You told us what's wrong with the system. Let me ask if you could
provide an alternative, if you're able to do that?
DR. STOLWIJK: No, what I'm concerned with is that this is part of
the standard package strategy that is part of all transportation control
plans. The original transportation control plans had contained much more
effective strategies, but they were abandoned for a whole variety of
reasons. If you want to reduce the reliance on automobiles and want to
force the issue, there are much more effectice and politically less
attractive ways of doing this.
THE MODERATOR: Would you spell those out?
45
-------
DR. STOLWIJK: Such as gasoline rationing, or closing cities off to
vehicular traffic. These are strategies that were originally part of
the transportation control package, but were removed somewhere along the
line.
MR. COUGHLIN: I would like to bring up another aspect of the
parking lot management situation which isn't being examined here. I
think it's a common fault when we talk about an awful lot of transportation
planning items; that is that these things have multiple benefits, and we
judge the project according to that single objective. We must look at
our various needs and objectives. The parking lot serves us extremely
well. The need to reduce downtown congestion is another need. The need
to support public transportation as a whole may very well be another
need. Therefore, I think that planning for a single objective is a
mistake. Unfortunately, when we look at the transportation control
plan, we look at it as planning for a single objective. We have to look
at the other benefits that can be derived from the Plan's proposals, and
how well they meet our other needs as well.
THE MODERATOR: Dr. Godar, did you want to pitch into this?
DR. GODAR: No. Just by way of information, I'd like to point out
that for those who are interested, the information that Dr. Stolwijk
refers to is available. It's in the National Academy of Science Report
to the Committee on Public Works in the United States Senate, and is
rather thick, bu it is terribly interesting reading. If you are concerned
about pollution, Volumes I through IV are readily available, if the
public simply writes for it. It was published in August, 1973 and is
reasonably up-to-date.
THE MODERATOR: Dr. Stolwijk touched on some less palatable alternatives
to the disincentives which Ms. Hoyer talked about. Would some of you
care to respond to the feasibility of disincentives by either gasoline
rationing or closing off cities?
DR. STOLWIJK: I think that the disincentive that is at the moment
most realistic and the most seriously considered is the one of exclusive
bus lanes, which essentially achieve reduction of traffic on long, major
arterial highways by artificially clogging them in the remaining lanes,
and this then, of course, will tend to reduce the use of it and at the
same time put the bus in a competitive advantage as far as the total
transit time is concerned.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gubala?
MR. GUBALA: The Doctors that preceded our panel discussion made it
very clear that we have a problem today, not a problem of ten years from
now or twenty years from now. So, we have to look today at the solutions
46
-------
that are at hand and those that are fundable. I'm sure that there will
be many pros and cons about whether It's better to take your car into
the city or to bring it to a commuter parking lot. However, we do have
these parking areas in the interchanges of all our expressways. The
capital to put them in is very minimal and I believe it is a lot better
to have much of the urban commuter traffic going to the Wethersfield lot
of the Department of Transportation and taking a bus from there, rather
than to fight the traffic in downtown Hartford. Moreover, the provision
of the express bus lanes will be difficult because the State is having a
money crunch. So is the Federal Government; so are local communities.
We have to look at those public sources that we can most expeditiously
take advantage of. The Federal Highway Administration, with their 90%
funding or their 70%-30% funding, will pay for express bus lanes, and I
think we should take full advantage of this, especially in a time that
we're in a very tight fiscal situation.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gubala, let me ask an informational question.
The State of Connecticut is turning back $100 million plus — I have
forgotten the final figure — of highways that won't go. What plans do
we have for mass transit, for bus rates, and for other uses of that
money?
MR. GUBALA: The total plan for making use of the monies that were
handed in for Interstate 291 and for Interstate 86 have not been totally
formulated. A lot depends on the state match that's going to be available
to take use of those Federal funds. There were two other sections of
Interstate Highway suggested, and one was a piece of Route 5 in East
Hartford; another one was a piece of Route 66 in the Meriden-Cheshire
area. I'm sure that the State Department of Transportation will take
maximum use of those turn-in funds for the mass transit opportunities in
the Capitol area at hand.
THE MODERATOR: Let must just press a little bit. You say they are
not totally formulated. I saw about 1% of the money was anticipated to
be used and the remaining 99% was still in some limbo. Where are we in
the process in deciding how to use the major part of it?
MR. GUBALA: Well, as stated in the newspapers and in the media,
the total transportation picture of the State of Connecticut has been
under a reassessment situation now because of our funding situation, our
hopes for bonding, or our lack of hopes for bonding in the years ahead.
The turn-in monies, when finally approved by Washington, and I don't
believe they have been approved yet — that turn-in will be made the
maximum use of, and that's all I can say about it at this time. I can't
tick off projects that would utilize those funds. There certainly will
be many in the bus area, many in the express bus area; most likely in
the revitalization of the rail area. It will have to be spent within
the Greater Hartford Capitol area.
47
-------
THE MODERATOR: Miss Hoyer, did I see you pitching in now? Yes.
MS HOYER: I did mention disincentives and I did not explore them
very much :j.n my statement. Perhaps I could do that a little bit more
now. As was pointed out, some of them are politically less palatable
than others, but they may be necessary nevertheless. I see two different
kinds of disincentives: one that involves parking management and the
other one that involves tolls. There could be parking bans or very
clear restrictions on parking in certain areas of the city, or possibly
the whole city. Perhaps there should be no street parking at all at any
time. That would certainly facilitate the movement of the traffic that
was there. There could be reduced employee parking at a number of
firms. A proposed amount has been 25%. That would surely discourage
some of those employees from returning the next day in their car by
themselves. Other negative approaches would include stopping the widening
of highways to facilitate more traffic, and instead providing along that
same corridor, an alternative mode of transit that would be faster and
more efficient. The tolls that I mentioned have also been proposed for
all interstate highways during peak traffic hours. They could reflect
the cost to all of us of the building and upkeep of highways. If those
tolls were high enough to discourage single occupant cars, they would
surely provide a strong incentive to encourage people to either carpool
or to find an alternative method of travel.
THE MODERATOR: Dr. Stolwijk, did I see you reaching for a microphone?
Did you want to get into this?
DR. STOLWIJK: Well, I simply wanted to emphasize that I certainly
wouldn't like to see the Department of Transportation discontinue providing
parking lots nor would I want to describe them as not having the benefits
that Mr. Coughlin described. I simply wanted to point out the academic
point that, in terms of air pollution reduction, they might not be as
effective as one might suppose. Similarly, in talking about disincentives,
I was only illustrating the sorts of measures that had been contemplated
at one time. The other disincentives that are somewhat less restrictive
-those which Miss Hoyer points out - are probably much more acceptable
to the State, and are probably a better reflection of how seriously the
State considers the public hazard of air pollution.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Gubala?
MR. GUBALA: I think we have to remember that you can get a backlash
from a disincentive. If you don't have something in place for a person
to use in place of that which you have taken away, the person may react
in the political arena and apply pressure to repeal the Clean Air Act. A
few years ago, when Mr. Ruckelhaus was the Environmental Protection
Agency administrator, he made an announcement in which he said that in
48
-------
order to cut down on air pollution in that Los Angeles basin, that there
had to be a drastic cut in the amount of travel, (about an 80% reduction),
and the way to do that was to cut down by means of gas rationing. Mr.
Ruckelhaus left Los Angeles and has gone to a few more jobs since that
point. Gas rationing is not in place in Los Angeles, but I don't believe
their air quality is getting any better, either. We have to be cautious
of using the stick without giving the carrot as well. I think that was
also borne out just recently in the Boston Tranportation Control strategy
plan. We ought to do it better in Connecticut. We ought to cut down on
our auto trips. We ought to do it because it's the right thing to do,
because it's the energy-saving thing to do. But as we're doing it,
let's set into place as well the alternative modes so that the public
will stand behind the program and not start a groundswell backlash.
THE MODERATOR: I see a hand over here. Yes? If you will pick up
a mike, I think we can turn it on for you and get you recorded.
MS. MARY WALTON: Can you hear me now? Fine. My name is Mary
Walton and I come from Griswold, Connecticut. There were a number of
remarks that Mr. Gubala made and I would like to pick up a few of them.
First of all, I'd like to go back to the question of conditioning. As
far as I know, Pavlov conditioned the animals he worked with by either
providing them with an incentive or providing a disincentive. I would
like to hear from the State Department of Transportation, how they can
condition the automobile driver to separate himself from his automobile
if you open up new highways for him to travel on as well as widen highways
to travel on? That is part of the first question. Or, how do you
separate a truck driver from his truck when, if certain new highways are
open, we know he will barrel along far above the 55 mile speed limit
from East to West and West to East with freight, when you have not
supplied him with an efficient railroad or another adequate means of
transporting that freight? Or, how can we displace rhetoric with action
in terms of the State Department of Transportation? For the last four
years, at least, I have heard the words, "support mass transportation;
incentives for mass transportation," and as far as I know, the mass
transportation program in Connecticut has fallen flat on its face.
There may be some mass transit. I fully approve of carpooling for as
far as it goes. I approve of commuter lots, as far as they go. I
approve of all of the very little that is presently considered "transpor-
tation control," but as far as I am concerned, I think the question of
transportation control is a much broader, wider issue. One of the
gentlemen said that we should build these highways because they are
already paid for through our tax dollars. Why not use the money, it's
there. I would like to ask, and I hope to get an answer from Mr. Gubala
in particular, what about the maintenance costs? I've gotten an estimate
from the State Department of Transportation that it costs $3,000 per
mile land for maintenance costs after a road has been constructed.
49
-------
This means $12,000 of state money will go for one mile of maintenance
cost per year, et cetera; the number of miles and the number of lanes
increases the cost. I would like to know where that money is going to
come from, especially in this tight economic situation? I'm sorry if I
took so much time.
THE MODERATOR: There were three questions. I will let Mr. Gubala
have a crack at it.
MR. GUBALA: First, in my prepared remarks, I didn't say we paid
for new highways. I said we have paid for existing highways, so let's
make the best use of them. Now, why does the Department of Transportation
pursue highways when we're all meeting here relative to the health
effects of highways? If we see that a new highway will tend to have us
reach a point of having less pollutants than what we have on existing
highways and what we can perceive for that existing highway in the
future, we're going to press for the new highway. When we press for
that new highway, we're going to do everything in our power to integrate
the other modes into that highway. We've just recently had a situation
with Interstate 86, the Manchester-Vernon area. It was configured to be
five lanes in each direction during the days when the automobiles were
in their heyday. We have to cut down that design. Instead of the five
lanes that are in each direction on that highway, we propose to put
three for general use traffic. We propose to put an additional separate,
full bus and carpool lane in that facility and have it paid for by 90-10
Federal funding, funding that it sometimes available through UMTA. So,
I think we are, by pressing for some new highways, not being diametrically
opposed to the mission of this conference here today.
As far as the trucks speeding, I would like to say that it's an
enforcement problem, but that isn't true. It's the DOT's problem, Motor
Vehicles' problem and it is the citizen's problem in general. We wish
to promote more train usage. We look for ways of funding it. We look
for the Federal government to take some lead. I think Mr. Coughlin
mentioned in his remarks that there are those that want a national
health policy. I would dearly love to see a national transportation
policy so that we wouldn't have all these various little pigeon-hole
funds that we must deal with on a regular basis. But while we have that
situation on our hands, I think it behooves us to take the best advantage
that we can of these funds and not just let them lapse here in the State
of Connecticut or go elsewhere. A few years ago the District of Columbia
was having long deliberations about various highways that were in their
area. They talked about them, and they talked about them so long, that
the money was taken away from the District of Columbia and given to
other states in the country. Now, it's no secret to anyone in this room
that we pay more to Washington than we ever get back, and I don't think
that we should just continue this by turning our back on some very
meaningful highway programs.
50
-------
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. I have a question over there from the
lady from the 21st District.
FROM THE FLOOR: I would like to know how parking would be restricted
without diverting traffic, particularly shopping traffic, to suburban
area shopping centers and then perhaps even throwing more pressure to
rural areas which don't yet have this kind of business development? I
guess Miss Hoyer mentioned it. I guess she would be the one to start
answering it.
MS. HOYER: Yes, that is a fair question and a difficult one to
answer. It is easy enough to propose no parking here and there. As I
know Hartford, there are a number of municipal and private parking
facilities of fair size that would accomodate a number of cars for those
people who are interested in shopping or attending functions within the
city. I don't think that saying that people should not park on the
street means that they should not park in municipal facilities that
already exist. I think the idea is to discourage any further expansion
of parking facilities and to get parked cars off the street and to get
them in sensibly planned parking garages. We hope that there will be
fewer automobiles drawn to the center of the city, in the future because
people will be using other means to get there. That's a hope.
MR. BEAL: I think it is important to distinguish between the types
of trips that you're dealing with, not only in terms of restricting
access to the urban center, but in terms of highway design and in the
design of other components of the transportation system. The trip that
most concerns us is the commuter trip, and it is possible through a
variety of mechanisms to affect choices-if you are willing to use disin-
centives-to affect the choices that commuters make without affecting the
choices that shoppers make, or that people on recreation trips make, or
any of the others kinds of trips people might make. You can narrow your
focus if you want to. It might involve the use of the tax structure.
It might involve the use of regulations. I personally prefer an economic
system of control, and this could be adopted if you are prepared to
accept the cost. By "you" I mean our society. If you can focus in, you
can be specific about who you discourage, and in the various strategies
we have looked at and discarded it was possible to distinguish commuters
from shoppers.
THE MODERATOR: A question over here, and then if you would come
around I will recognize you.
FROM THE FLOOR: Yes, Mr. Gubala, in your opening statement, you
talked about changing the philosophy of the automobile driver, and I
believe you used the words, "separate the automobile driver from his
automobile." I would like to know if you don't believe that this is
inconsistent with the Department of Transportation's plan to open up new
highways for that automobile driver to drive on?
51
-------
MR. GUBALA: Not wholly, no. I believe that if we open up a new
highway that offers a better method for the bus commutation and for the
carpool delivery systems that we desire, as well as taking care of
general travel, I think the two ideas are consistent.
THE MODERATOR: We have another question.
FROM THE FLOOR: Would Mr. Gubala please comment on the present
status of Connecticut bikeway legislation? I don't think we have talked
about bikeways very much at all.
MR. GUBALA: We have several demonstration bikeways in operation. I
believe one is up along the Windsor Locks Canal. There are others. It's
part of a recent Title X grant; that is, employ the disadvantaged and
employ those who are severely impacted by unemployment. The Department
placed a combination Windsor bikeway and sidewalk program under this
Title X. We hope to get busy working on that. Bikeways are very easy
to integrate into those expressways that everybody has been giving me a
little harassment about. That also is fundable through the same program
that is either 90-10 or 70-30. There is legislation on the statute
books to produce a bikeway-linear park in Norwalk-Danbury corridor for
Route 7, and I can tell you that in the area that we are presently
building, that is from Danbury to Brooksfield, we have already taken the
steps by putting in the openings into the bridges and by laying out our
contouring during construction to allow that bicycle path and the linear
park and the equestrian trail to function at the completion of the
project. We are making some headway with bicycle paths. There are
funds both from the Federal Government and there are some state funds to
keep going on that program.
THE MODERATOR: One more question and then we will ask for summing
up. Go ahead.
FROM THE FLOOR: I would like to ask Mr. Beal if he agrees with Mr.
Gubala that construction of new highways in the long term reduced air
pollution, and secondly, whether it makes any sense to develop a transpor-
tation control strategy in isolation from the Department's plans to con-
struct new highways which appears to be what is happening?
MR. BEAL: Yes, to the first one; no the second one. Yes, in the
sense, if you distinguish the kinds of trips for which the highways are
designed. It is possible to design and build highways that are compatible
with the air quality standards. I think it would be fair to say that
its compatibility depends on the volume of traffic generated by that
road. One must determine whether the increase in traffic will be
52
-------
greater than the projected increase in emissions. You weigh those
increases and then you have to look at the highway over time. For some
highways, despite any increases in traffic, the projected improvement in
the emission rate will result in an overall decrease in emission levels.
FROM THE FLOOR: Permanently?
MR. BEAL: It depends on the time, as I said, that you're looking
at. At some point, the benefit peaks out; this may occur in 10 years,
20 years, 30 years, depending on the road and the service characteristics
of it.
Now, is the transportation control plan being developed without
regard for the plans of the Department of Transportation? In a sense,
you could say that it is. The inspection and maintenance program, for
example, or the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program will go ahead
without the Department of Transportation, and in one case (FMVCP) without
us. In other cases, the Department of Transportation is intimately
involved. They run the computers that run the carpools. They design or
oversee the designing of the public transportation element of the transpor-
tation plans that it develops. And in our planning effort, we are
attempting to devise the system that will be useable by the Department
of Transportation and by others when they make these plans so that their
own plans, when they are completed, will be compatible with the air
quality standards. It is our specific intent to develop something that
can be immediately integrated into the state's transportation planning
process. Far from being independent of it, it is our entire purpose to
integrate.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. One of the hard facts of life around
the State Capitol is that about this hour, cars begin to appear on the
road and I think I may be the only one here who did, in fact, come by
bicycle. The rest of you have a problem which will involve both finding
your way through congestion and, secondly, the air pollution. Let me
first turn to the scientists who are with us and ask if they would like
to wrap up briefly. If you want to pass, go ahead, but I will give you
the opportunity. Dr. Godar?
DR. GODAR: Well, I think we can say that we clearly do have a
problem. At least we are beginning to accept that we have a significant
health problem. I'm afraid those of us in the health field don't offer
very much in the way of a solution, but I think at least we have the
majority truly concerned and perhaps the Legislature, our planners, and
I hope, our Commissioner convinced as well, because I think there was a
time when he was not. Hopefully, if the Commissioner is convinced, and
the population at large is educated, then we will get the motivation we
are all talking about.
53
-------
THE MODERATOR: Dr. Engel?
DR. ENGEL: I would like to close by saying that even though the
standards that we have now are, in the opinion of everyone, quite reason-
able, year after year our research begins to erode that margin away.
Meetings like this are necessary to get at the problem and develop
acceptable responses, whether they be incentives or disincentives, which
we can live with. I'd just like to leave the point that the EPA has the
responsibility to protect the public health and that transportation
strategies are necessary to protect that public health.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Dr. Stolwijk?
DR. STOLWIJK: I would wholeheartedly agree with the statements of
the preceding speakers. I would like to add that the problem that the
Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Transportation
have in the state is really an exceedingly difficult one. I would like
to re-emphasize that it is only to a small extent under the control of
these two departments to remedy the situation that we find ourselves in.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Any others from the panel who would
like to sum up? Some of you have — Mr. Beal?
MR. BEAL: I would disagree with Dr. Stolwijk in the sense that we
do not have the ability to deal with it. I think we have the ability.
I don't think the will to go forward is as strong as it might, despite
the convincing evidence that we've heard today. State agencies do not
act in a vacuum. We get our sense of urgency and our sense of direction
from elected officials, from the Legislature, from the citizens. The
speed with which we solve this problem is much more the question than
whether or not we should solve this problem, and I don't think we have
gotten a clear signal from the EPA or, frankly from the people of this
state indicating how fast they want to move.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Miss Hoyer?
MS. HOYER: To sum up, from my point of view, it seems that we must
communicate the health concerns that have been voiced here today to the
public so that they understand the problem, and then provide them with
public transportation so they can help solve it.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Mr. Gubala?
MR. GUBALA: The Governor started off the session this afternoon
saying that we must find the answers, and the answers are not going to
come easy. I think this was borne out the full afternoon. It would
also help the Department of Transportation very much if the policy was
54
-------
changed from categorial funding to more flexible financial support.
When Henry Beal and others in DEP do develop a transportation control
strategy, we won't have to look for various cubbyholes to draw from; we
would have just one big bag. Thank you.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Roy Coughlin?
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't want to be left out. I think one most
important element is public education. This seminar today was designed
for that purpose. I think the closer we can draw the relationship
between health and the mechanics of trying to reduce air pollution, the
more people will enlist in our cause. i think too many of the people
who offer solutions are not yet involved. I am with the New Haven
Chamber of Commerce. There are New Haven business men who have no
concept of what the transportation control plan is about yet, and these
are the people we are expecting to help offer the solution. We need
more public eduction. Thank you.
55
------- |