October 1980 A Citizen's Guide to Clean Air and Transportation Implications for Urban Revitalization ------- Contents i Foreword 1 Introduction Hard Times for an Auto City Transportation and Air Quality Transportation Systems in Urban Society 3 Health and Economic Effects of Air Pollution 6 Congress and Clean Air Early Air Pollution Legislation Where We Stand Now Controls on Auto Use 10 Urban Transportation Planning The 3C Process Air Quality and Urban Transportation Planning 18 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Current Clean Air Act Requirements Federal air quality standards Designation of air quality control regions Assessing air quality Reasonable further progress Stationary source controls Mobile source controls Inspection! Maintenance Transportation Control Measures Basic Transportation Needs Integration of Clean Air and Transportation Planning: The Citizen’s Role The Conformity Requirement Section 175 Grants Public Participation Sanctions 30 Putting the Law to Work: Opportunities for Urban Revitalization The European Experience Transportation Systems Management Basic Transportation Needs Transit User Panels Joint Development Developing a Shopping Mall Policy Interstate Transfer Bicycles Appendices 47 A Acronyms and Abbreviations 48 B DOT! EPA Integration of Transportation and Air Quality Planning (June 14, 1978) 50 C Community Conservation Guidance 52 D SIP Checklist 55 E Glossary 59 F Post-1982 Nonattainment States ------- Foreword This is a guide, not a recipe. It explains the process by which Congress and public officials would like air quality and transportation planning to be conducted. But each city is its own contraption, built upon generation after generation of individual dreams, plans, and physical effort, each in its unique setting. While this guide can list the ingredients of the planning process, it is up to you to find the recipe that works in your city. The goals of the process described in here are clean air, efficient use of federal transportation assistance, and the economic and cultural revitalization of our cities. But the whole is greater than the parts. If the process works—and it can if you want it to—the result is one of the most precious characteristics of a working democracy: public accountability. Participation in a process you don't understand results in frustration, and insulates our government—federal, state and local— from the consequences of public action. But, armed with the power that knowledge of the process brings, you can make a difference. That is the real purpose of this guide. Before you begin note Appendix A— a section on acronyms and abbreviations. Good Luck. This guide was prepared by David G. Burwell and Christopher Meyer of The National Wildlife Federation under a contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views and posi- tions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of EPA. Photos courtesy of the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Highway Users Federation. ------- I .. . - I I had the feeling over the weekend that our civilization was winding down. The mood of the city was reminiscent of “On the Beach, “ that haunting movie in which the world has been mortally wounded in the nuclear Armageddon and is dying with a whimper. Jack Smith, L.A. Times* ‘Copyright 1979. Los Angeles Times. Reprinted by permission. E-5934Add’I Copy—EPA---- EPA277O—9/3/8O—9 (D}EPA (L)59344A ------- Introduction Hard Times for an Auto City Nineteen Seventy-Nine was a rough year for Los Angeles air. The Great Gasoline Crunch hit early in May and continued through August. forcing cars to idle in long gas lines. In late August the city’s bus operators went on strike, driving Los Angeles commuters, with no rail transit alternative, into their cars in even greater numbers than usual. In early September, nearby Mt. Wilson caught fire, billowing heavy smoke into the air basin. To top it off, a high pressure system stagnated over the city throughout September, trapping auto exhaust and fire fumes in the basin. Temperatures over 100 degrees and high humidity turned the air into muggy soup. The regional air quality agency warned citizens that breathing the air was “hazardous” in certain places and advised people to stay indoors and avoid physical activity. Golf courses and tennis courts emptied, but hospitals filled up with patients suffering from emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. Schools cancelled recess. A California Institute of Technology study coined a new name for the brown cloud over the city, “acid smog.” Earlier, rain samples taken in Pasadena showed levels of acidity only slightly milder than vinegar. The primary cause of air pollution in Los Angeles, unsurprisingly, is automobile exhaust. The city has been fighting air pollution since the 1950’s. Since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was amended to set a national goal of 90 percent reduction in pollution from auto exhausts and attainment of uniform National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 1975, these efforts have intensified. The multi-billion dollar effort has included sophisticated monitoring of air quality trends, controls on auto exhausts, controls on vapor loss from stationary sources such as gas stations, and even controversial controls on auto use. Still, gasoline consumption hit an all-time high in 1978 and daily maximum ozone readings during the June-to-September smog season increased from less than 20 parts per million (ppm) in 1972 to over 23 ppm in 1978 (the national standard is 12 ppm). While perhaps not Armageddon, Los Angeles is clearly losing the fight for clean air. The lesson learned from Los Angeles is also being learned in Phoenix, Denver, Dallas and Houston—other U.S. cities reporting little or no progress in reducing air pollution over the last five years. It is this: there is no quick, technological fix to air pollution. Emission controls, inspection and maintenance of automobiles, and stationary controls reduce pollution, but are not enough. Clean air will only be achieved through a basic rethinking about urban development and how urban residents want that development to proceed. It won’t be easy. The greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, contains over ten million people sprawled over 34,000 square miles—one third the size of West Germany. Yet the average density of the area is about 300 people per square mile, compared to 637 per square mile in West Germany (with urban agglomera- tions of about 6,000 per square mile).’ This means long commutes for Los Angeles area residents—and more air pollution. Such an urban development pattern compounds air quality problems by making public transit uneconomical and, therefore, unavailable. At the height of the gas crunch of 1979, driving decreased 15 percent in the Los Angeles basin, but air pollution increased. The reason—people sitting in gas lines with their car motors running. They simply had no choice. Can that choice be provided? Above all else, Americans are pragmatic. We also have a long history of citizen activism. Our political institutions are decentralized, with extensive power residing in municipal, local, and even neighborhood groups. Traditionally, this has been particularly true with respect to land use. It has no: been true with respect to transportation, but ‘Compare this with ancient Greece where Athens, at the time of Pericles, jammed a population of over 200,000 into just over two square miles. transportation decisions are now becoming more decentralized as regional and local officials recognize the importance of joint land use and transportation decisionmaking to promote rational urban development. As transportation and land use decision- making converge, a bigger “piece of the action” becomes available to citizens concerned about dirty air, gas lines, neighborhood destruction, and urban economic stagnation. 1 ------- Transportation and Air Quality Transportation systems can be used to promote a variety of social goals. In this booklet, we have selected one social goal—clean air—and will explain how urban transportation systems and transportation system planning can be exploited to promote that goal. The handles are there, both in our transportation laws and our clean air laws, not because transportation systems improve air quality, but because they contribute significantly to air pollution. We will not achieve national clean air goals without vast improvement in our urban transportation systems; making them efficient and non-polluting while recognizing the importance of accessible and low cost transportation to urban vitality. This last point bears emphasis. Heavy- handed or inappropriate clean air strategies could strangle the vitality of cities rather than save them. Banning private automobiles from the central business district in Denver, for example, without an adequate public transportation system to move people to work and shopping, would have a devastating effect on the city economy. On the other hand, in cities where adequate public transit exists, such as Portland, Oregon, selected auto-free zones could stimulate the economy. Great sensitivity is required in understanding the purposes served by transportation systems generally, and then in shaping clean air solutions that also promote those purposes. A tall order. Transportation Systems in Urban Society Before tackling transportation issues, it is worth reflecting on why we spend public funds on transportation. First and foremost, transportation systems move goods and people. A good transportation system is necessary to facilitate the marketing of goods and services, and to broaden the choice of social and business activities available to all citizens. These benefits alone have justified public funding and regulation of virtually all modes of transportation. Second, any transportation system helps to create commerce by opening up previously inaccessible lands for development. It brings the market to the goods (the land), as well as the goods to market. Witness the development that springs up around interstate highway interchanges, or subway stations, or the strip developments that characterize major unlimited access nignways. Ana, besides development, transportation systems open up land for recreational use. Third, transportation provides employment. About 16 percent of the people employed in the United States are directly or indirectly involved with transportation. In most countries these people are public employees since the companies involved in transportation development are owned in whole or in large part by the government. This applies to everything from the motor vehicle manufacturers that make the cars, buses, trolleys, and trains that use the system to the energy companies that feed the system. In the United States, transportation operates in a mixed economy. This creates a lot of pulling and tugging between federal, state, and Action Tip There are many non-transportation strategies for keeping cities compact thereby reducing transportation needs, improving air quality, and promoting energy efficiency. A good summary is Compact Cities: Energy Saving Strategies for the SOs, Subcommittee on the City, House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Committee Print 96-15 (July 1980). • +i rmI - I ,z ir?i’ : - 2 ------- Health and Economic Effects of Air Pollution local governments, manufacturers and suppliers, financial interests and users as each group tries to get the most it can from the system at the lowest cost. Therefore, when studying any transportation system—urban or rural— it is wise to keep in mind two questions: Who pays? Who benefits? Fourth, there is the purely social purpose of transportation systems. Scenic highways are as much “recrea- tional facilities” as are ski lifts and public parks, and are constructed for that specific purpose. An “evening spin” or a “Sunday drive” are forms of recreation. As energy supplies get tight, gas prices increase, and costs of construction skyrocket, it is likely that the purely social purposes of transportation systems will decrease sharply. Mobility, development opportunity, commerce, recreation: these are the primary social and economic benefits of a healthy transportation system in an urban society. But transportation has costs, and one of the most severe is air pollution. Transportation is a major contributor of five pollutants—hydro- carbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, and total suspended par- ticulates. Another cost is energy waste. The average American consumes 3.7 times as much energy on transportation as does a citizen of West Germany, a country equally industrialized as the United States. Moreover, a city whose citizens “export” their dollars out of the urban area to pay for fuel has that much less money to invest in urban redevelopment. Urban vitality, therefore, depends to a significant extent on the ability of public officials, planners, neighborhood groups, and citizens to develop transportation programs that meet the mobility needs of their communities while keeping faith with other broad social goals such as clean air and energy efficiency. This manual is designed to help you promote these twin goals and, in the process, make your city a nicer place to live. Clean air certainly makes a city a nicer place to live. There’s a real pleasure in opening your front door for the morning paper, taking a deep breath, and smelling fresh air rather than toxic fumes from the traffic. But the pleasure of breathing clean air was not the driving force behind enactment of the Clean Air Act. The real reason was health. We are a Nation 220 million strong— until we take a closer look. Six million of us suffer from chronic bronchitis and 6 million more from asthma; 50,000 die each year from lung cancer and another 20,000 from chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Add to this an increased incidence of heart attacks, brain damage to fetuses, more colds, eye and skin irritations, coupled with reduced exercise performance among healthy adults, and you have a snapshot of a not-too-healthy nation. While air pollution alone does not generate these statistics, best present estimates are that air pollution does result in about 15,000 excess deaths,* 7 million sick days, and 15 million days of restricted activity per year. The total affected population— about 40 million—represents about one out of every five Americans. In a country accustomed to the spectacular statistic, the insidious effects of air pollution on health remain largely hidden. Only the most alarming events reach the attention of the general public: Donora, Pennsylvania, where about half the population of 13,000 got sick, and 20 died, in an air inversion in 1948; New York City, where 200 people died from high levels of sulfur dioxide in 1953. However, the most serious effects of air pollution result from chronic exposure to mildly unhealthy air. We must understand precisely what happens to *Remarks by Senator Edmund Muskie, Congres- sional Record, S. 9162 (June 8, 1977). our bodies as a result of such exposures to fully appreciate the problem. While all physiological effects have not been documented, here are some identified consequences of breathing the types of pollution produced by our transportation system: Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides and Hydrocarbons Ozone is formed in bright sunlight (or ultra-violet light) from nitrogen dioxide and volatile hydrocarbons and is commonly referred to as smog. When introduced into the lower respiratory tract, ozone damages small airways, causing increased resistance to airflow. This, in turn, prevents the transfer of oxygen from the lungs into the blood- stream. Ozone also damages the alveoli, the millions of small hollow sacs in our lungs where this oxygen transfer occurs, and can ultimately result in these sacs being filled with fluid, a condition called pulmonary edema. The result: increased breathing effort, more strain on the heart and aggravation of symptoms of emphysema. Nitrogen dioxide is suspected of reducing resistance to respiratory tract infections and certain hydrocarbons, the other major ozone precursor, are suspected carcinogens. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide attaches to hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying matter of red blood corpuscles) 245 times more easily than oxygen, thereby reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells for up to 24 hours. Carbon monoxide also enhances clotting and inhibits the release of oxygen from hemoglobin to the tissues. Effects include anemia (less oxygen-carrying capacity in blood), heart disease (impaired circulation of oxygenated blood), and lung disease (impaired oxygen intake and expulsion of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide). Short- term effects of relatively low-level exposure (30 ppm) include headaches, 3 ------- slowed muscle and nerve reaction time, constriction of visual field, and general sluggishness. Long-term effects include increased mortality following heart attacks, mental confusion, impaired eyesight, and reduced birth weights of children born of smoking mothers. In addition, studies indicate that high carbon monoxide concentrations, together with a high cholesterol diet, will rapidly produce hardening of the arteries (atherosclerosis).’ Sulfur Dioxide, Particulates and Lead Sulfur dioxide and particulates—from both stationary sources (i.e. power plants) and mobile sources (i.e. cars)— may absorb and hold active agents in contact with respiratory tissues, thereby ‘Mitchell, Roger S., et a!, “Health Effects of Urban Air Pollution,” 242 Journal of the American Medical Association. pp. 1163, 1166 (September 14, 1979). increasing the likelihood of respiratory disease. Lead—an important source of which is the burning of leaded gasoline—is a dangerous and insidious poison that can cause infertility, brain damage, and impaired growth and development. However, no studies to date have shown evidence of long-term lead poisoning resulting solely from airborne sources. Effects of air pollution are not evenly distributed among the exposed or “at risk” population. Pre-existing health is the most significant variable and, in fact, scientists have not yet been able to establish a threshold of air pollution below which no health effects are detected. Climate, nutrition, location, age, and smoking habits also influence Figure 1 Distribution of Health Effects Death Exacerbation of Chronic Bronchitis Acute Upper Respiratory Illness Nose Irritation distribution of health effects (see Figure I). While it is extremely difficult to isolate the precise incremental effect of ambient air pollution on human health, there is no disagreement on the bottom line—it’s significant, it’s unhealthy, and it’s hard to cure. This description is grim, but the situation gets even worse in higher altitudes where oxygen is less available and the effects of ozone and carbon monoxide are felt at lower concentrations. For this reason, California has set a more stringent eight- hour CO standard of 6 ppm for areas above 1500 meters, compared to a 9 ppm eight-hour standard at sea level. The problem is compounded by the fact that at higher altitudes, fuel combustion Environmental Stressors Intensity of Insult —4W Source: National Commission on Air Quality (Washington, DC, 1980) 4 ------- is impaired due to lack of oxygen, resulting in higher emissions. It is this combination of higher emissions and a lower threshold for health-related effects that makes air pollution such a severe health issue in high altitude cities such as Denver, Colorado. From 1940 to 1970 controllable particulate emissions in this country increased 15 percent, sulfur dioxide increased 50 percent, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions more than doubled, and nitrogen dioxide emissions quadrupled. 2 Understandably, as pollution levels rose, people became increasingly concerned. After 1970, pollution control measures began to have a significant effect. Particulate emissions are down about 8 percent, sulfur dioxide is down about 17 percent, and carbon monoxide is being reduced at a rate of about 7 percent a year. Hydrocarbon and nitrogen dioxide emissions, while not showing measurable improvement on a national level, have at least not continued their alarming rate of increase (see Where We Stand Now, p. 7). Increased rates of sickness and death obviously increase human suffering among the victims of air pollution and their families. These costs are invisible, but real. Some costs, however, are quantifiable and EPA has made an effort to identify them. 3 Conservative estimates of benefits gained from a 60 percent reduction in air pollution place savings at about $25 billion in annual labor productivity (1970 labor base, 1978 dollars) for urban areas, and $36.4 billion for the Nation as a whole. These figures are substantiated by a three-year study conducted at the Universities of Wyoming, Southern 2 Remarks by Senator Edmund Muskie, Congres- sional Record, S. 9162 (June 8, 1977). 3 Merhods Development for Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits (February 1979), Office of Health and Ecological Effects, US EPA, Washington, DC 20460. California, and New Mexico which place annual benefits,in terms of increased labor productivity and increased property values, at about $41 billion. 4 That is the positive side of a successful air pollution control effort. But what about the cost? A recent study conducted for EPA estimates that the Gross National Product (GNP) is marginally higher as a result of air and water pollution control programs. 5 However, as investments in environmental control equipment force industries to forego other investments, GNP will suffer a slight decline of about 1 percent in 1986 as compared to what it would have been in the absence of federal pollution control requirements. Pollution control has increased employment in the industries established to provide the necessary technology, but some jobs have also been lost because of lower demand for products that cost more due to pollution control expenses. On balance, however, a net increase of about 200,000 jobs is estimated by 1986, which should reduce the unemployment rate about .2 percent. Higher product prices to help cover environmental costs would add slightly to inflation. Finally, total corporate profits are projected to 4 BNA, Current Developments, March 2, 1979 at 2031. 5 &onopnics and Clean Air, Data Resources, Inc. (February, 1979). This report is available from the Office of Program Analysis, US EPA, Washington, DC 20460. be down about 0.9 percent in 1986 as a result of pollution control, paralleling the effect on total GNP. Is pollution control worth the cost? That is a decision each of us must make individually. The macroeconomic effects outlined above do not appear to make the case for or against pollution control efforts. However, when the strongly positive health and economic effects of air pollution control programs themselves are added to the balance, the case for aggressive pursuit of national clean air goals becomes compelling. And even these figures don’t reflect the very real, albeit unquantifiable, benefit of satisfying the universal need for a breath of fresh air. 5 ------- Congress and Clean Air Early Air Pollution Legislation’ Congress first tackled air pollution problems in 1955 by establishing a program to provide federal technical assistance, while leaving to each State the task of assessing existing air quality, setting state air quality goals and developing strategies to meet those goals. It didn’t work. First, this approach failed to recognize the “federal” nature of the problem. Because pollution in one State may drift to neighboring States, no single State was able to clean up air pollution on its own. Furthermore, no State was willing to adopt strict standards for sources within its boundaries for fear of placing itself at a competitive disadvantage in attracting new industry. Second, early laws weren’t backed up with strong sanctions, but instead relied entirely on voluntary state cooperation. And third, federal law instructed each State to impose its own controls, rather than placing uniform federal requirements directly on the polluters. Consequently, if a State was lax in imposing controls, citizens could take no action against the polluters. ‘The first federal air quality legislation was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 which confined the federal role primarily to research. Pub. L. No. 84- 145, 69 Stat. 322. The Clean Air Act of 1963 provided the first federal regulatory foothold, but was limited to cases in which a pollution source endangered health or welfare in another state. Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392. The first comprehensive regulatory scheme was the Air Quality Act of 1967. Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485. The 1967 Act provided a framework of state air quality standards and implementation plans which was similar to the 1970 Act, except for its orientation toward state rather than federal regulation. Passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 19702 ufarked the beginning of the first serious national effort to control air pollution. The 1970 Act left behind the voluntary, state- initiative approach and adopted instead a firm federal program which: • set uniform national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS—”ambient standards” measure the overall quality of the air we breathe without reference to the source of the pollution, while “emission standards” set limits on the pollution which may be emitted from particular sources), • established an attainment deadline (January 1, 1975) for meeting those air quality standards, • required federal approval of “state implementation plans” (SIPs) to achieve NAAQS, with sanctions for non- compliance, • established technology-based standards for controls on emissions which applied directly to industrial sources, • established separate standards for the emissions from motor vehicles (90 percent reduction in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions by 1975 and similar reductions for nitrogen oxide levels by 1976), and • brought the public into the picture by outlining broad citizen participation requirements and by permitting citizens to sue States, the federal government or individual sources in order to insure enforcement. 3 2 Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970), cod fled at 42 U.S.C. 4740l, et seq. 3 1n the year after the first major “energy crisis” in 1973, the Act underwent minor changes designed to insure that air quality improvement would not come at the expense of energy efficiency. Pub. L. No. 93-319, 88 Stat. 246 (1974). These amendments provided certain exceptions to industrial pollution control requirements and empowered the President to override other requirements of the Act in order to meet an energy emergency. Many of the innovations of the 1970 Act are preserved in present clean air laws. However, by the mid-1970’s it became apparent that even the aggressive new federal approach to air pollution control wasn’t accomplishing the goals Congress had established. Most States failed to submit effective implementation plans. Attempts by the federal government to force States to promulgate adequate plans were ineffective. Tampering, poor maintenance, and “fuel-switching” (putting cheaper, leaded gasoline in “unleaded only” cars) caused the emission control systems in new automobiles to fall far short of the hoped-for 90 percent reduction in auto emissions. Moreover, total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) continued to climb, tending to offset gains achieved in reduced emissions per mile traveled. 6 ------- Where We Stand Now For the reasons described above, progress towards cleanup of air pollution can only be described as mixed. Controls of mobile sources of pollution (cars, trucks, etc.) has been particularly difficult. Mobile sources contribute substantially to five of the seven pollutants for which standards have been established (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Percentage of Pollutants from Mobile Sources These statistics are national averages; in urbanized areas the contribution of mobile sources to the key transportation-related pollutants may be much greater. For example, in Miami, Florida, automobiles contribute 95 percent, 85 percent and 70 percent of the area’s carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide pollution, respectively. Progress over the last two decades in reducing the levels of these pollutants has been slow. Carbon monoxide levels are generally down, while hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxide and ozone levels are increased slightly. Here are the specifics: Carbon Monoxide: Carbon monoxide levels in urban areas have shown a steady decline over the last decade. Between 1972 and 1978, carbon monoxide levels in central cities fell 35 percent, or 7 percent a year. This improvement is explained by the fact that transportation corridors in downtown areas were already saturated with traffic in 1972. As emission control devices were applied to these constant levels of traffic, carbon monoxide levels went down. However, in rural and suburban areas, where highway corridors were not saturated, increases in vehicle miles traveled cancelled out gains obtained through emission controls. Consequently, growth areas showed increase in carbon monoxide emissions. Indeed, overall emissions of carbon monoxide remained constant between 1970 and 1978. Ozone and Hydrocarbons: Levels of ozone and hydrocarbons (an ozone precursor) rose slightly between 1974 and 1978. Although emissions of hydrocarbons per vehicle mile traveled were reduced, this gain was more than offset by a 20 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. The net effect has been a 3 percent increase in hydrocarbon emissions, a trend which parallels the national ozone trend (see Figure 3). 74 75 76 77 percent from highway vehicles pollutant nationally ozone NM lead 85% carbon monoxide 70% nitrogen dioxide 35% hydrocarbons 33% total suspended particulates 6% sulfur dioxide 2% Note: No statistic is available for ozone because it is not emitted directly into the air from pollution sources. It is, however, considered to be a major transportation- related pollutant, because it is formed from the reaction of hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide and sunlight. Figure 3 National Ozone and Hydrocarbon Trends (excerpt from figure 3-6 Trends (1977)) Source: How to Prepare the Transportation Portion of Your State Air Quality Implementa- tion Plan, Technical Guidance of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, with the cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1978, pages P2-I, P2-12. x . nO o - a, 00 0 E ’ 4 2 ou; . a C —o O . >E 0 0 160 California 140 National 120 — Non-California 100 30 VOC 20 1 I 72 73 Year Source: National Air Quality, Monitoring, and Emissions Trends Report, 1977 (EPA, 1978, p. 3-8) 7 ------- Nitrogen Dioxide: Ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide have shown only a slight increase since 1972, although emissions of this pollutant increased 16 percent between 1970 and 1978 (see Figure 4 for a breakdown of nitrogen dioxide trends by EPA regions). These trends reveal the intractable nature of the air pollution problem. Nationally, emission controls are barely keeping pace with iflcreases in total travel. The most positive observation that can be made is that in the densely populated areas, such as the Northeast megalopolis where transportatioi% corridors had very nearly reached saturation levels in 1972, the percentage of the total population exposed to pollution levels above the standards has been reduced. Increases in pollution are concentrated in less densely populated growth areas. Since the decreases in pollution levels are concentrated in the densely populated areas and the increases in the less densely populated areas, the total percentage of the national population exposed to levels of pollution above air quality standards has declined in the last seven years. Small comfort. The 1970 Clean Air Act mandated that all areas of the country meet the standards by July 1, 1977, at the latest. The 1977 Amendments set the deadline back to December 31, 1982, with an extension until 1987 in those areas that can show that the 1982 deadline cannot be met for transportation related pollutants. Virtually all urbanized areas over 200,000 will need the benefit of the extension, at least for ozone. 4 4 For a list of the areas which have received an extension of the attainment deadline to 1987, see Appendix F. What has gone wrong? To avoid repeating mistakes under the new planning requirements, it is important to understand why previous clean air strategies failed. A review of the last ten years leads to two explanations: unfulfilled expectations for vehicle emission controls and a failure to win the support of local elected officials and the public for effective controls on transportation use. Figure 4 Nitrogen Dioxide Trends in the Annual Mean, 1972-1977 Trend Direction EPA Regions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total CA Other Down No Change Up 16 17 17 38 50 3 12 4 15 2 2 176 1 — 0 — 7 26 5 119 9 86 1 7 2 27 0 6 4 26 0 2 1 2 30 312 9 2 Total of 26 19 50 162 145 11 41 10 45 4 5 518 Source: National Air Quality, Monitoring, and Emissions Trends Report. 1977 (EPA, 1978, p. 3- 10) 8 ------- Controls on Auto Use Our attachment to the automobile is strong. The recent history of travel behavior in the United States is characterized by • more automobile trips per person per • longer trips per person, • a continued decline in the average number of occupants per vehicle (i.e., there are more single occupant trips), and • a sustained increase in the percentage of all trips that are made by automobile. Figure 5 shows the predominant mode of travel is automobile, although air travel has been making substantial gains in recent years. Figure 5 Modal Distribution of Total Intercity Travel [ J Air [ ]Rail Highway 1940 1950 J 1960 1970 1975 LI F L I — This trend in travel behavior is not hard to understand. Single passenger auto travel can be private, comfortable, convenient, flexible, and fast. However, it can also be polluting, land-intensive, energy-consumptive, disruptive of communities, and increasingly costly. As increases in total travel have outstripped gains in emissions, the importance of finding ways to control demand for auto travel has become apparent. The marketplace has already had a significant effect through price increases at the gas pump. Demand for gasoline fell over 7 percent in 1979 and the federal government hopes for another 5.5 percent reduction in demand in 1980. A less costly approach is to reduce demand through controls on land use. Simply put, the idea is to move the land uses that generate vehicle trips closer to the land uses that attract the trips. By encouraging mixed land uses and dense or “cluster” developmçnts, while controlling access to high- way improvements, fewer and shorter auto trips will be needed to meet the mobility needs of urban areas. This means fewer emissions, less energy waste and more open space as urban growth is directed toward city centers rather than away from them. It does not, in any sense, mean “doing without” transportation. Changing the flow of traditional urban growth patterns is a tall order. Urban expansion will continue. However, there is room for vast improvement in present trends, which can best be described as accelerated sprawl. And the potential for economic resurgence in our central cities through controls on sprawl makes the battle worth joining. This, however, requires a knowledge of one of the driving forces behind urban growth—the planning and placement of transportation improvements—and it is to this urban transportation planning process that we now turn. LI F E I I I day, Source: Transportation Facts & Trends, Trans- portation Association of America (1979) P. 18. 9 ------- Urban Transportation Planning The 3C Process Until recently, the major focus of urban transportation planning could be summarized in two words: trip time, that is, how long it took to get where people wanted to go. That, transportation planners realized, is the overwhelmingly determinative factor in h w often people drove and where they went. With the real price of gasoline declining, cost was not a factor. The major cost of transportation was the initial investment to buy a car. Once that investment was made, it simply did not make sense not to use it. Reducing distance means controlling land use to bring land uses closer together. Controlling land use, however, is very difficult and, to date, has been considered to be the exclusive prerogative of regional and local governments. On the other hand, transportation planning is conducted primarily at the state level, in state highway and public works departments. Excluded from affecting the “distance” side of trip time, state transportation planners concentrated on the factor they could influence: speed. The goal was to increase it, both by increasing the safety of high speed travel by designing safe highways (wide lanes, broad shoulders, banked curves, etc.) and reducing congestion (keeping highway capacity ahead of the demand for that capacity). Transportation planners were extraordinarily successful in achieving safe, high-speed travel. By the early 1970’s, most new highways had a “minimum design speed” (the maximum speed for safe travel) of 70 miles per hour. Rights of way were broad. The acreage required to build one mile of highway was extensive; see Figure 6. Figure 6 Land Use Required for Each Mile of Roadway Source: Estimated data from Department of Interior, National Park Service, Office of Park Planning and Environmental Quality, October 24, 1978 memorandum. Credit: Environmental Siatfuics 1978, Council on Environmental Quality, Figure 4-5, p. 87. Figure 6, however, reveals a major problem with concentrating on reducing trip time; it is land intensive and, therefore, very disruptive in the communities where highways are located. The U.S. Congress recognized this problem and, in the late 1960’s, commissioned a study which found that between 1956, the start of the interstate program, and 1967 more urban housing units were destroyed by highways (approximately 330,000) than were constructed by our entire national public housing program (239,374).’ Even more alarming, over two-thirds of this lost housing was in low to moderate-income ‘Figures from Report on the National Commission on Urban Problems to the Congress and President of the United States, Building the American City, 91st Cong., 1st Sess, HR. Doc. No. 91-34, at 81, 130 (1969). units. 2 Complaints poured in, not only from the people whose homes were taken but from people who lived next to these new roads and didn’t like the noise; members of neighborhood groups who didn’t like their communities split in two; mayors who didn’t like land taken off the tax rolls for highways; and other transportation interests (bus, transit) that lost customers to new highways. 3 Congress acted. First, it required that local elected officials get together with the various state transportation planning agencies to establish a “continuing, cooperative, comprehensive” planning process (the 3C process). 4 Next it required that certain areas, such as urban parks and recreation areas, be given special protection from highway construction. 5 Then, concurrent with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, it required transportation planners to coordinate with air quality planners and EPA to assure that highway construction was “consistent” with plans to clean up the air (see discussion of consistency at p. 16).6 Finally, Congress required that States develop a plan (called an Action Plan) that would assure that final decisions on 2 Low income in 1971 was considered $60 per month or less (rental) or less than $6,000 valuation (house), moderate income $60-SIlO per month (rental) or between 56,000-515,000 (house). Secretary of the Department of Transportation, 1972 Annual Report on Highway Relocation Assistance (1972), cited in P.W. Sly, In the Path of Progress: Federal Highway Relocation Assistance, 82 Yale L.J. 373, n. 27 (1972). 3 lronically, improvements have not resulted in reduced trip time. Studies of commuter behavior have shown that the average commuter trip time has remained stable at about 20 minutes. What has changed is the distance covered by the trip. The average trip distance is now about nine miles. Therefore, the very success of transportation planners in improving speed has resulted in more sprawl development, with obvious detrimental effects on air quality and energy use. ‘23 U.S.C. *134(a) (1970). 349 U.S.C. *1653(f). ‘23 U.S.C. * 109 (J) (1970). Number Roadway Type of Acres Major Highway 35 Interstate-Urban Segment (1) 38 Interstate-Urban Segment (2) 33.5 4-Lane Highway (3) 18.2 2-Lane Highway (4) 14.6 Urban Street (5) 7.3 Data based on the following assumed right-of-way widths: 1) 250 feet (30.34 acres + 25% for interchange) 2) 250 feet (30.34 acres + 10% for interchange) 3)150 feet 4)120 feet 5) 60 feet 10 ------- transportation projects would be made “in the best overall public interest.” 7 Subsequent statements and regulations have elaborated on these requirements in an attempt to fully integrate transportation planning into comprehensive plans for urban development and air quality plans. With the signing of an agreement between EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in June 1978 to encourage joint air quality/transporta- tion planning in nonattainment areas (see Appendix B), the process has moved even further away from a sole focus on “trip time” towards effective implementati on of the Congressional directive that trans- portation decisions be made “in the best overall public interest.” For simplicity, this evolving planning process has all fallen under the rubric of the “3C process.” The fundamental improvement of 3C planning over traditional transportation planning is that it gives planners and public officials on the regional and local levels, who have a mandate to serve broad community needs, a limited degree of control over the initiation and implementation of transportation projects. The 3C process presents a potentially powerful access point for citizens. 8 It requires that each urban area establish a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), comprised in part of “principal elected officials of general purposelocal government,” 9 to do comprehensive transportation planning. This includes the setting of goals and objectives through the adoption of a long-range (15-20 year) transportation 23 U.S.C. §109(h) (1970). The federal regulations implementing the 3C process are found at 23 C.F.R. Part 450 (1979). 23 C.F.R. §450.106(d) (1979). Other regulatory language refers to cooperation with “appropriate local officials,” raising the question of whether cooperating merely with local highway officials rather than local elected officials is sufficient. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. §103(cX2). However, the regulations covering planning for the entire federal system indicate that “appropriate local officials” means elected officials, not just highway officials. 23 C.F.R. §470.2 (bX8) (1979). approve the projects within its urban area that are forwarded to the State for inclusion in the annual Program of Projects. No MPO approval means no federal funding. It is this power over the purse strings that gives MPOs a potentially key role in implementing the transportation goals laid out in their long-range Transportation Plan. The public must be involved in MPO planning. Citizens are often members of MPOs, either in a voting or advisory capacity. As indicated in Figure 7, 22 percent of all MPOs include at least one citizen representative on their policy board. Figure 7 Summary of Representation on Section 134 Policy Boards Credit: Urban System Study, Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress (1977), p. 47. plan. What makes the MPO unique is its supervision of implementation of that plan through annual approval of (1) the process through which highway and transit projects are developed (found in two documents called the Unified Work Program and the Prospectus), and (2) the transportation construction priorities that result from that process (contained in the Transportation Improvement Plan). In exercising its review function the MPO can both initiate projects for implementation from the long-range plan, and review projects and planning activities initiated by highway and transit agencies. An MPO must annually Percent 100— 80 60 40 20 0 11 ------- The MPO reviews a tremendous amount of information concerning costs, revenues, priorities, and scheduling of federal-aid projects. This information can be extremely useful to citizens concerned about urban transportation air quality planning. Initiation of projects taken from the long-range plan for implementation is shared among MPOs, transit and highway officials, and local elected officials. However, it is the MPO exclusively which reviews and approves the program documents required by federal regulations. Following is a brief description of these documents and how they can be used. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP):10 This document describes all the planning activity that will take place over the next one to two years. One element may explain how the long-range 1023 C.F.R. §450.I 14(c) (1979). transportation plan will be broken down into specific projects and implemented. Another element may study proposed changes in the long-range plan. Still another may plan for more effective citizen participation. Whatever the MPO planning staff is doing should be reflected in this document. Commitments to study and evaluate transportation control measures to determine if they are “reasonably available” and needed to attain air quality standards must be included in this plan. Prospectus:” This document describes how the Unified Planning Work Program will be implemented. It describes the MPO, its structure, the responsibilities of its various departments, and its agreements 1123 C.F.R. §450.114(b) (1979). with other state transportation agencies (such as the highway department, the State Secretary of Transportation, the regional transit authorities) regarding planning. It outlines major transportation issues facing the region, and describes how the MPO intends to fulfill its duties, under federal regulations, to (1) consider social, economic, and environmental effects, (2) coordinate air quality planning, (3) involve the public, (4) comply with anti- discrimination statutes, (5) provide public transportation for the elderly and handicapped, (6) conserve energy, (7) consider private transportation services, and (8) bring technical expertise to bear on transportation problems.’ 2 The prospectus tells you who makes what decisions; as such, it is your “blueprint” of the 3C process. 12 a Transportation Plan (Long Range):’3 This document sets the basic transportation policy for the area. For example, it may state whether transportation policy will be oriented toward transit or highways; whether projects will emphasize access to the city center, circle the city. or be aimed at some other demographic rcgion; or what the region’s transportation network will look like many years in the future. It may reflect a decision to emphasize demand management through transportation controls and efficiency improvements to the existing system or simply respond to demand by increasing capacity. It must be “consistent with the area’s comprehensive long range land use plan. urban development objectives, and the area’s overall social, economic, 223 C.F.R. §450.120 (1979). DOT has proposed to amend these regulations to include more detailed requirements for energy planning. See 45 Fed. Reg. 30397 (May 7, 1980). ‘ Section 174 of the Clean Air Act requires that the Air Quality Transportation planning responsibilities be contained in a separate document and approved b EPA in order to qualify for Clean Air Planning funds. 42 U.S.C. §7504 (1978 pamph.). ‘ 23 C.F.R. §450.116(1979). 12 ------- environmental, system performance and energy conservation goals and objectives.” 4 The EPA! DOT joint guidelines require MPOs to consider long range policies and facilities with potential for reducing transportation-related emissions in the long-range plan. A very important requirement for MPOs in post-1982 attainment areas is a program for evaluating post-1982 growth policies. Alternative growth policies and! or development patterns must be examined to determine the potential for modifying total transportation demand.’ 5 This ties transportation planning directly into land use planning, the “missing link” of the traditional planning process. Transportation Plan (Systems Management):” This document explains how existing facilities will be used efficiently to promote long range goals. It describes low-cost, non-capital improvements to the system such as preferential bus lanes, bikeway programs, changes in tolls and fare structure, and carpooling. it also covers management and operational improvements. Non-federally funded management improvements must also be listed.’ 7 Elements of this plan must be included in the annual element of the Transportation Improvement Program (discussed below) for early implementation. If this plan is contained in a State Implementation Plan, it is also called Transportation Control Measures. Transportation Improvement Program (3-5 Year): 18 The Transportation Improvement Program describes the projects which will be implemented in the next three to five years. It must be compatible with the long range plan. it sets priorities for construction, gives estimates of costs and revenues, and explains why the projects are recommended for priority treatment. It should identify transportation control measures and long range projects that produce incremental reductions in emissions and set priorities. 19 All transportation-related elements of the State Implementation Plan that require funding should be in the Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation Improvement Program (Annual Element):20 This is a compilation of improvements slated for implementation in the upcoming year. It is forwarded to the State Highway Department or Secretary of Transportation (if one exists), for inclusion in the statewide “Program of Projects” submitted annually to the U.S. Department of Transportation for approval. The Annual Element is the launching pad. Once a project gets in the Annual Element and funds are allocated to it, the project is ready for construction. This, then, is the “3C process” and the documents it produces. The thrusts of the process are 1) to make transportation planning comprehensive in nature, 2) to decentralize planning by giving supervisory power over the process, through membership in the MPO, to locally elected officials, and 3) to emphasize short range incremental improvements that complement community development goals. The connection made in this process between comprehensive planning and transportation planning provides the potential for molding transportation demand studies to community values and needs. Rather than simply participating in developing a ‘ CAA §176(d). 42 U.S.C. §7506(d)(l978 pamph.). °23 C.F.R. §450.312 (1979). comprehensive plan, members of the MPOs can actually track implementation of the plan by monitoring the progress of projects from the long range plan, through the 3-5 year element of the Transportation Improvement Program, to the Annual Element and then to construction. 2 ’ Newly perceived consequences of previous planning decisions can be re- evaluated on an annual basis and adjustments made. Transportation decisions on projects can change from “yes or no” to “maybe”, with the ongoing option to press down or let up on the accelerator, or even turn back. The membership requirements improve citizen access, both through citizen membership on the MPO and through membership by locally elected officials; and the new EPA/DOT citizen participation requirements, discussed below, will open up the MPO process to citizens still further. The success of the new structure is by no means assured. State transit, highway, and other transportation agencies are reluctant to have a new agency supervise implementation of their projects. Similarly, particular localities and municipalities, which have to develop a close relationship with state and federal officials to facilitate their projects, do not now want these projects scrutinized by a regional body such as an MPO. The MPO structure, however, has sustained legal challenge. Governors, who designate MPOs within each state, have been lobbied by state transportation officials to designate state transportation agencies as MPOs. Citizens should therefore scrutinize MPO membership to determine if it is indeed comprised of “principal elected officials of general purpose local government” as required by federal regulations. It is in your interest to protect and improve this move toward comprehensive urban transportation planning. 2t Notice that there is a gap in the documentary process. Although most major transportation projects take much more than five years to plan, there is no document outlining the planning during the period 5-15 years in the future. “23 C.F.R. §450.116(d) (1979). ‘ 5 Transportation—Air Quality Planning Guidelines, United States Department of Transportation and United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 1978. 1623 C.F.R. §450.116(b)( 1979). “23 C.F.R. §450.312(aX2) (1979). “23 C.F.R. §450.312 (1979). F .cc fl ?.ymcy L ary 401 .;fl D .C 4 2 ’ 4 j46Q 13 ------- Citizen Action If the MPO in your area is the designated agency for clean air planning, you have special rights regarding participation in its activities (see p. 27). If the MPO is not the designated clean air planning agency, there should be an agreement worked out between the two agencies which assigns responsibility for transportation related clean air planning to the MPO, and which provides for citizen participation in such planning. Citizens should review each document required in the 3C process (Long Range Plan, Transportation Systems Manage- ment Element, Unified Planning Work Program, Prospectus, Trans- portation Improvement Plan and Annual Element) for compliance with federal regulations. is the selection of projects for implementation related to regional transportation and land use policy? Usually, it is not. Most new construction projects are developed by state and municipal highway and transit officials who base their studies on complex demand forecasts that are unrelated to regional and community values. The result may be the development of plans for new highways in the urban fringe, where growth is occuring, even though the regional plan calls for dense center development, more transit assistance, and an emphasis on projects that control growth of transportation demand. In theory, the MPO has the authority to reject projects that do not conform to regional goals simply by refusing to advance such projects through the planning process to construction. in reality, MPOs defer to the localities that make up their membership, including the fringe communities that want more construction. The MPO presents a forum for confronting the conflict between regional goals and project proposals, and for brokering a solution. But this cannot happen if MPOs refuse to articulate regional goals in the Long Range Plan, or to evaluate projects for inclusion in the Transportation improvement Plan or Annual Element. The role of the citizen is to focus MPO attention on these issues, to make sure that “all the cards are on the table” when decisions to advance or delay projects are made, and to hold public officials accountable for their decisions. In the opinion of most transportation planners, trend (forecast demand) is destiny. Through the MPO brokering process, citizens have the opportunity to evaluate trends in light of community goals, and if a conflict is apparent, to say “no, let’s try something different, such as land use controls or the channeling of forecast demand to existing routes.” Air Quality and Urban Transportation Planning The 1970 Act required that each State designate Air Pollution Control Agencies in each sub-state area that had an air pollution problem. These agencies were to prepare the component parts of the overall State Implementation Plan (SIP) and obtain whatever agreements were necessary for enforcement. 22 In many regions the MPO itself was designated as the agency with lead responsibility for air quality planning. In other regions a separate air agency was either designated or established that would coordinate with the MPO. In either event, the MPO was assigned the responsibility both to (1) prepare the portion of the State Implementation Plan containing strategies for control of pollution from mobile sources (the transportation control plan) and (2) assure that the entire plan (stationary and mobile source controls alike) was “consistent” with the 3C planning process. 23 If a State implementation Plan was nor consistent with the 3C process, the 3C process itself could not be approved (“certified’ by DOT, and federal transportation construction funds could not flow to the area covered by the MPO.24 When MPOs were assigned the responsibility for advancement of projects through the 3C process to construction, it seemed appropriate to grant MPOs similar authority for meshing that selection process with clean air goals. The assumption was ill- founded. Problems arose regarding consistency determinations, certification reviews, and the MPO structure itself, that prevented effective coordination between air quality and transportation planning. Resolving these problems will be a gradual process as air quality and transportation planning activities fold 22 CAA § IO5, 302(b). 42 U.S.C. §%7405(aX2). 7602(b). 2323 U.S.C. § 109 (j). 23 C.F.R. §770.204. 2423 C.F.R. §770.204(d). 14 ------- togetner in tne next severai years. I he public has a large stake in assuring a smooth and effective transition, and it is, therefore, appropriate to review these identified problems in the air qualityj transportation planning process: MPO Structure: Although municipal planning organizations must endorse and program projects in order for such projects to get federal funding, MPOs are essentially voluntary organizations, with no independent governmental authority to tax, zone, legislate, or spend money other than on their own activities. They are essentially forums for mutual problem solving and cooperative action, designed to surface conflicts between the transportation proposals of the participating agencies and governmental units that make up their membership. 25 They must also rely on membership organizations to implement the selected projects, and for the information used in selecting projects. Unless they are in urban areas of over 200,000 population, MPO planning funds are channeled through the State, which also screens the projects selected by the MPO for inclusion in the State’s Program of Projects before submission to DOT. 2 6 This dependence on state agency support of MPO activities makes MPOs very sensitive to state desires in project selection. Similarly, MPOs depend on local governments for planning support (MPO staffers are often funded, at least in part, by participating governments) as well as implementation of most selected projects, particularly transportation system management strategies. Cooperation, therefore, is an essential 25 Stronger Federal Direction Needed To Promote Better Use of Present Urban Transportation Systems, General Accounting Office, CED-79- 126 • (October 4, 1979) p. 23. 2623 C.F.R. Part 420 (1978). ingredient of MPO success. Moreover, the MPO has virtually no interest in making a finding that planning does not conform to federal 3C planning or air quality consistency requirements since the consequence of such a finding is a cut-off of federal transportation funds to the area. Finally, the MPO is often not the only organization involved in regional planning. A 1977 study of the 3C planning process found that, of 261 MPOs nationwide: • only 35 also represented the recipients of capital funds from the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (DOT); • only 143 reviewed other federally financed or permitted projects in the region under the clearinghouse review process established by 0MB Circular A- 95; and • only 181 directed other comprehensive planning activities in the region. 27 Because of the essentially voluntary and cooperative nature of the MPO process, success in selecting and implementing transportation system management strategies that support clean air goals, as well as energy Urban System Study, Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress (1977), p. 42. I 15 ------- conservation and urban revitalization goals, depends on strong citizen participation to assure that these projects are advanced by the MPOs. Consistency Review: The heart of the effort to create a mutually-supportive air quality/transportation planning process during the 1970s was the “consistency review process” established pursuant to a mandate by Congress that DOT assure consistency between air quality plans and transportation projects. 25 DOT implemented this responsibility by requiring two types of consistency reviews: specific transportation projects were required to be consistent with the approved State Implementation Plan in the area where the project was located (microscale consistency) and the 3C process itself was required to be consistent with the air quality planning process in the region (mesoscale consistency). Microscale consistency was required for the approval of an environmental impact statement for a project; 29 mesoscale consistency was a condition of certification of the 3C process, and release of federal transportation capital and planning funds for the area. 3 ° The precise definition of “consistency,” however, both on the mesoscale and microscale levels, was left to the agency responsible for making the determination: the Regional Federal Highway Administrator for highway projects; the MPO (with FHWA review) for process- level determinations. This resulted in much confusion. Some consistency determinations were based solely on “good faith” commitments by MPOs to give due regard to clean air goals. Other determinations were based on detailed criteria designed to assure that transportation plans, when implemented, would not increase either total mobile 23 U.S.C. §l09(j) (1979). 23 C.F.R. §770.205 (1979). °23 C.F.R. §770.204 (1979). source pollutants or total area pollutants nor delay attainment of federal air quality standards. Still other areas simply inquired whether any particular transportation project was barred from implementation by the terms of the approved state implementation plan. If not, the project was approved. In five years of experience with consistency review, DOT has declared only one MPO planning process to be inconsistent with clean air goals, 3 ’ and has never refused to fund a highway project on the basis of unacceptable air quality impacts. (Note: these problems have been addressed in new “conformity” regulations jointly proposed by EPA and DOT. See p. 25). Another definitional problem existed with regard to transportation system management (TSM) projects. One purpose of the 3C regulations was to focus the attention of regional planners on short-term management improvements that could improve the efficiency of the existing system and promote national clean air goals in the process. During certification, reviews were made by DOT to determine if TSM programming and implementation were given priority. But few guidelines were given on how to define a TSM project. Consequently, some transit officials thought all transit improvements were such projects, even high cost projects that added capacity, such as a new transit line, a new high occupancy vehicle lane, or highway construction to reduce bottlenecks. Still other officials considered rehabilitation and maintenance—such as road resurfacing and bridge replacement—to be system management actions. 32 The result was that many projects that had little or nothing to do with the ‘Certification of the planning process conducted by the Denver Regional Council of Governments was revoked in October 1976. Certification was restored in April of the following year. 326A0, Stronger Federal Direction Needed to Promote Belier (ice of Present Transportation System, CED-79-126 (October 4, 1979.) achievement of air quality standards or energy conservation were given priority consideration under the vague rubric of TSM. 3C Certification: Implementation of the 3C planning regulations 33 identified a fundamental problem: lack of either an incentive or mechanism for resolving conflicts. While MPOs were responsible for endorsing planning activities and projects, the voluntary nature of the organizations required decision by consensus. Therefore, instead of coming to grips with the fact that member organizations proposed many more projects than could be built with existing funds, many MPOs would not make the hard choice of selecting some projects over others. Instead, they simply endorsed all projects (called “overprogramming”). 34 Similarly, instead of evaluating projects in light of regional land use, energy, and policy goals, MPOs would engage in elaborate “what if” studies (i.e., “what if” we focused new investments in densely populated areas, or “what if” we attempted to accommodate projected demand within existing capacity?) but did not apply regional policies when actually selecting projects. Moreover, MPO endorsement of its own planning activities and the projects located within its jurisdiction was the single most important criteria for certification of the planning process itself. Since an adverse finding meant no federal transportation funding for the region, a “don’t rock the boat” attitude prevailed which discouraged people from asking tough questions and demanding good answers. 23 C.F.R. Part 450, 40 Fed. Reg. 42977 (September 17, 1975). This is a violation of the 3C planning regulations which state that the total amount of funds approved for construction in the Annual Element must be “reasonably consistent” with the amount of Federal funds expected to be available to the area. 23 C.F.R. §450.312(d) (1979). 16 ------- Citizen Action Figure 8 Comparison of Ridership (Passenger Miles/Gallon) to Capacity Without a massive national movement toward regional government—an unlikely event in a nation where both States and localities jealously guard their respective governmental respon- sibilities—MPOs will remain essentially voluntary organizations and these problems of structure, consistency and certification will remain. While MPOs must assure that air quality and transportation planning are consistent, the difficult “how” question is yet to be addressed. That’s the job of citizens—asking the tough questions. Watch for plans that schedule more projects than can be built. Overprogramming destroys the whole purpose of having a cooperative decision-making forum since it is essentially a decision not to decide. Instead, the first projects to receive approval of detailed design and specifications get funded, regardless of the project’s relationship to regional goals. Demand that programming be related to regional policy, 35 even if this is no more than a narrative statement in the Transportation Improvement Plan or Annual Element explaining how the package of selected projects advances regional goals. The flip side of overprogramming is the failure to program and implement effective system management strategies, as well as failure to plan to reduce forecasted demand. Are alterna- tive growth policies studied for their effect on transportation demand? Your insistence on planning to minimize growth of new transportation demand does not make you “anti-growth,” it makes you “pro- planning for growth.” The same amount of growth can have a vastly different effect on the existing transportation system depending on whether it is planned or unplanned. 35 This is also a requirement of the 3C planning regulations. 23 C.F.R. §450.308 (1979). , “ Figure 8 relates capacity to existing use of that capacity by mode of travel. Obviously, substantial growth in traffic can be accommodated within existing capacity if growth is planned to make good use of that capacity. Once you have a good plan, make sure the MPO is programming transportation management strategies which support the plan. Federal regulations tie funding of mass transit discretionary capital grants to advancement and implementation of system management strategies in support of such grants. 36 Finally, solicit state transportation agency support for MPO-endorsed system management and public transportation projects. If a State does not concur with an MPO-endorsed non- highway public mass transportation project , it must explain that 49 C.F.R. Part 613. See also CAA §176(d), 42 U.S.C. §7506 (1978 pamph.) assigning priority attention to TSM projects. 1 1 nonconcurrence in writing. 37 If the MPO refuses to address your questions, write the certifying agencies 38 and ask that answers be provided as a condition of federal certification. The focus of citizen action should be to make sure that “all the cards are on the table” when programming decisions are made that affect regional air quality, growth, and energy use. When they are, consensus decisionmaking is facilitated, not jeopardized. 23 CF.R. §450.318(bXI). Air (Jet) Short Haul Average All Wide-Body Passenger Miles/Gallon D Seat Miles/Gallon U E J Width Represents I I Range of Estimates High Speed Ground Auto Average All :; Average l.C. Subcompact l.C. E I E 0 Rail (Suburb) Commuter “BART” Suburban 0. 1 1- Rail (l.C.) Metroliner Cross-Country I Bus Urban Suburban I A ” ra II - 40 80 Passenger or Seat— Miles Per Gallon Source: State and Regional Transportation Impact Identification and Measurement, Bigelow-Crain Associates (1976), p. B-3 38 Certitication is conducted by the Regional Administrators of UMTA and FHWA, in consultation with EPA pursuant to a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) of June 14, 1978 (Appendix B). Often, however, FHWA and UMTA will also consult with other DOT regional representatives (Federal Rail road Administration, Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration) as part of the certification process. All DOT regional representatives together are called “Intermodal Planning Groups” or lPGs. 17 ------- The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 In 1977 Congress undertook a major revision of the Clean Air Act.’ Its basic tructure survived, but increased attention was gi en to controlling mobile sources of pollution and the federal enforcement hand was strengthened. Here are a few of the improvements that can be used to promote urban vitality: First, The Act was extended to cover clean air regions. This protects urban areas from “industrial flight” by eliminating the incentive for iolluting industries to relocate in areas with less stringent air quality controls. 2 Second, the statutory deadline for attainment of national ambient standards was pushed back to December 31. 1982 or, upon a showing that attainment for carbon monoxide and ozone was not possible by that date, not later than December 31, l987. The Amendments provided for identifying those areas which had not yet attained air quality standards. 4 and required these “nonattainment areas” to revise their implementation plans by January 1, 1979. EPA was directed to review and either approve or disapprove these revised plans by July 1, 1979.’ Third, the transportation,’ air quality planning process was strengthened both to integrate planning activities on the federal (EPA! DOT) and regional (state local) levels and to assure implementation of effective transportation control strategies. New requirements included: (1) integrated planning. (2) the adoption of virtually all transportation control strategies that were available and effective (3) measure- ment of progress towards clean air goals as a condition of continued state implementation plan approval, (4) adoption of Inspection and Maintenance (I. M) programs. and (5) the development and funding of ‘Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 (1977), as amended by Pub. L No. 95-190,91 Stat. 1401-02 (1977) (technical and conforming amendments). The Clean Air Act, originally codified at 42 U.s.c. 1857-1858a, was recodified at 42 U.S.C. 2 CAA 160 ci seq (Part C), 42 U.S.C. *7470 ci seq (1978 paniph.) ‘CAA *172(a). 42 U.S.C. *7502(a) (1978 pamph.). 4 CAA *107(d), 42 U.S.C. *7407(d) (1978 painph.). ‘Section 129(c) of Pub. L. No. 95-95 (uncodified). ‘CAA 1 10(aX3XA), (c) 42 J.S.C. 47410(aX3XA) (1978 pamph.). comprehensive public transportation plans to assure that tht. basic transportation needs of urban areas would not be totally dependent on automobile transportation. Fourth, new infOrmation requirements were established. EPA was instructed to develop and circulate “information documents” explaining alternative control measures and how communities that had adopted these measures had fared. 7 Citizen participation require- ments were expanded beyond a right to review and comment on implementation plans to a right to participate in the planning process itself. Local elected officials were also given a greater role in the compilation of the implementation plan. Fifth, tough sanction provisions were imposed. DOT and EPA are now required to withhold federal highway and sewer funds if a State fails to make reasonable progress towards adopting and implementing an adequate air pollution control plan. It is this new responsibility of DOT to divert federal transportation funds away from projects that increase auto use (and auto emissions), and towards projects that reduce dependence on the private automobile, that makes the 1977 Amendments so important to citizens concerned about improving the efficiency of urban transportation systems. 7 CAA *108(f). 42 U.S.C. *7408(f) (1978 pamph.). Current Clean Air Act Requirements The Clean Air Act, as amended, set new clean air goals and required States to document “reasonable further progress” toward attainment by first conducting an inventory of present emissions and then establishing a continuing monitoring process to track progress towards achieving clean air goals. The control strategy for attaining air quality goals includes stationary source controls (controls on emissions from all stationary sources of pollution, such as industrial smokestacks); and mobile source controls (primarily automobiles— but including buses, aircraft, and other modes of transportation). For both, minimum requirements must be met. Each State with a nonattainment area for a specific pollutant is required to revise its implementation plan to explain how these requirements will be met and maintained. Since the deadline for plan revision was July 1, 1979, present efforts focus on approval and implementation of these plans—two areas where citizen assistance is needed. Figure 9 depicts problem identification, strategy development, implementation and monitoring. That’s a broad sketch of the Clean Air Act as it stands today. Here are the details: Federal Air Quality Standards The central feature and ultimate goal of the Clean Air Act remains achievement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA is empowered to set two types of standards. Primary standards are set at levels which are adequate to protect human health. Secondary standards are set at levels to protect human “welfare”—meaning all 18 ------- non-health related values, such as property, vegetation and scenic value. 8 Based on documented research, these standards are set at whatever level is necessary to protect human health and CAA §108(aX2), 42 U.S.C. §7408(aX2) (1978 pamph.). See South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 CAA §109(b), 42 U.S.C. §7409(b) (1978 pamph.). F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1974). Figure 9 Flow Chart for SIP Revision to Meet Oxidant and Carbon Monoxide Standards by 1987 welfare—without reference to the cost. 9 However, the cost factor has become increasingly important as subsequent research has revealed no threshold below - revised in light of the success of implementing the measures. Loop B emphasizes that the SIP must be periodically evaluated and revised in light of its success in maintaining reasonable further progress toward 1987 attainmenL If progress for any year falls below the level required, the SIP must be strengthened to compensate for this shortcoming. Source: National League of Cities There are two “feedback loops.” Loop A recognizes that implementation of transportation control measures will be highly dependent on the planning process developed by the lead agency. The planning process is depended on to develop public and political acceptance of the measures. The process should be continually evaluated and which no effect on human health is recorded and as the marginal cost of removing pollution increases. EPA designates both the pollutants ’° and the standards.” The primary and secondary standards for the “criteria pollutants”’ 2 are shown in Figure 10.13 Action Tip Due, in part, to a recognition of the difficulties in determining health-based standards and in controlling the marginal cost of reducing air pollution, Congress established a National Commission on Air Quality to study these problems. The Commission must study benefit! cost trade-offs in air pollution control and report its recommendations to Congress by March 1, 1981. It also has a broad mandate to involve the public in its deliberations. More information on what the Commission is studying and how you can get involved is available from the Commission’s Office of Community Liaison, 499 South Capitol Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20003. ‘°The establishment of NAAQS is actually a three step process. The Administrator first publishes a list of pollutants for which NAAQS are being considered. CAA §108(aXl), 42 U.S.C. §7408(aXl) (1978 pamph.). The Administrator next publishes a “criteria document” summarizing available scientific evidence on each pollutant on the list. CAA §108(aX2), 42 U.S.C. §7408(aX2) (1978 pamph.). Finally, on the basis of the information in the criteria document, the Administrator promulgates primary and secondary NAAQS. CAA §109(aXl), 42 U.S.C. §7409(axl) (1978 pamph.). The Administrator may from time to time modify or issue new lists, criteria documents and NAAQS. CAA §*l08(axl), (c), 109(bxl), (bX2), (d), 42 U.S.C. § 7408(aXl), (c), 7409(bXl), (bX2), (d) (1978 pamph.). “CAA §*108(a), 109(a), 42 U.S.C. **7408(a), 7409(a) (1978 pamph.). ‘ 2 ”Criteria pollutants” are those seven pollutants for which NAAQS have been established. They are distinguished from “hazardous pollutants” discussed subsequently. ‘ 3 NAAQS were first promulgated in 1971. 36 Fed. Reg. 22384 (1971) 40 C.F.R. Part 50 (1978). The lead standard was promulgated in 1978. 43 Fed. Reg. 46258 (1978). The ozone standard was relaxed in 1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 8202 (February 8, 1979). —(_ Identify nonattainment and ICR areas clinventory current emissions g / oject emissions for each calender year through 1987. (Add emissions from ( growth; subtract reductions from federal motor vehicle control program. l inspection and maintenance program, stationary source controls, and .8 transportation control measures already committed to.) , ‘ Develop emissions shortfall for each calender year through 1987 to achieve ‘reasonable further progress” line by 1982 and attain air quality standards \ , by 1987 Develop and periodically revise emissions reduction goals for transportation and stationary sources: Transportation: Stationary Sources: (primarily local) Iprimarily state) ( EPA develops information on “reasonabl ”\ available control technology” J technology I ,aluate progress ( Periodically review progress in achieving emissions reduction goals Attain standards Develop (and periodically revise)llocall agency planning process ------- Figure 10 NatIonal Ambient Mr Quality Standards Designation of Air Quality - ____________________________________________________ Control Regions Because air pollution does not respect Substance Calculation nlmary-standard Secondarv-standard political boundaries, air quality planning Photochemical Maximum 12 ppm same as primary must frequently cross city and even state oxidants / (expected) lines in order to be effective. In Ozone (03) in 1 hour recognition of this the Clean Air Act provides for the entire country to be Hydrocarbons Maximum in 160 microgm/m 3 same as primary divided in Air Quality Control Regions (HC) (corrected 3 hours, (0.24 ppm) (AQCRs) which correspond roughly to for methane) 6 a.m. -9 a.m. the major pockets of pollution. The 1977 Amendments called for Carbon Monoxide Maximum in 10 milligm/ m 3 same as primary States to identify those AQCRs, or (CO) 8 hours (9 ppm) Maximum in 40 milligm/ in 3 same as primary portions thereof, which did not attain 1 hour (35 ppm) the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria Sulfur Dioxide Annual geometric 80 microgm/ m 3 no standard pollutants. In these nonattainment areas (SO 2 ) mean (0.03 ppm) the responsible jurisdictions and agencies Maximum in 365 microgm/ m 3 no standard must work cooperatively toward 24 hours (0.14 ppm) reducing pollution to meet the Maximum in no standard 1,300 microgm/m 3 standards. In clean air or attainment 3 hours (0.5 ppm) areas, the effort must be directed to prevent any further deterioration of Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic 100 microgm/m 3 same as primary existing air quality. (NO 2 ) mean (0.05 ppm) In each AQCR is an air quality agency designated to coordinate the Particulates Annual geometric 75 microgm/m 3 60 micro n/ m 3 development of that region’s component (TSP) mean (only a guide) of the overall SIP. For nonattainment Maximum in 260 microgm/m 3 150 microgm/m 3 areas (within these AQCRs) that require 24 hours transportation strategies, a designated lead planning agency, usually a regional Lead Arithmetic mean 1.5 microgm/m 3 same as primary transportation-air quality planning (Pb) over 3 Months agency provides the transportation control plan portion. Assessing Air Quality An area is designated nonattainment for a particular pollutant if the national ambient air quality standard is violated more frequently than allowed. Accurately defining the air quality problem (according to degree, characteristics and sources) and substantiating the progress achieved in overcoming it, require the preparation of an emissions inventory, monitoring of ambient air quality and air quality modeling. Air quality monitoring directly measures the actual concentration of pollutant emission in the ambient (overall) air. It involves the use of deli- cate instrumentation which samples actual air quality. Monitoring (a) determines actual violations of the NAAQS and assists in defining the area which is 20 ------- nonattainment for the violating pollutant, (b) can be used to assure compliance so that specific stationary and mobile sources do not continue to exceed standards and (c) can be employed to track the progress in the actual reduction of pollutant emissions in overall air quality. The emissions inventory must be an accurate, comprehensive and current assessment of the volume and source of actual emissions from stationary and mobile sources. This may be accomplished by placing measuring devices directly on pollution sources or, more often the case, by estimation (computing the rate of pollutant emissions per level of activity by source). A reliable baseline emissions inventory enables planners to project the volume of future emissions based upon expected changes in population, economic and industrial activity and travel patterns. With an accurate picture of emissions, the nonattainment area can quantify the total amount of emission reduction required to meet healthful NAAQS. Technical, economic, social and political factors are then weighed in determining the emission reduction target necessary to be achieved from each contributing sector. It is important that citizens pay careful attention to the techniques employed in their area in determining the severity of existing and projected air pollution. Inappropriate analysis could lead to a misrepresentation of the air quality problem. Given the amount and source of emissions to be reduced, planning agencies in the nonattainment areas can then examine the emission reduction potential of various stationary and mobile source control strategies. The emission reductions projected to be achieved from these control strategies are usually estimates derived from air quality and transportation modeling. Modeling, a mathematical representation of real world conditions, can provide further definition to the severity of the air quality problem. It can help determine the temporal and geographic distribution of air pollution as well as the expected amount of emission reduction to be achieved per control strategy. Large MPOs, in areas with severe CO ailu J3 pIJuI 111a, aII !J expected to employ more sophisticated modeling. Monitoring and modeling will both contribute to the determination of reasonable further progress—a concept to which we now turn. Reasonable Further Progress Under the 1970 Act, a State’s responsibility was limited to implementing its plan. When, as a result of Congressional action or litigation, States were excused from implementing certain elements of their plans, clean air efforts floundered. Also, early calculations of the effectiveness of several control strategies proved overrated in practice, reducing the benefits gained from plans that were implemented on schedule. The 1977 Amendments require results, not just plans. Approval plans must now demonstrate “reasonable further progress” towards attainment of air quality standards during the course of plan implementation.18 Reasonable I8CAA *172(b), 42 US.C. *7502(b) (1978 parnph.). Figure 11 Reasonable Further Progress Current Ambient Air Quality Attainment Level (NAAQS) 1979 iuiuici piugivss is iuiuicr u iiii u as “substantial reductions (in emissions) in the early years following approval or promulgation of plan provisions . . . and regular reductions thereafter . . . which are sufficient in the judgment of the (EPA) Administrator to provide for attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard” by the required date.’ 9 EPA guidance further defines the extent of reductions as follows: “Reasonable further progress will be determined for each area by dividing the total emission reductions required to attain the applicable standard by the number of years between 1979 and the date projected for attainment (not later than 1987). This is represented graphically by a straight line drawn from the emission inventory submitted in 1979 to the allowable emissions on the attainment date. “20 In graphic form, “reasonable further progress” is depicted in Figure 11. ‘ 9 CAA *171,42 U.S.C. *7501(1978 pamph.). 20 EPA memo, attachment 1 (Criteria for Approval of 1979 State Implementation Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas) at 3. Attainment Deadline 1987) S.... ------- Drawing a line on a graph doesn’t accomplish much. Of importance is the fact that failure to maintain reasonable further progress requires revision of the implementation plan to include additional reasonably available control measures which were previously considered unnecessary to achieve air quality standards. In addition, transportation plans that call for construction of projects that will result in increased emissions (primarily new highway construction) must be delayed on a priority basis according to a “contingency plan” established in the State Implementation Plan approval process. (See discussion under the Conformity Requirement, p. 25.)21 This combines a “first, do no harm” principle with a commitment to periodically review progress towards attainment and adopt additional reasonably available control measures on an “as needed” basis. Stationary Source Controls Stationary source controls apply to both new and existing sources of air pollution. The minimum federal requirements are set forth in Figure 12. First, the Act establishes minimum, national standards for certain categories of new sources of pollution. These New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) establish a minimum level of control for specific new sources regardless of where the plant is built. 22 Second, additional controls are placed on sources hich emit “hazardous air pollutants”—pollutants which result in an increase in mortality and serious illness but for which no air quality standards have been established. (These include asbestos, beryllium, mercury, arsenic, and vinyl chloride.) 23 These National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) apply to both new and old industrial sources in attainment as well as non- attainment areas. 24 2 CAA §1’6(c) regulations (not yet promulgated). 22CAA §111,42 U.S.C. §7411 (1978 pamph.). 2M0 CF.R. Part 61(1978). 2 4 CAA §112. 42 U.S.C. §7412 (1978 pamph.). Third, new sources locating in nonattainment areas must be equipped with pollution controls to assure the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for the pollutants causing the violation. 25 Fourth, in addition to achieving LAER, new sources locating in nonattainment areas are subject to an offset requirement whereby the source must demonstrate that the pollution expected to result from its operation is offset by reductions in pollution from existing sources elsewhere in the area. 26 Fifth, existing sources in nonattain- ment areas, though not required to meet the tougher LAER standards, are required to apply Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). This means the level of control technology which is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. Sixth, because the lowest achievable emission rate and the offset requirement apply only to plants locating in polluted areas, it was feared that new sources CAA §4171(3), 173(2), 42 U.S.C. §47501(3), 7503(2) (1978 pamph.); 42 Fed. Reg. 55526. 26 An Offset Ruling was originally promulgated by EPA in 1976. 41 Fed Reg. 55524, 40 C.F.R. part SI, Appendix 5, revised, 44 Fed. Reg. 3274 (January 16, 1979). The 1977 Amendments, however, adopted this policy as law. CAA Amendments §4129(a), CAA §* 172(bX6), 173, 42 U.S.C. §%7502(bX6), 7503 (1978 pamph.). would go to unpolluted, rural areas. Consequently, the 1977 Amendments require that new sources locating in attainment (clean air) areas be required to utilize the best available control technology (BACT) to reduce pollution from both hazardous and criteria pollutants, and that States plan to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in these areas. 27 This requirement for plants in clean areas, although somewhat less stringent than the lowest achievable requirement, is restrictive enough to prevent the wholesale relocation of plants from polluted to nonpolluted areas. Control of these stationary sources of air pollution is of direct importance to citizens interested in urban transportation planning. Several regulated pollutants are emitted from both stationary and mobile sources. Examples are hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates. The requisite level of mobile source control necessary to achieve air quality for these pollutants therefore fluctuates according to the level of success achieved in controlling these pollutants from stationary source controls and the decisions and tradeoffs made in the political arena. Mobile Source Controls Inspection and Maintenance Of all the measures aimed at reducing transportation related pollution, inspection and maintenance (I/M) is sure to have the most immediate payoff. While other control measures are designed to induce greater transit ridership, promote efficient use of roadways, or reduce sprawl development, 1/ M focuses right on the tailpipe. By requiring an automobile emissions inspection (in the same way that many States now conduct safety inspections) a lid is put on the three enemies of an effective technological solution to air pollution: fuel switching, tampering and poor maintenance. 27 CAA §4165(aX4), 169(3)173(2), 42 U.S.C. §*7475(aX4), 7479(3), 7503(2), (1978 pamph.); regulations at 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (1974), 40 C.F.R. Part 52.21(dX2Xii). 22 ------- Recent studies demonstrate that I! M has an impressive payoff in reducing the auto-related pollutants—carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and ozone. Research conducted by EPA shows that emissions from tailpipes can be reduced an annual average of 24 percent for hydrocarbons and 34 percent for carbon monoxide by repair of catalyst-type automobiles which fail inspection. An added benefit of J/M can be improved fuel economy. Well-tuned engines result not only in cleaner air, but better mileage. Generally, inspections may be performed either by a state or local municipal authority (centralized program), or by licensed service stations and garages (decentralized program). In either case, the motorist brings the car into the inspection facility and pays a fee. A probe is inserted into the tailpipe to measure emissions. If the emissions are within standards prescribed by the State, the motorist receives a certificate of compliance or a windshield sticker. If the car fails the test, the motorist is given a statement of probable causes for the failure. The motorist must then have the vehicle tuned up or repaired and return for reinspection. 1/ M is required in each of the 29 States which have received an attainment deadline extension to 1987. (See Appendix F for a complete list of these nonattainment areas.) Of these, seven have already put JIM programs into operation. 28 J/M usually requires state 2S1/ M programs in operation prior to the Clean Air Act 1979 requirement include: ARIZONA: Mandatory since 1976, the contractor operated program focuses on the counties containing Phoenix and Tucson. One million vehicles including trucks and motorcycles are inspected annually. CALIFORNIA: A voluntary state program has been operated to obtain 1/ M data since 1975. Since March 1979, 1/ M has been mandatory for all vehicles in the greater Los Angeles area which undergo change of ownership. NEVADA: Inspections by licensed service stations, garages and auto dealerships began in July 1974 for change of ownership vehicles in Clark County, the home of Las Vegas. Mandatory If M began in 1980 for Clark County. Washoe County (Reno) currently has a change of ownership program. NEW JERSEY: A state-wide program tests approximately 4 million vehicles annually at 38 permanent sites. Private garage reinspection for failed cars is a special feature of this program. Began in 1972 with voluntary maintenance; the fully mandatory program commenced in February 1974. OHIO: The city of Cincinnati began a program in p75. Emission inspection was added to an existing safety inspection program. OREGON: Portland tests almost 600,000 vehicles biennially with a combination of permanent and mobile facilities. The state-operated program began in July 1975 after one and a half years of voluntary program. RHODE ISLAND: The statewide program began with inspection and voluntary maintenance in 1977. Fully mandatory 1/ M through certified private garages began January 1, 1979. Emission tests are performed in conjunction with safety inspection. legislation and citizens should track the progress of such legislation, where needed, through to enactment. But J/M alone will not solve the problem of transportation-related air pollution. This will require a basic restructuring of our urban transportation system to manage and control growth in transportation demand while maintaining present high levels of mobility. Transportation Control Measures As noted above, States that cannot achieve air quality standards solely through controls on stationary (industrial) sources for carbon monoxide and ozone by 1982 are required to adopt control strategies for mobile (transportation) sources of pollution. These mobile source strategies are called Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)29 and make up one element of the State Implementation Plan. 3 ° A critical problem with the 1970 Act was the uncertainty of state and local officials over their responsibility to adopt and implement controls on auto use. Since MPOs were responsible for implementing these controls through their programming responsibilities, and since MPOs were voluntary organizations that relied on the good will of member localities for their effectiveness, there was little incentive to require measures that would meet with 29TCM5 replace the term “Transportation Control Plan” (TCP) used in the 1970 Act. The change was made simply to emphasize that TCPs are one element of a SIP, not a separate plan. The terms TCM and TCP are used interchangably in this manual. Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies developed through the transportation planning process are TCMs if they are included in the SIP. 30 The term “element” refers to any part of a document. A SIP will be divided into elements for each AQCR within the state. (Thus the California SIP will contain a Los Angeles Element, a San Francisco Bay Element, and so on.) An element for a given area may in turn, be divided into smaller elements for each of the major requirements of the Act. (Thus the Los Angeles Element might contain a Transportation Control Plan Element.). Figure 12 Technological Requirements on Stationary Sources 4 Nonattainment Attainment Regions Regions New or Modified Sources LAER BACT NSPS NSPS NESHAP NESHAP Existing Sources RACT NESHAP NESHAP 23 ------- local opposition, such as parking taxes, reduction in the availability of parking, gasoline taxes, etc. More direction was needed. In 1977, Congress provided this direction by requiring nonattainment areas to “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable.” 3 ’ Moreover, Congress statutorily designated 18 different control strategies (see Figure 13) and directed EPA to prepare information documents explaining the “processes, procedures, and methods” necessary to put these strategies “on line.” 32 For purposes of study, all measures contained in these information documents are reasonably available. 33 This means that, if a nonattainment area chooses not to adopt one of these strategies, it has the burden of demonstrating why the excluded strategy is not reasonably available. Conclusory assertions of infeasibility are unacceptable. 3 ’ The analysis of reasonability should include a discussion of the impact of each strategy, or package of strategies, on air quality, health, and welfare, as well as their economic, social, and energy effects. 35 Basic Transportation Needs Despite the best efforts of federal, state, and local officials to implement plan requirements as soon as possible, attainment of air quality standards for transportation-related pollutants may not be possible by December 31, 1982. Therefore the Amendments provide for an extension of the attainment deadline to as long as ‘CAA §172(bX2), U.S.C. §7502(bX2) (1978 pamph.). 32CAA §108(l), 42 U.S.C. §7408(1) (1978 pamph.). ‘ 3 Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, June, 1978. p. 22. 34 Memorandum: Criteriafor Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions, From: the Administrator, To: Regional Administrators, I-X, Date: February 24, 1978, p. 9. CAA §172(bX9), 42 U.S.C. §7502(bX9) (1978 pamph.). Figure 13 Reasonably Available Transportation Control Measures Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, “Transportation..Air Quality Planning Guidelines,” June 1978 December 31, 1987 upon a finding by the EPA Administrator that attainment is impossible by the end of 1982. Twenty-nine states have received such extensions. However, there are additional requirements for States that request such delays. The most important requirement is that such States agree to prepare, fund, and implement a plan to “establish, expand, or improve public transportation meast res to meet basic transportation needs, as expeditiously as practicable.” 36 These plans were to be prepared and approved by July 1, 1979, and are therefore a current requirement for all plans with an attainment date beyond December 31, 1982. What are “basic transportation needs”? This is a question that should be answered in the State Implementation Plan, since the basic transportation needs of each nonattainment area vary according to the severity of existing pollution and the quality and quantity of existing public transportation in the region. However, the parameters of a good basic need plan should be set by first calculating how great a shift in travel from single passenger automobile to other modes is required to meet National Air Quality Standards (called the “modal split”). Basic needs, then, refers to whatever level of public transportation is necessary to comfortably accommodate all the people who will be shifted to public transportation modes to achieve the requisite modal split. The State Implementation Plan must contain funding commitments to accommodate this level of public transportation use. CAA §1 l0(aX3XD), (cX5XB), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(aX3XD), (cX5XB) (1978 pamph.). 1. Inspection! Maintenance programs 2. Vapor recovery 3. Improved public transit 4. Exclusive bus and carpool lanes and areawide carpool programs 5. Private car restrictions 6. Long range transit improvements 7. On-street parking controls 8. Park and ride fringe parking lots 9. Pedestrian malls 10. Employer programs to encourage car and vanpooling, mass transit, bicycling, and walking 11. Bicycle lanes and storage facilities 12. Staggered work hours (flexitime) 13. Road pricing to discourage single- occupancy auto trips 14. Controls on extended vehicle idling 15. Traffic flow improvements 16. Alternative fuels or engines, and other fleet vehicle controls 17. Other than light duty vehicle retrofit 18. Extreme cold start emission reduction programs 24 ------- Citizen Action Reasonably Available Control Measures, Reasonable Further Progress, and Basic Needs all require citizen enforcement. The Reasonably Available Control Measures requirement emphasizes the importance of analysis and full documentation of decisions not to adopt strategies that Congress has made presumptively available. Politically difficult strategies are often the most effective. Request (1) copies of the information documents (available from your regional EPA office), (2) a list of all transportation control measures under study by your MPO, and (3) full documentation of strategies not adopted. Many strategies are very effective in promoting energy conservation as well as clean air, and you may well be able to reduce political opposition by stressing their energy-savings qualities. If the State Implementation Plan commits only to studying a strategy rather than implementing it, is further study really needed? Is the study relevant to the reasonableness of the strategy? What are the criteria for separating reasonable from unreasonable strategies? Has the agency responsible for implementation agreed to implement the strategy if the study results are positive? Have strategies been grouped for greater cumulative impact? By what date? Is legal authority necessary to implement a strategy? If so, has that authority been obtained? Remember the problem of equity: who pays and who benefits? For other questions, see the “SIP Review Checklist” in Appendix D. Reasonable Further Progress also requires citizen vigilance. It cannot be determined without a comprehensive and accurate inventory of actual emissions from all sources in a region for use as the level from which progress is measured. Ask for a copy of the emissions inventory. How was it computed? There are several ways of calculating needed emission reductions, from a simplistic, hand calculated “linear rollback” model to very sophisticated “air quality diffusion” models. Linear rollback models fail to take into account the chemical interaction between pollutants. Consequently they understate the amount of emission reduction needed to meet the standards for certain pollutants, such as ozone. For this reason, rollback should not be used for ozone modeling in areas that have sufficient planning resources, and sufficient pollution, to justify more accurate modeling techniques. Is your modeling done according to “state of the art” techniques? Should it be? To what extent will vehicle miles traveled grow in your region? What are the major generators of that growth? Do you agree with the selection of projects to be delayed in the event reasonable progress is not made? Should the funds for these projects be transferred to transportation projects with positive air quality impacts? The basic needs requirement reflects an understanding by Congress that transportation controls will not work if people are not given a comfortable, low- cost alternative to automobile travel. Good basic needs plans hold the promise of achieving dramatic improvements in air quality (and energy conservation) at little cost in mobility. How are basic needs defined in the implementation plan? Do you agree? Does the plan calculate the modal split necessary to achieve air quality standards? Can the basic needs plan accommodate the percentage of the split assigned to public transit modes? Are there commitments to fund the plan? Several types of highway funds are transferable to public transit (incuding urban Interstate and Urban Systems funds). 37 Does the plan commit to the transfer of highway funds to fund basic needs or is funding totally dependent on the receipt of federal transit funds? This is important since highway funds are distributed by formula and are therefore more or less guaranteed, while most UMTA capital funds are discretionary grants distributed on an “as needed” basis and therefore much more tentative. The plan should include a discussion of the willingness of state and local officials to transfer highway Construction funds to public transit in the event federal transit funding of the basic needs plan is not obtained. 23 U.SC. **103(eX4) . 142 (1978), __________ Integration of Clean Air and Transportation Planning: The Citizen’s Role The Conformity Requirement The “consistency” review between air quality and transportation planning required since 1970 by the Federal-Aid Highway Act was, as noted earlier, inadequate. Air quality planning under the Clean Air Act was often conducted by a State or regional agency that had little or no communication with either the MPO or any of the agencies charged with implementing the air quality plan. This gap in coordination was addressed by the 1977 Amendments which required, whenever feasible, that MPOs themselves prepare the implementation plans for their regions. 38 Moreover, MPOs were to enter into agreements with implementing agencies designating responsibility for implementation as a condition of receipt of transportation air quality planning funds. Finally, the 3C process was to be coordinated with the air quality planning process and such coordination was to be taken into account during the annual 3C certification review. EPA and DOT worked together to implement the joint planning mandate outlined in the Amendments through joint publication of Transportation Air Quality Planning Guidelines in June l978. These guidelines provide, among other things, for (1) interagency cooperation establishing lead responsibility for transportation/clean air quality planning, (2) involvement of local elected officials, (3) public information and consultation, and (4) evaluation of alternative packages of transportation system management projects to meet clean air goals. These ‘CAA §174(a), 42 U.S.C. §7504(a) (1978 pamph.). 39 Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, June, 1978. 25 ------- guidelines also explain how 3C planning documents should be modified to incorporate air quality planning requirements. (See p. 10 for a discussion of the 3C process.) EPA and DOT have also entered into a “Memorandum of Understanding” providing for joint review and approval of both State Implementation Plan revisions (formerly an EPA exclusive duty) and 3C certifications (formerly a DOT exclusive duty). A copy of this Memorandum is included as Appendix B. A particular effort was made to improve the transportation/air quality consistency review process. “Consistency” was replaced by the 1977 Amendments with “conformity”, and it is now the affirmative responsibility of the preparing agency (DOT) to demonstrate conformity between federally-sponsored projects and clean air plans. EPA and DOT have issued joint guidelines explaining both how conformity reviews are to be conducted and how conformity is to be measured. 40 The conformity determination, like the consistency determination it supersedes, is made at two levels. The overall planning program must be found to conform to air quality requirements (program level conformity) and individual projects must be found to conform to the SIP (project level conformity). On the program level, the conformity determination is made at the first instance by the MPO and is reviewed by DOT and EPA as part of the 3C certification process (see DOT EPA Memorandum of Understanding, Appendix B). Essentially, program level conformity reviews the MPO program to make sure that the MPO is executing its responsibilities under the SIP, including (I) inventories, (2) state and local consultation, (3) evaluation and implementation of all selected control strategies on schedule, and (4) air quality monitoring to determine if reasonable further progress (RFP) is being made towards clean air goals. As long as the 40 As we go to press, final regulations implementing the conformity requirement have not been promulgated. However, on April 1. 1980. EPA announced in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it intended to require all federal agencies to adopt regulations to assure conformity of their actions with SIPs. On June 12, 1980, EPA and DOT adopted Procedures for Conformance of Transportation Plans. Programs and Projects with Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans. The discussion of conformity included in this book is based on this document which is intended to serve as the basis for a subsequent rulemaking. MPO is implementing its responsibilities under the SIP, program level conformity is assured. If it is not, however, 3C certification will be revoked and federal transportation construction funds to the area will be halted until the deficiencies are corrected. This is essentially the same penalty that may be invoked by EPA upon the failure of a nonattainment area to adopt an adequate SIP in the first instance (see Sanctions, p. 28). The difference is that it is a review of SIP implementation, not adoption, and it is a finding by the MPO and DOT, not EPA. Project level conformity is assured through inclusion of the project in a conforming program. As long as the emissions (total pollutant burden) generated by a project are accounted for in a conforming program, the project will be found to conform to clean air requirements. An additional feature of the new conformity regulations is the requirement that MPOs develop contingency plans. These plans focus on reasonable further progress (RFP), the standard measurement of SIP effectiveness. Despite the best efforts of all participants in the planning process to adopt and implement an adequate v i ’ 26 ------- Section 175 Grants SIP, RFP may not be maintained due to overly optimistic pay-offs from specific control strategies, tampering with emission control devices, fuel-switching, or some other unforeseen event. In such a situation EPA can direct that a SIP be revised to add more clean air strategies and, hopefully, to regain RFP. In anticipation of such an event, MPOs must establish a list of locally-selected projects that are expected to add to the total pollutant burden of the area. This list is called the contingency plan. If EPA directs that a SIP be revised due to the failure of an implemented SIP to maintain RFP, and f a project is in the contingency plan, then the project must be delayed until a revised SIP is adopted, unless the project is already under construction. This is all a bit complicated. If you still have questions after consulting these regulations, contact your Regional office of EPA or DOT for further explanation. One additional point, 3C certification is possible even if a State Implementation Plan is not fully implemented, as long as “reasonable efforts” are made to integrate clean air and transportation planning. However, if EPA finds that state and local officials are not making reasonable efforts to develop and implement a plan that meets statutory requirements, it may request DOT to prohibit further project approvals unrelated to safety, mass transit, or clean air, until such reasonable efforts are demonstrated. 4 ’ Reasonable efforts are also a condition of certification. 41 CAA §176(a). 42 U.S.C. 7506(a) (1978 pamph.). (regulations not yet promulgated). Congress has earmarked $50 million to help MPOs develop and implement transportation control strategies. 42 These funds are in addition to other funds authorized by the Clean Air Act for plan development 43 and by various transportation statutes for support of 3C transportation planning. The majority of these funds are apportioned to areas over 200,000 population that are nonattainment for carbon monoxide or ozone. 45 Applications for funds are filed with UMTA (DOT) regional offices. Requirements for funding include: • Assurance that MPOs and local officials will exercise a controlling influence over expenditure of funds. • Inclusion of the air quality planning elements required by the EPA-DOT Joint Planning Guidelines of June 1978 in the Unified Planning Work Program. • Compliance with EPA-DOT Expanded Guidelines for Public Participation (discussed below). The funds are to be used to identify effective transportation control measures and to evaluate these measures to determine if they are “reasonably available” for implementation, not to develop new air quality models or conduct modeling. These activities should be funded out of regular planning funds. They may also be used to fund citizen participation in the transportation control evaluation process. Public Participation The 1977 Amendments require the lead agency preparing the State Implementation Plan to develop “methods to assure participation by the public in all phases of the planning process.” 46 EPA and DOT issued joint guidelines in June 1980 to meet this requirement. The guidelines recommend that lead agencies devote 10 to 30 percent of their allocated Section 175 planning funds to carry out an effective citizen participation program. The guidelines also recommend that an ad hoc or established citizen panel be included in the development of the citizen participation program and that a percentage of the funds be passed 46 CAA § 108(e)(4), §7408(e)(4), (1978 pamph.). 42 These grants are made under the authority of CAA § 175, 42 U.S.C. §7505 (1978 pamph.). CAA §105, 42 U.S.C. §7405 (1978 pamph.). 44 There are, generally, Highway Planning & Research (HPR) funds and PL funds, allocated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §112, 307 (1978) and UMTA planning funds, allocated under Section 8 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §1607 (1978). 45 Each EPA Regional Office is also allocated $300,000 for distribution to areas under 200,000 on a discretionary basis. 27 ------- through to the citizen groups affected by transportation-air quality strategies so that they may more effectively participate in ongoing planning and implementation. Lead agencies must develop a “citizen participation work program” as well as performance criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of citizen participation efforts in contributing to pla3l implementation. Documentation of citizen participation, and lead agency response to citizen inquiries, is required. While public participation was confined under the 1970 Act to a right to notice and an opportunity to comment on proposed plans, States and lead agencies must now provide opportunity for public endorsement throughout the planning process and, particularly, at the following “key decision points” • adoption of the work program for inclusion in the 3C Unified Planning Work Program; • adoption of the public participation plan; • adoption of transportation control measures f systems management strategies for inclusion in the 1982 State Implementation Plan; • impact analysis of measures or packages of measures; • removal of a control measure or system management technique from a previously approved plan; • rejection of a control measure or system management technique as not reasonably available; • conformity determinations; • MPO endorsement of 3C planning elements, 3-C certification, and adoption of the State Implementation Plan. This does not mean that public hearings are required at each of these “key decision points.” It does mean, however, that the ongoing citizen participation program must allow for citizen involvement in these decisions, with the specifics to be worked out by each MPO and contained in a public participation plan. Once the SIP is developed, however, a public hearing is required on all elements of the proposed plan. Moreover, before EPA approves a plan, the Administrator is required to publish the proposed plan, or the notice of its availability, in the Federal Register and to solicit public comment. 47 The final adopted plan must be accompanied by a response to each significant comment received. 45 Finally, in a most important provision, the Act allows citizens to bring a private legal action, upon notice to the Administrator, against any polluter or governmental agency for failure to comply with an emissions limitation or a federal or state compliance order, and against the Administrator for failure to enforce a State Implementation Plan. 49 Federal judges may award attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to any party whenever the court deems such an award appropriate. 50 Congress recognized that the best plan is worthless if it is not enforced, and gave the public a central role to play in enforcement. Sanctions Dirty air, urban decay, and energy waste are not inevitable by-products of modernization. Nor have federal, state, and local governments remained neutral, leaving the natural process of urban development to the private sector. Controls on oil and gas prices, favorable tax treatment to single-family home owners, federally-assisted highway and sewer programs to serve suburbanization, incentive zoning on the state and local level—these policies and others have contributed, in a sometimes complex, often subtle manner, to present patterns of urban growth. More often than not, the contribution has been to provide present benefits— cheap energy, more access, low-cost housing—while deferring payment to some future millenium when all debts for consumption of our natural resource base will be excused. But the bill has now come due. How will this bill be paid? Clearly, changes in growth patterns, business habits, and even personal lifestyles are required. Incentives, wise investment decisions, and creative planning can CAA *304(a). 42 U.S.C. *7604(a) (1978 pamph.). SOCAA §304(d), 42 U.S.C. §7604(d) (1978 pamph.). 47 CAA §307(dX5), 42 U.S.C. *7607(dX5) (1978 pamph.). 4 CAA *307(dX6), 42 U.S.C. *7607(dX6) (1978 pamph.). ------- solv. many of our urban development problems. But the switch from an economic system that rewards resource consumption to a system that favors resource conservation will inevitably meet resistance from the beneficiaries of now outdated policies. In such cases, the stick is mightier than the carrot. This means sanctions. Most sanctions under the Clean Air Act are directed at private polluters from stationary sources. However, two sections of the Clean Air Act provide for sanctions against responsible govern- ments which refuse to adopt reasonably available strategies to control air pollution. The Clean Air Act requires the withholding of federal assistance for highway 5 ’ and sewer construction 52 —two programs that often support urban sprawl and, with it, air pollution—upon a finding by EPA that the state, the MPO, or the responsible locality has failed to make “reasonable efforts” toward development and implementation of an acceptable plan. Due to the possibly severe consequences of a cut-off of highway or sewer funds, EPA has formulated a two- step enforcement process. Instead of imposing sanctions immediately upon a finding that a plan fails to meet all requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA has chosen instead to issue “conditional approvals’s for inadequate plans. 53 A conditional approval is the bureaucratic equivalent of a shot-across-the-bow. Inadequacies in a plan are identified and the State or locality is put on a time schedule for compliance. If, however, compliance is not forthcoming, imposition of sanctions is automatic. 54 Since EPA has a non-discretionary duty to impose sanctions if compliance schedules are not met, violation of schedules contained in conditional approvals are subject to citizen enforcement actions under the citizen Suit provisions of the Clean Air Act. 5 ’CAA §176(a), 42 U.S.C. §7506(a) (1978 pamph.). 52 CAA §316. 42 U.S.C. §7616 (1978 pamph.). “EPA Guidance of June 8, 1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 67182 (November 23, 1979). Citizen Action The heart of the joint planning process is adherence to a common commitment to prepare, adopt, and implement an adequate plan in a timely fashion. This requires a great deal of support from state, local, and federal transportation officials. Solicit their support. If you have an idea for a systems management project in your neighborhood with positive air quality impacts (i.e., a new bus line, an auto-free zone, a joint development project, etc.) ask these officials to help prepare preliminary feasibility studies. Request that these studies be included in the work program and in the plan. Review projects in the contingency plan; do you agree with the selections? Is EPA adequately monitoring implementation? Is reasonable further progress being maintained? If not, should the plan be revised? Where you support a particular project for reasons of air quality, energy conservation, or neighborhood revitalization, these projects, once in a plan, must be given priority for implementation. 5 Are they? Again, consensus is the key to a successful joint CAA §176(d), 42 U.S.C. §7506(d) (1978 pamph.). planning process so your efforts to constantly educate all participants in the process of the positive impacts of systems management projects, and the priority status granted these projects by statute, are needed to assure successful implementation of an effective plan. Make sure citizen participation funds are spent to educate citizens on the “key issues” for resolution, not simply to sell the plan to the public after all the issues are resolved. Ultimately, these issues must be decided by the MPO and the agencies charged with implementing the plan, not citizens. But you have a right to be there when decisions are made, and to hold public officials accountable. Implementation of sanctions for failure to make “reasonable efforts” toward approving and implementing a plan is a recognition that everybody in the process—including citizen participants— have failed to do their part in achieving consensus. While sanctions may be necessary in those few cases where the process completely falls apart, they should not be relied on as a primary strategy for forcing action without first exhausting every available opportunity to make the joint planning process work. :;‘ ..J .,. :c , \.; •ii 29 ------- Putting the Law to Work: Opportunities For Urban Revitalization The European Experience The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The success of the new air quality! transportation planning process will be measured in results. Is it possible to cut our transportation energy use per capita in half while maintaining our standard of living? Can we clean up the air and maintain high levels of mobility? Will downtown areas again bustle with nightiife and commercial activity? Can urban historic sites be preserved? Is it possible to revitalize cities while still providing housing for those of low and moderate incomes? Can we restrain suburban sprawl and protect our remaining parks, open space and prime agricultural lands? If our cities are to be saved, these are the challenges we face in the 1980’s. But we need not sail uncharted seas. We have a map: the European experience. In a sense it is unfair to compare urban transportation systems in the United States with those of Western Europe. The differences—demographic, historic, and cultural—are great. In Europe, population density is ten times the population density of the United States. Open land is scarce. With virtually all oil imported, energy costs are high. In the U.S. abundant energy resources—and price controls—have kept energy costs low. Per capita income in the U.S. is still substantially higher than in most European nations. Higher U.S. income levels combined with lower land and energy costs, contribute substantially to the spread land use patterns characteristic of this country. In Europe, land use patterns were set before introduction of the automobile— often before introduction of any form of mechanized travel. In the U.S., rail, transit, and highway improvements have been used as frequently to open up new territory for development as they have to serve such development. Moreover, the destruction caused by two World Wars fought on European soil in this century has caused development to focus on rehabilitation and renovation of downtown areas. In contrast, U.S. development has spread rapidly to suburban and exurban areas. The focus on rehabilitation caused European cities to preserve and upgrade existing streetcar systems. In the U.S., our eagerness to develop new lands resulted either in the neglect or conscious destruction of these systems. These historical distinctions are dramatically reflected in the grid maps (Figure 14) of Paris and Los Angeles, cities of similar size but dissimilar history.’ Los Angeles, for example, tore down a 700 mile electrified trolley network in the 1940’s in favor of buses. Figure 14 Pans and Los Angeles: Comparison of Land Use and Population Density Source: Jorge Arango. The Lrhani:ation of the Earth, Beacon Press, (Boston, 1970) p. 59. km 0 Paris (Dense Center Pattern) Same Scale, Approx. same Population Los Angeles (Sprawl Pattern) Pacific Ocean 0 MiIe — 10 20 30 ------- These continental differences, however, rapidly are being overtaken by events. Automobile ownership as a percentage of the population is rapidly increasing. In West Germany, for example, automobile ownership skyrocketed from 81 per 1,000 population in 1960 to 290 per 1,000 population in 1977 (the U.S. figure was about 500 per thousand in 1977). Higher incomes are stimulating Europeans to move out of cities, resulting in the incipient breakdown of traditional high density land development along main transportation axes towards the more scattered development characteristic of the U.S. Noise and air pollution are accentuated in narrow European streets where much of the commercial activity takes place in open air markets. Both Europe and the U.S. face a severe and debilitating dependence on imported oil, as the skyrocketing bill for imported oil reduces employment and adds to inflation on both continents. We are all become nations of limits. Despite the inherent advantage of historical dense center development patterns that European nations hold over the U.S., they point the direction in which American cities must move to meet present environmental and energy mandates. Here are some lessons from the old continent and how you can apply those lessons to your city. Automobile Management: Auto use management is not a new concept in Europe. Over 120 cities in 14 countries have large pedestrian zones in their historic cities. 2 Pedestrian malls (auto-free zones) and automobile management strategies are measures that must be given priority if they are contained in your State Implementation Plan and transportation improvement plan. 2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Survey on Pedestrian Zones. Report to the Group of Experts on Traffic Policies for the Improvement of the Urban Environment (Working Document) Paris, April 5. 1978. Resistance to exclusive bus lanes and controls on auto use in downtown areas comes from user groups and suburban communities that want unrestricted access to core areas. Such restrictions, however, have been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3 Resistance can also be expected from owners of commercial buildings concerned about loss of business. Well-planned pedestrian malls, however, can result in dramatic increases in commercial activity. In Cologne, Germany, for example, shopkeepers initially opposed the closing of two primary downtown streets but later were so pleased with the results that they formed an organization which contributed 60 percent of the cost for repaving and lighting improvements. Your success in promoting a pedestrian mall will hinge on your ability, through education and planning, to overcome the natural resistance of owners, user groups, and suburban communities which influence transportation decision making in your city. Promotion of Public Transit: European cities have pioneered improvements in the operation of public transit systems, while in the U.S. our federal public transit programs have focused almost exclusively on capital assistance. Exclusive bus lanes, exclusive bus streets, and priority signalization for buses have improved bus speed and reliability in Europe up to 25 percent. Areawide transit passes in Paris, Hamburg, Stockholm, Munich and Dusseldorf provide unlimited access to the entire public transit system on a monthly basis. Today, 1.5 million such passes are sold each month in Paris. In Stockholm, where private car ownership is 370 per 1,000 population, almost three out of every four trips to the downtown area are made by public transit. The transit 3 Couniy Board of Arlington City, Va. v. Richards, 98 S.Ct. 24 (1977). 31 ------- pass is even more attractive in StockPiolm because it can be claimed as a deductible expense by all taxpayers who live more than 12 miles from their place of work (in the U.S. home-to-work travel is not deductible). In Hamburg, the emphasis is on service. Its entire 1,250-mile, five mode (subway, trolley, commuter rail, bus, ferry) integrated transit system operates on one timetable with fringe-to-core service guaranteed in no more than 45 minutes, with peak-period headways (waiting time at any stop) of 5 Action Tip You probably cannot afford to go to Europe to study these traffic management strategies yourself. However, there are publications that can get you and your MPO started. The Rediscovery of the Pedestrian. 12 European Cities (1976) provides an excellent description of European pedestrian mall initiatives and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Stock No. 023-000-00374-4, price: $1.80. Two organizations concerned with the transfer of technology on urban mobility between Europe and the U.S. are the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, and The German Marshall Fund of the United States, 11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. minutes. Comprehensive schedules for all five systems are published twice a year and sold at newsstands, with pictorial symbols for foreigners. Rate structure, timetables, and routings are constantly reevaluated to adjust to changing demography, travel patterns, and work habits. Public transit in Europe emphasizes operational improvements, integrated planning, and marketing of services over new construction. Flexibility is guarded in order to provide service levels appropriate to the needs of the community. The availability of consumer information (to attract patronage) and reliability (to retain patronage) are as essential to the success of the system as a new rail line or modern buses and trains. In your city, these operational and service improvements are essential components of the comprehensive public transportation plan to serve basic transportation needs required in all post-1982 non-attainment areas (see BTN Plans, page 24). If you live in such an area, study your basic transportation needs plan to see if it takes full advantage of the lessons available from European transit systems. A footnote on energy. Europeans use only 34 percent of the energy Americans use per capita on transportation. 4 In the area of passenger transportation, Western Europe uses only 26 percent of the energy we use per capita to maintain personal mobility. 5 In fact, 55 percent of all the energy in the world that is used to maintain mobility is expended in the U.S.6 Clearly, efficiency improvements in urban mobility are a crucial priority in the U.S. And the effort to achieve efficiency is being made—through transportation systems management and transportation control planning. 4 Regional Transportation Energy Conservation Data Book, ORNL-5435 (1978), p. 400. 5 1d., p. 406. 61d p. 404. Transportation Systems Management The purpose of Transportation Systems Management is to meet future growth in transportation demand through efficiency improvements, thereby avoiding the need to build new systems to meet this demand. However, it also refers to actions that control growth in demand and divert traffic away from areas where high traffic levels are inappropriate. In systems management planning, all modes— automobiles, public transit, pedestrians, taxis, buses, and bicycles—should be considered as elements of one single urban transportation system. Efficiency improvements on one mode may result in restraints on another mode within any particular traffic corridor. Therefore, systems management means restraints on traffic (such as exclusion of through traffic from residential neighborhoods) as well as traffic flow improvements. The FIgure 15 Residential Street Use Source: Fred Van Antwerp, The Restraint of the Automobile in Established Residential Areas: An Implementation Policy Analysis, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801 (1979), p. 59. 32 ------- identification of management options within any particular area, and the brokering of a solution acceptable to alt users of the transportation system in that area, is the challenge of systems management planning. It won’t be easy. One urban arterial highway, for example, may serve as the right-of-way for more than just automobiles. There may be a lane reserved for high-occupancy-vehicles such as carpools and vanpools, an exclusive bus lane, a track for light rail vehicles (trolleys), or a bikeway. Similarly, in urban residential areas, or areas of mixed residential! commercial use, a street may serve several different purposes. It may serve as a way for travel within the neighborhood, between neighbor- Selected TSM Measures Actions to ensure the efficient use of existing road space through (1) Traffic operations improvements to manage and control the flow of motor vehicles, such as: Channelization of traffic One-way streets Better signalization and progressive timing of traffic signals Computerized traffic control Metering access to freeways Reversible traffic lanes Other traffic engineering improvements (2) Preferential treatment for transit and other high-occupancy vehicles, such as: Reserved or preferential lanes on freeways and city streets Exclusive lanes to bypass congested points Exclusive lanes at toll plazas with provisions for no-stop toll collection Conversion of selected downtown streets to exclusive bus use Exclusive access ramps to freeways Bus preemption of traffic signals Strict enforcement of reserved transit rights-of-way Special turning lanes or exemption of buses from turning restrictions (3) Appropriate provision for pedestrians and bicycles, such as: Bicycle paths and exclusive lanes Pedestrian malls and other means of separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic Secure and convenient storage areas for bicycles Other bicycle facilitation measures (4) Management and control of parking through: Elimination of on-street parking, especially during peak periods Regulation of the number and price of public and private parking spaces Favoring parking by short-term users over all-day commuters Provision of fringe and transportation corridor parking to facilitate transfer to transit and other high-occupancy vehicles Strict enforcement of parking restrictions (5) Changes in work schedules, fare stnic- ture and automobile tolls to reduce peak- period travel and to encourage off-peak use of transportation facilities and transit services, such as: Staggered work hours Flexible work hours Reduced transit fares for off-peak transit users Increased peak-hour commuter tolls on bridges and access routes to the city Actions to reduce vehicle use in congested areas through: Encouragement of carpooling and other forms of ride sharing Diversion, exclusion and metering of auto- mobile access to specific areas Area licenses, parking surcharges and other forms of congestion pricing Establishment of car-free zones and closure of selected streets to vehicular traffic or to through traffic Restrictions on downtown truck delivery during peak hours Actions to improve transit service, :hrougk Provision of better collection, dis- tribution and internal circulation services (including route-deviation and demand- responsive services) within low-density areas Greater flexibility and responsiveness in routing, scheduling and dispatching of transit vehicles Provision of express bus services in coor- dination with local collection and dis- tribution services Provision of extensive park-and-ride serv- ices from fringe and transportation cor- ridor parking areas Provision of shuttle transit services from CBD fringe parking areas to downtown activity centers Encouragement of jitneys and other flexible paratransit services and their integration in the metropolitan public transportation system Simplified fare collection systems and policies Provision of shelters and other passenger amenities Better passenger information systems and services Actions to increase internal transit management efficiency, such as: Improving marketing Developing cost accounting and other management tools to improve decision- making Establishing maintenance policies that assure greater equipment reliability Using surveillance and communications technology to develop real time monitoring and control capability ------- hoods, or merely as a conduit for through travel from the suburbs to the city. It also may serve as a playground for children in the area, a right-of-way for telephone, water and sewer lines, and a bikeway. While the non-transportation uses to which residential streets are put may suggest that restraints on access and use are appropriate, provisions must be made for fire and police vehicles, and ambulances. Finally, a street may represent one type of opportunity to an urban planner, who may want to line it with trees, make it into a pedestrian mall, or eliminate it for development, but a quite different type of opportunity to an urban transportation planner or traffic engineer who might want to widen it to serve through traffic, make it a one-way street to facilitate flow, or eliminate certain users (i.e. trucks) for purposes of safety. These competing claims to streets can cause conflict. Figure 15 summarizes the conflicts that may arise on the uses to which a residential street may be put. Systems management plans must address these conflicts through the 3C brokering process established by the MPO. Since many systems management projects may be of little interest beyond the neighborhoods in which they are proposed, a mechanism should be established with the MPO to allow neighborhood groups to use the technical assistance available with 3C planning agencies to both (1) identify systems management projects that serve neighborhood needs, and (2) evaluate these projects in light of regional goals, such as clean air and the development of an efficient, integrated urban transportation system. The column on Selected TSM Measures lists strategies that should be considered within the 3C process and evaluated for their ability to promote the regional goals identified by the MPO. 7 Many systems management strategies, of course, double as transportation control measures for inclusion in State Implementation Plans. If a systems management strategy is included in a State Implementation Plan, it must be given priority for implementation by the MPO. 8 Since systems management strategies have relatively low implementation costs, funding should not be a problem. (If the MPO or state transportation agency says funding is a problem; look at the list of new construction projects in the implementation plan. All federal-aid urban projects are transferable to support systems management strategies. Is transfer necessary?). However, the feasibility of systems management strategies varies widely with the demography and size of the urban area involved. For example, carpool lanes and tolls may be appropriate for large cities with discrete access points—such as New York City—but inappropriate for a small city (50,000-100,000) with unlimited access from every direction. Costs of administration of systems management strategies are another factor in selection. Finally, if a systems management strategy is proposed primarily for its contribution to clean air goals, its ability to actually reduce emissions becomes of greater importance than if it is proposed as a transportation service improvement or neighborhood auto restraint project as well. In such cases, the air quality pay-off should be well documented. Also, make sure the transportation control measure proposed is consistent with the air pollution problem involved. Transit management improvements (projects that encourage commuters to switch from autos to transit) will address regional air pollution problems such as ozone, while roadway assignment improvements (reversible lanes, one-way streets, car pool lanes, etc.) will address the more localized site problems, or hot spots, of carbon monoxide. The great number of available systems management strategies, the great number of interests involved, and the dual role of air pollution! traffic management, places a premium on planning. Systems management planning is very adaptable to citizen participation since these strategies are developed primarily for particular sections of the community and count on citizen support for their success. Make sure your locality has the legal authority to implement strategies that involve auto restraints, and adopts the strategies with the active involvement of citizens in the project area. DOT is placing increasing emphasis on systems management as a primary purpose of federal-aid transportation assistance as large new construction projects become less needed and less affordable. Citizens should therefore look to state and federal transportation agencies, as well as EPA and the MPO, for increased assistance in developing and implementing systems management projects. For information on the 18 systems management strategies that are “reasonably available” by virtue of their identification in the Clean Air Act itself (see p. 24), ask for a copy of the “Information Do ment” prepared for these measures from your regional EPA office. ‘See Appendix F for list of areas which have received an extension. *CAA *176(d), 42 JJ.S.C. *7506(d) (1978 painph.). 34 ------- Figure 16 Characteristics of Some Commonly Implemented TSM/TCP Measures Ap abl e City Size TSN STRATEGIES AND TACTICS Strategy Taetics Area Scale of Air Appication Quality In pac’s A. Traffic Operations 1. Intersection and Roadway Wideru.rig j)(j I 1 1 ItI — - — 2. One—Way Streets - — 3. Turn Lane Installac .on - — B. . Tra2fic Siqnaliza - . tion - 4. Turui.ng Moven%eOt anc Lane Use Restr ct .ons - . I - - - — -- -r — —— d - - F - - - - - xl* - I — - - — x — — S. New Freeway Lane Us .n; S ouloers 1. Local Intersection Siqnal Isnrovement : . Arterial S .gnal Syster 1 1 3. Area Sic j Systen 4. Freeway Diversion and Adv’sory S gn n5 5. Freeway Surveillance and COntrol C. 0. E. . 1 Pedestrian end Bicycle Roadway A . s sigr ent RoUte Diversion Par k ng Manaq ent Transit Ooerations 1. Widen Sidewalks ) -I -— 4 2. Pedestri.an Grade Separation - - - - — . - . . — 3. B kewavs : — . . . . — 4. Bike Storaqe : — Pe a str .an Control ear: .ers j - - 1. Exclusive Bus Lane — Arterial I a) Take—a—Lane hI Add—a—Lane — 2. Bus—Only Street - I 1 )c )• — I — 3. Contra—Flow Bus Lane - - - — 4. Reversihie Lane Ssytens - I- - L . — — 5. Freeway NOV Bynass 1 1 — — 6. Exclusive NOV Lane — Freeway I i T — a) Take-a-Lane X IX x j hI ?.oo-a-L .ane I - . .L x 1. Area Licensinc 1 j yJ x 2. Auto Restt cte lor.es : i .1x1_ — - — 3 Pedestrtar Y.alls lxT• X I — — 4. r j j . — -: 1. curb Pcrkirtg Restrictions I xI x I 2. Aes .denttal Parx .ng Control xf xt • 3. Cf —Street ?erx. . Resrrtc tcns xix x x - — 4. OV Pre erentLal ark .ng II Gxt - - x_ - - - — 5. Parking Rate Chances I ix x —P -- - - - 1. Bus Route and Sci edu2e ModifiCations -1 xJyI xI x 2. Exoress Bus $ervtce I x L — 3. Bus Trafftc 33.rnal Preenot .on I .1?(...L.L. - — 4. Bus Tern .nais X I t — K. Transit - Manacement 5. S j lizted Fare Col ,ection I - 1. Marketinc Proorar x I 2. MaJntenance lrtrcvarnan . — X — . I_ •— 3.Ve eFletrovene n lx i . 3. K. L. Znee odal Coor .nat .on C ercial Vehicles Work Schedule Pricing 4. Cce.rata.or .s Mcn .tortnc ?rotran 1. Perk—Rads !atilitte 2. Transfer provemer.ts 1. Op—Street oa i n Zones 2. Off—Street Load .nc Areas 3. Pea . - —hour Co—Street Load n; Pro i: oo 4. Truck Route Systen 1. Staocered Work Hours and Flex -. T x — — 1 L 1 i• - 1 I • fx j— I - I - — Tt — ixI _ _ N - x - I - — I ) i j - — — j X - 2. 4-Day Week - X xf x — — .. Peak—Hour Tolls - I i I . k.. X 2. Low—Occupancy Ve:r tcle Toils — j I ix XI F x - — 3. Gasoline Ta T1 L x x - — 4. Pea ,c/Cff—ea.. Trensit Fares . - - - — 5. Elderly and Nand .capoed Fares J X — ‘ . — ratra stc . 6. Reduce Trar s Fares - I I I r— -— 1. .arcool Mator. nç ?roctar$ Ixxp I. .anuooi Prorraru - X 3.t a/ Group?.rir? r ocra cs - — .X Xl Z.criev SerVtce o C...OCZ.V art re.nd,.raooed Serv.tce 1- --— - lx IX I X 1 - — x X ::: It . — . i - Source: iRK & Associates and Peat, Marwick. Mitch lI & C0. Material pro ared for FIIWA Measures of Effectiveness for Multi—Modal Urban Traffic Management Project. June ]78. fDCeft) 35 ------- Plans to Meet Basic Transportation Needs The concept and requirements to meet basic transportation needs (BTN) represents the “bottom line” of a city’s commitment to clean air, energy efficiency and individual choice in meeting mobility needs. It is probably one of the more significant decisions concerning the form and direction of future urban growth facing severely polluted cities today. It provides both the opportunity to redress past mistakes and the potential for compounding these mistakes. If done correctly, it provides support for the neighborhood-level improvements discussed elsewhere in this manual and assures the success of automobile restraint measures. If done poorly, it could mean both severe financial hardship and widespread public disaffection for transportation control measures that discourage auto use, while providing no alternative for meeting the travel needs of an urban population. BTN plans—comprehensive public transportation plans—are a required component of every State Implementation Plan which provides for attainment of federal air quality standards after December 31, 1982. Since 29 States have been granted Action Tip Neighborhood groups may make use of a variety of strategies to control and divert traffic in residential areas. Described in Figure 17 are physical restraint devices that may qualify for funding as systems management strategies. A more detailed description of these devices may be found in the U.S. DOT publication, The Restraint of the Auto,nobik in American Residential Neighborhoods, available for $7.00 from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161, Order No. PB287-485-A5. Another recent publication, Improving the Residential Street E,svironment, is available from the Environmental Division, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. attainment extensions, 9 BTN plans should already be developed and progressing toward implementation in nonattainment areas within these States. Check to see if your State Implementation Plan includes a BTN plan. If not, request guidance from your Regional EPA and DOT offices on the criteria for basic transportation needs plan development and approval and request discussion of the requirement at the next MPO meeting.’° Here are some issues that need to be addressed. Inventory of existing service: The first step is to determine what you have to work with. What are the assets of your present municipal transportation system? These assets can be subdivided into two general subcategories: physical assets and quality of service. Physical assets are just that: track and line structures, “rolling stock” (trains, buses, subways, trolleys, etc.), depots, signals, communications, repair facilities, etc. Quality of service can be measured by how well the system performs (performance standards) and includes such things as security, average headway, reliability, capacity, lighting and noise levels, cleanliness, availability of travel information, comfort, and convenience. The subjective nature of some of these performance standards underscores the importance of citizen participation in establishing the 9 Sce Appendix F. ‘°To date, EPA has proposed the disapproval of only one 8TN plan (New York City). For a good exposition of BTN plan requirements, see the proposed disapproval statement found at 45 Fed. Reg. 43794 (June 30, 1980). Figure 17 PhysIcal Restraint Devices LJ n n fi Diagonal Diverter Semi-Diverter J L nyfi nfl Cul-De-Sac Star Diverter 4 bdL Jc.L nfl nn Choker Traffic Circle LJ L n nllr Forced Turn Median Barrier Source: Fred van Antwerp. The R.s*raint of the Automoblie ri Established Raisdential Areas: An lvr lementation Policy Analysis. Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. Pennsylvania State University, University P.& PA ieeoi (19 ). 36 ------- inventory, for it will reflect what the community wants out of its public transportation system.” Inventories cost money. Clean air planning funds (Section 175 funds) may be dedicated to such inventories, as may 3C planning funds. Perhaps a special appropriation from your city council or state legislature is needed. Broad-based metropolitan-wide citizen groups may choose to undertake preliminary surveys on their own to demonstrate the need for a structured effort. Solicit the help of y,ur city planning department. Does it have a transportation division? Who is responsible for mapping long-range transit strategy? The answer may be shocking: no-one. Transit authorities are so financially hard-pressed in this country that often the sole planning focus is on “keeping the trains moving.” A basic transportation needs plan requires a hard look at the future, as well as the present. Basic needs What are the “basic transportation needs” of your community? This is a tough question, and one deserving of vigorous debate where the basic needs requirement pertains. The trick is to focus the discussion on quantifiable needs, not purely descriptive statements such as “fast, clean, efficient, safe.” A declaration that “the region should have the best transit system that it can afford” 2 is unacceptable, for it is totally dependent on subjective judgments as to what is “affordable” and subordinates transportation needs to fmancial needs. Instead, the focus should be on system performance. In general terms basic needs require thai public transportation be improved to the point where its inadequacy is not a factor in implementing policies designed to induce sh fls from private to public transportation.’ 3 In short, if lack of adequate public transit is the justification for labelling a transportation control measure “not reasonably available,” public transit must be improved to the point that it becomes “reasonably available.” When developing a basic needs statement, it is helpful to keep in mind what a public transit plan cannot do. First, it cannot duplicate the privacy, security, comfort, flexibility and point- to-point service available from automobile travel. Second, it cannot change past land use decisions which, by influencing population densities, strongly influence the level of public transportation service any given area can support. Third, it cannot change people’s inclination to choose the form of transportation which best meets individual needs. What it can do, however, is to reduce or eliminate barriers that channel decisions regarding individual transportation needs away from selecting public transportation. These include: Time: What is the total time necessary to travel from work? See description of the Hamburg, Germany experience, page 32. Level of Service: Waiting time at stops often determines patronage. A line with six trips per hour (10-minute headways) may lose virtually all its patronage if service is reduced to two trips per hour (30-minute headway). Basic needs service levels will rise for peak level service (perhaps to 5-minute headways) and decline for off-peak service. Accessibility: Transit won’t be used if it is not accessible. Where are the stations and bus stops located with respect to residential areas? Is there a focused effort to tie service levels to residential density? The basic needs statement should establish basic service levels for the various population densities throughout the system. Security: In a recent two-week period the New York subway system experienced a rape, two muggings, and one death when no assistance was provided a heart attack victim. Such experiences have a devastating effect on transit patronage. Lighting, police, and emergency assistance alarms are all quantifiable performance standards for security. These are only examples of relatively objective basic needs standards. Similar standards can be established for other measures of acceptable transit services such as comfort, efficiency and cleanliness. The use of polls may be appropriate to test public perceptions of the major impediments to transit travel that block successful implementation of auto restraint measures. Finally, while public transit cannot change past land use decisions, it can influence future decisions. Development follows availability of transportation, and vice- versa. Wise selection of transportation investments can act as a brake on increases in transportation demand, and encourage dense development along transportation axes that meet basic needs (see Joint Development, page 40). This, in turn, may force a change in the basic needs statement to accommodate the increased patronage that accompanies such development. 1 I & excellent example of a serious effort at developing a public transportation inventory for New York City is A New Direction in Transit, published by the New York City Planning Commission in December 1978. It is available from the Transportation Division, Department of City Planning, New York City. ‘ 2 Rejection of New York SIP: 44 Fed. Reg. 5694 (Jan. 29, 1979). 13 Letter from EPA Administrator Douglas M. Costle to Governor Hugh L. Carey, dated June 20, 1978; see also Memorandum: Draft Guidance on Public Transportation Plan Required by Section I 1O(aX3XD) and 1 10(cX5) of the Clean Air Act, From: David 0. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, To: Regional Administrators, Region l-X, Date: April25, 1978. L rz -y R .)om 21.i 4 r r ç P i—213 W * gton, D.C. 2 )46 37 ------- Transit User Panels Commitments: The Clean Air Act gives funding of basic needs plans priority status. In fact, all federal, state, and local funds that qualify for expenditure on basic needs plan implementation must be so used, insofar as they are necessary to meet the basic needs requirement) 4 This requirement is the complement of the requirement that reasonably available control measures be given similar priority status in MPO project programming,’ 5 and reflects an understanding by Congress that it makes little sense to implement controls on auto use if alternative means of mobility remain unavailable. A first step in establishing commitments is to inventory all available federal, state and local funding for any part of the basic needs plan. The obvious sources are federal highway and transit funds, state transportation authorizations and budgets, bonding authorizations of state or regional revenue bond authorities, and municipal authorizations and budgets. Study restrictions on the use of such funds. Federal transportation assistance is becoming mcreasingly flexible. Up to 50 percent of federal highway apportion for primary, secondary, and urban system programs are interchangeable (23 U.S.C. §120.) Moreover, federal interstate highway funds within or linking urbanized areas can be transferred to public transit, as can urban systems funds )6 If funds are available for basic transportation needs implementation pending local request, they are not rendered unavailable simply because local officials have not made such a request. They must be placed in the ledger of available funds. Basic transportation needs plans, since they are so closely tied to comprehensive urban development plans, may well qualify for funding outside the ‘ 42 U.S.C. §7410(cX5XB) (1978 paniph.). ‘ 42 U.S.C. §7506(d) (1978 pamph). “23 U.S.C. §*l03(eX4), 142 (1970). traditional transportation financing pot. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding for regional master planning) 7 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) funds could be used to hire a basic needs planner. HUD also operates an Urban Development Action Grants Program that may be used to promote joint development around transit lines. The Economic Development Administration may provide project assistance for joint development projects in support of a basic needs plan. A full inventory of federal urban assistance programs is available from the federal government.’ 8 Combine this inventory with your inventory of state and local programs and then approach your local elected officials through the MPO for commitments to use these funds in support of the basic needs plan. Meeting basic transportation needs is an on-going process. The three basic activities necessary to meet BTN requirements (inventory, plan development, funding commitments) are not sequential. All three activities can and should proceed simultaneously. Your MPO and regional DOT and EPA offices can provide more information on how to participate in the basic transportation needs planning process in your area. “Section 701. Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance should be available for $20 from the Super- intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402. Another publication. Neighborhood Oriented Programs of the Federal Government: A Compendium of Funding and Technical Assistance Resources for Neighborhood Organizations (October 1979) is available from the Office of Neighborhood Development, HUD-401, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C. 20410. The commuting community includes those who prefer. public transit, the totally transit dependent, the “sunshine patrons,” and the autophiles. It is the sunshine patrons who determine the success or failure of public transit service. These are the fickle “maybe’s:” f they don’t have to wait in the rain; if they have the right change; if they know how to make the right connection; if they don’t have to watch five buses go by full before boarding; tf the driver doesn’t close the door in their face; etc. These patrons are extremely service sensitive. If they wait in the snow for thirty minutes just once for a bus that is supposed to come every ten minutes, they may abandon transit altogether. More than in most commercial opera- tions, a successful transit program depends on “keeping the customer satisfied.” This lesson was lost, however, in the post World War II era as reductions in transit ridership caused service cutbacks which, in turn, drove more people away from transit into the arms of the increasingly attractive auto commute. The skyrocketing cost of car owner- ship and use, however, coupled with our critical national energy and environ- mental agenda, has presented public transit with a second chance to win back some of its sunshine patrons. But transit operators must keep close to the pulse of citizen concern. A “User’s Panel”—a group of commuters who volunteer to oversee transit operations—is one means of tapping that concern. Polls are another, but the advantages of users’ panels over polls are that (1) citizens will initiate new ideas while polis merely reflect, and (2) citizens are enormously conscientious. Give them responsibility and a mandate to protect the public trust and they will work hard to meet that responsibility. London has a formal users’ panel made up of citizens who are generally elected to supervise transit decisionmaking. Boston has made sev- eral attempts to form a users’ panel, but has been unable to institutionalize the 38 ------- process.’ 9 A big problem is selection. Election is a cumbersome process, but appointment by transit officials risks co- option. The selection process is an issue each community must address on its own. If you are successful in establishing a users’ panel, three areas where you can contribute significantly in decision- making are fare structures, routing and scheduling, and quality of service: • An optimalfare structure should be low enough to attract patronage, be affordable to low-income users, yet cover costs of operation. However, due to a generally perceived commitment to provide at least some service at all hours to the complete system, revenues will not cover costs. The issues then raised include: What is an acceptable deficit? How much off-peak (nonrush hour) service should be provided? Will fare increases actually reduce revenues through loss of patronage? What about zone fares versus flat rates? How about free transit (total subsidization through taxation), or are free pass programs better (selective subsidies to the poor, elderly, handicapped)? These are all public issues which should be answered in light of community values and commitment to public transit service. As such, they need to be opened to public debate. • Routing and scheduling are also public issues. An observer of the Boston bus system commented, “These buses go from where people no longer live to where they used to work.” With changing demographic patterns, both the routes and the frequency of service must constantly change. However, these decisions are often made haphazardly by managers who see only red ink and terminate service instead of asking why people have gone elsewhere. The users’ panel should find out how routing and scheduling decisions are made and how they can be made responsive to citizens’ concerns. ‘ 9 For information on the Boston experience. contact the Boston Consumer Council, One City Hall Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts. • The quality of service provided is of equal importance to the availability of service. Over-heated (or freezing) buses, drivers who won’t wait for people running to catch an empty bus, dirty stations and no schedules will all push people back into their cars. How does your local bus authority handle com- plaints—by phone, or do they make you write? Do they keep records of com- plaints and seek to remedy persistent abuses or is it more of a public relations effort? These are all pertinent issues for a users’ panel. Members need not be formally elected, 20 and a process should be established for rapid turnover of membership (at least 33 percent a year) to maintain idea flow and prevent members from becoming part of the management. User panels are a new idea, at least in this country. But they are an excellent way of keeping transit systems close to the communities they serve, and can, therefore, contribute significantly to urban revitalization effort. One warning: user panels probably should not be given management or budgetary authority. Their job is to hold the system accountable, not to become the system they are charged with keeping an eye on. 20 Selection could be conducted similar to the jury system, except that a pool of “volunteer conscriptees” could be used instead of voter rolls, developed by distributing sign-up cards to patrons. Action Tip A key ingredient in public transportation is information. Where do the lines go? What are the connections? What do all the numbers and pictures on signs mean? How much do the various trips cost (very important in “correct change only” systems)? What cultural, scientific and tourist attractions are accessible by public transit? What special programs are available? How does one register a complaint? A users group in Boston, in conjunction with the transit authority, has published a citizens’ manual answering such questions, and more. Car-Free in Boston is a model consumer information publication and is available for $1.50 (including postage) from the Association for Public Transportation, P.O. Box 192, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. , ..: t : ; TRANSIT AND CAR POOL SELECTOR - - TTTI1 _—_.I.t I-__ _ _I’ ! — — — - f: .9 I . — I U,—,— == — — ‘S.. • . TW _ :: :, : 39 ------- Joint Development Joint development takes two forms. The first type of joint development of different modes of transportation facilities (multimodal development) is a direct outgrowth of the 3C planning process described elsewhere in this manual. Examples of multimodal solutions to transportation problems that use highway rights-of-way to accommodate both transit and highway facilities include 1-66 in Arlington, Virginia and the Century Freeway (1-10) in Los Angeles. A second type of joint development involves simultaneous construction of transportation projects and nontransportation facilities as part of a single urban development plan. Since multimodal planning is adequately discussed elsewhere in this booklet (see p. 10), the following discussion focuses on joint development of transportation and commercial or residential “urban revitalization” projects. The impetus for this second type of joint development springs from Presi- dential initiatives taken to structure a National Urban Policy, such as Presi- dent Carter’s Special Message to Con- gress on Urban Policy 2 ’ and four Executive Orders issued implementing this policy. 22 The goal of these initiatives is to stem the flow of out-migration that has resulted in at least five U.S. cities (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis) losing over 20 percent of their population within the last five years. Since highway construction was singled out in this urban initiative as “the most powerful direct federal action that has contributed to metropolitan de- centralization and central city decline,” 23 the help of DOT was solicited. In 1979 “Urban Polic)r Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Proposals for a Comprehensive National Urban Policy, Rouse Documcnt No. 95-309, Dated: March 27, 1978, Referred: April 3, 1978. “Executive Orders 12072-12075,43 Fea’ Rag. 36869-79 (1978). “U.S. Department of Rousing and Urban Development, The President’s National Urban Policy Report (1978) at 101. DOT Secretary Brock Adams, acting pursuant to the Presidential Directive and his authority to set National Transportation Policy 24 , announced a five-point Urban Transportation Policy that emphasized joint development. 25 In addition, DOT has earmarked UMTA funds for urban initiatives that empha- size joint development, intermodal trans- fer facilities and transit malls. 26 Finally, the Federal Highway Administration and UMTA have issued a joint directive to all Regional DOT Administrators and Directors requiring the assessment of urban transportation projects, including development impacts, impacts on tax revenue, property, sales and income, impacts on public expenditures required to support the project and the develop- ment shifts induced by the project, and impacts on community employment. 27 The joint development initiative is still evolving, but bears considerable promise as an urban revitalization, energy con- servation, and air quality initiative. Primary responsibility for its imple- mentation on an inter-agency level lies with the Federal Regional Councils, loose organizations consisting of the representatives of various federal agencies in each region of the country. In particular, HUD, Department of Labor, and Economic Development Assistance programs can be “targeted” to support joint transportation! urban development. On the national level, the Interagency Coordinating Council in the White House lends additional support to joint development projects. 2449 U.S.C. §1702. “The policy was announced in a speech delivered at the Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on February 13, 1979. The five points were: (I) joint development, (2) energy assessments, (3) minority employment. (4) urban rehabilitation, and (5) urban transportation planning reforms. S200 million in discretionary UMTA funds have been set aside for these projects in 1980. Awards will be made on a competitive basis. Contact your Regional UMTA office for more details. Memorandum, “Improving the Urban Transportation Decision Process” from Lillian LiBurdi, Acting UMTA Administrator and Karl Bowers, FHWA Administrator, to Regional UMTA and FHWA Administrators (October 11, 1979). If you are a member of a business group or a neighborhood organization interested in promoting development in conjunction with on-going trans- portation improvements, contact your MPO and the relevant members of the Federal Regional Council in your area. There are other means to encourage joint development. San Francisco, for example, grants building height benefits to buildings connected to BART sta- tions. In illinois, the State DOT is engaged in joint efforts with railroads to develop airspace over rail yards for housing and industry. Maryland en- courages urban homestead ing in surplus highway right-of-way acquisitions. Port- land, Oregon, has combined transit improvements with pedestrian amenities to create “transit malls” with very positive impacts for local businesses. These federal and state initiatives to promote flexibility and joint use indicate that the greatest current impediment to joint development in urban areas is a lack of general public understanding of joint development opportunities. Action Tip DOT has prepared a publica- tion describing successful joint development projects and listing joint development activities in every State. It also includes a bibliography. Highway Joint Development and Multiple Use, FHWA (1979) is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. (Stock No. 050-002-00105-1). 40 ------- Developing a Shopping Mall Policy Regional shopping malls, or suburban shopping centers, are now almost as familiar as supermarkets. Springing up at every interstate or arterial road interchange, they seem to be a natural and unchangeable aspect of the American landscape. Not true. In fact, suburban shopping centers are a relatively recent addition to the American scene and are not even our own idea; they were first proposed by Austrian architect and planner Victor Gruen in 1943. However, America offered all the ingredients for spectacular implementation of Gruen’s vision: cheap, sparsely populated land, abundant energy supplies, and an economy that escaped the devastation of World War II. In this agreeable environment, shopping centers boomed. There are now approximately 1,000 regional shopping centers with over 400,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Most of these are enclosed malls. There are several thousand additional older, open regional shopping centers of between 100,000-400,000 gross leasable space. Gruen’s vision, however, never materialized. He envisioned centers of mixed uses, including medical offices, clubs, circulating libraries, post offices, and specialty shops closely tied to nearby greenbelted housing develop- ment. While the concept has been realized in such “new town” community developments as Columbia, Maryland, and Reston, Virginia, promoters soon realized that the profit lay in merchandising, not mixed use. Cheap transportation put no premium on proximity of home to shop, while commercial agglomerations provided the convenience of one-stop shopping. The result: huge centers devoted exclusively to retail sales which required enormous parking capacity, widened highway access, and more traffic control and police support. Recently, municipal and regional planners have begun to put statistics together on the effect of suburban malls on existing communities. In Saginaw, Michigan, construction of the Fashion Square Mall on the edge of town resulted in a 24 percent decrease in property values in the central business district within five years, while assessments went up in the remainder of the city 23 percent. Burlington, Vermont predicts a 40 percent drop in commercial sales if a similar shopping center is constructed in neighboring Williston. The threat is greatest to medium-size cities that do not have the amenities (i.e., parks, museums, theaters, public transit systems) that complement as well as attract downtown commercial activity, and has caused Victor Gruen to attack his own intellectual progeny as “premeditated murder of (the) city.” With 10,000 of our 40,000 cities now designated as “economically distressed,” the statistics appear to support this allegation. President Carter recognized the threat to downtown urban areas represented by these shopping centers and took two actions that provide citizens with handles for action. First, on August 2, 1979, the President issued his Second Environmental Message. In that message he recognized that our national transportation investment policies could affect suburban sprawl and directed the Secretary of Transportation to give “careful review” to “any transportation proposals which would encourage urban sprawl... or which would tend. to attract jobs out of our urban areas.” DOT soon issued a directive to all regional federal transportation officials requiring a review of federally-assisted transportation projects on the “economic vitality of the central city”—including development, tax revenue, public expenditure, employment, accessibility, and environmental impacts. 28 On November 29, 1979, newly-appointed DOT Secretary Neil Goldschmidt rejected a proposal to construct a beltway around Dayton, Ohio, on the grounds that it would adversely affect the city’s economy. Citizens can now request assessments of transportation projects proposed primarily to serve the traffic needs of suburban malls. Second, on November 26, 1979, the White House announced a “Community Conservation Guidance” policy directed specifically at controlling suburban shopping malls. The guidance provides that, at the request of a community affected by a regional shopping mall proposal, all federal agencies involved in providing infrastructure support through federal funds or permits for the project must prepare a “community impact analysis.” This analysis must include an assessment of the impacts of the suburban mall on existing business districts in the area. If the analysis demonstrates that significant negative consequences will result from the mall development the federal agencies involved are required to re-think their support for the mall. (The Community Conservation Guidance is reproduced in full in Appendix C.) Clearly, these initiatives represent no final solution to the shopping mall problem. But they do focus the attention of decisionmakers on the energy, health air quality, and economic problems they may be creating. Citizens in Boulder, Colorado have requested DOT to review a proposed mall on the ground that required improvements to an adjacent federal-aid highway to accommodate 28 Memorandum from Karl S. Bowers, FHWA Administrator and Lillian LiBurdi, Acting UMTA Administrator, to all FHWA and UMTA Regional Administrators, October 11, 1979. 41 ------- Interstate Transferz9 mall traffic constitute an “encroach- ment” on the highway system and require federal approval. In Montpelier, Vermont, citizens have asked EPA to prevent a neighboring town from increasing its sewage treatment capacity to accommodate a shopping mall so long as the existing sewage treatment plant continues to violate federal clean water requirements. Often, shopping mall projects involve development funds from HUD, or require a permit to fill wetlands from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All these federal “handles” are sufficient to invoke the President’s Community Conservation Guidance with local political support. And, when looking for this support, don’t forget the Chamber of Commerce, a group that should have a particular interest in protection of urban economic vitality. Since the creation of the Federal -- Highway Trust Fund in 1956, receipts from gasoline taxes have, by law, been devoted exclusively to construction of highways and highway-related facilities. However, in 1973 the Federal-Aid Highway Act was amended to permit “transfer” of urban interstate highway projects to alternative mass transporta- tiOfl3O projects and, in a further amend- ment, permitted transfer to other highway projects as well. Substitute mass transit projects receive 85 percent federal funding out of general revenues, not out of the Highway Trust Fund. 3 ’ Transfer occurs in three steps: first, an interstate segment is withdrawn; second, a broad outline (called a concept program) of substitute projects is approved; third, individual projects are approved and federal funding is provided. An interstate segment may be withdrawn only if four criteria are met. 32 First, the segment must either be (a) within an urbaü area, (b) have portions partially within and partially outside but in close proximity to the same urban area, or (c) pass through and connect urban areas within a State. 33 Second, the segment must not be essential to ‘ 9 The discussion in this section is based on draft regulations found at 45 Fed. Reg. 2296 (January 10, 1980). Final regulations are expected to be issued by November 1980. Contact your DOT Regional Office for more details. °23 U.S.C. § 103(eX4). This so-called “interstate transfer provision” should not be confused with the so-called “Howard-Cramer transfer” provision which permits the addition of new interstate mileage in exchange for withdrawal on nonessential segments. 23 U.S.C. §103(eX2). The exchange of one Interstate highway for another was abolished in the 1976 Highway Act. 3 1 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. *476.314(f). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2305 (January 10, 1980). “In addition to these four primary criteria are the following technical requirements: • The segment must not have been added to the interstate system after May 5, 1976 in substitution for segments withdrawn under 23 U.S.C. § 103(eX2). • The segment must not be a federal-aid primary system road upgraded to interstate status pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §139. • The segment must not be a toll bridge, tunnel or approach. “Proposed: 23 U.S.C. §476.302(a). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2303 (January 10, 1980). completion of a unified and connected interstate system. 34 Third, the segment must not be open to traffic. 35 This bars transfer of proposed expansions of existing interstate segments. Fourth, the withdrawal request and concept program must be approved prior to September 30, 1983.36 The first step in the transfer process is submission of a withdrawal request. DOT cannot initiate the transfer. The request must be made by the Governor, local governments and MPOs within whose jurisdiction the segment would have been located. 37 However, unanimous local consent is not required. DOT regulations provide simply that there be “substantial support” for the transfer. 38 Once the request is made, two DOT components—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and UMTA— will jointly determine whether the segment meets withdrawal require- ments. 39 Upon approval of withdrawal. the state’s share of interstate highway money will be adjusted downward to reflect the withdrawal. 4 ° The next phase in the transfer procedure is submission by the Governor of a “concept program” which outlines proposed substitute projects and accounts for all unobligated funding made available by the transfer. 4 ’ The “Proposed: 23 U.S.C. §476.306(aX2). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2304 (January 10, 1980). “Public L. 96-144 (December 13, 1979). Proposed: 23 U.S.C. §476.302(bX5). 45 FerL Reg. 2296, 2303 (January 10, 1980). 36 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.302(c). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2303 (January 10, 1980). “Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.304. 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2303. (January 10, 1980). - - “Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.304(b). 45 Fed. Reg. 22%, 2303 (January 10, 1980). “Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.306(a). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2304 (January 10, 1980). However, FHWA alone determines whether the segment is essential to completion of a unified and connected interstate system. Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.306(aX2). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2304 (January 10, 1980). 40 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.306(b). 45 Fed. Reg. 22%, 2304 (January 10, 1980). 4 1 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.308(a). 45 Fed. Reg. 22%, 2304 (January 10, 1980). 42 ------- proposed substitute projects may include mass transit projects or non-interstate highway projects in any combination. 42 The only requirements are: (1) that the substitute projects must serve the same general area from which the interstate segment was withdrawn; and (2) that they be developed in accordance with the existing urban transportation planning requirements. 43 While approval of the concepts program by FHWA and UMTA must occur prior to September 30, l983, it is not a final, binding proposal, and adjustments may be made after the 1983 deadline. 45 Once the concepts program is approved, individual highway and mass transit projects may be advanced to the annual element of the transportation improvement plan. 46 The FHWA or UMTA may approve individual substitute projects to the extent that adequate appropriations are available. 47 Upon approval of a substitute project for construction, the federal government is obligated to provide 85 percent of the cost of the substitute project. 48 That is the process for interstate transfer. At first glance, it appears that transfer is a simple trade of interstate dollars for substitute project dollars, and that States are free to base their decision on the merits of the transfer. In fact, it’s not exactly an even trade. First, the federal! state funding ratio declines from 90 percent to 85 percent. That may not sound like a big difference, but from the local perspective it means that the State must now put up $1.50 for every dollar it was putting up for the interstate project. That 50 percent increase may be enough to trigger a “thumbs down” from budget- conscious local governments. Second, the guarantee of federal dollars from the Highway Trust Fund is transformed into a promise to appropriate funds from general revenues at some uncertain time in the future. This is a critical distinction. States are permitted to spend federal highway dollars prior to actual appropriation of funds since the funding is guaranteed through the Trust Fund. However, when a segment is withdrawn and another project substituted, funds must actually be appropriated through the annual budget process before they can be spent on the substitute project. So long as Congress appropriates adequate sums of money every year, this presents no problem. But, as the interstate transfer provision becomes increasingly popular, appropriation levels may be exceeded. Should this occur, States will have to wait in line for funding of substitute projects. 49 49 1t should be remembered that Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) funds are totally transferable, and substitute projects, including public transit projects, may be funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. 23 U.S.C. §142 (1978). Action Tip DOT has established an outreach program to explain the transfer process to local governments and citizens. You may learn more about interstate transfer by contacting either the Office of Interstate Reports, Federal Highway Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, or the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1625 1 Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. 42 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.2(bX7), (8). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2303 (January 10, 1980). N.B., Prior to 1976, substitute projects were limited to mass transit improvements. Toll roads, however, are not permitted. Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.304(bX3). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2303 (January 10, 1980). 43 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.308(aXl), 476.310(a). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2304 (January 10, 1980). “Proposed: 23 C.F.R. *476.308(b). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2304 (January 10, 1980). 45 1d. “Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §450.310(f), 450.318(a). 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2305 (January 10, 1980). 47 Proposed: 23 C.F.R. §476.314. 45 Fed. Reg. 2296, 2305 (January 10, 1980). “Id. ------- Bicycles The biggest obstacle to acceptance of bicycle transportation as a legitimate recipient of transportation planning and construction funds is attitude. Not funding limitations—all federal highway capital funds qualify for bikeway expenditure. Not weather—i 3 percent of all vehicle trips are made by bicycle in cold and blustery Madison, Wisconsin. Not time—over 60 percent of all U.S. trips were five miles or less in 1978. But attitude. Bicycle transportation does not require sophisticated planning or design, nor is there much money in bikeway construction. Bikes do not require a Jot of resources to manufacture or maintain. They also require no fuel. But they have little status. Bike transportation is perceived to be hazardous (and is, where not properly planned). “Bikes are for kids” was the attitude expressed by a transportation planner in—of all places—Boston. But bikes are not just for kids. In 1968, adult (lightweight) bike sales were less than 2 million, compared to almost 6 million for children’s bikes (20 inches or less). In 1974, adult bikes outsold children’s bikes 11 million to 4 million. 50 Bikes can play a vital role in addressing some of the problems of urban areas. They contribute nothing to pollution. Bikeways place no development pressure on open space, nor do they encourage commercial or residential flight from cities. If placed along sewer interceptor lines, abandoned railroad rights-of-way, or on a “shared” roadway, bikeways take no land off the tax rolls. The advantages of bicycle transportation to users are also obvious. Bicycles provide door-to-door service. They have low capital and operating Th cycIing and Air Quality. EPA (1979) p. 12. costs. The only energy they use is what it takes to make the bike and feed the driver and they help keep people in shape in the bargain. Despite these advantages, there is a general lack of interest in bicycle transportation within the professional transportation community. Admittedly, there are some very real limitations on use of bikes, such as safety, convenience, speed, and comfort. But these limitations can be overcome. The energy shortage may help break down this lack of interest. The National Energy Conservation Act of 1978 called for a study—now completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation—of the energy conservation potential of bicycles. Furthermore, the experience of other countries documents that this disinterest can be overcome. While less than 1 percent of all home-to-work trips in the U.S. are made by bicycle, the figure ranges from 9 to 61 percent in 10 medium-sized European cities as noted in Figure 18. Figure 18 Mode of Home-to-Work Trips Source: flicycling and Air Quajity, EPA (1979) In fact, bicycling accounts for over 40 percent of all trips in many parts of The Netherlands, and well over 10 percent of all trips in such major European cities as Copenhagen, Nice and Grenoble. While differences in temperature, topography and income explain, to some extent, the large gap in the relative acceptance of bicycle transportation in Europe and the U.S., the fact remains that “(o)ne of the major differences between the U.S. and [ the] northern European environment is the traditional acceptance and use of the bicycle as an adult mode of transportation.” 5 ’ If you are interested in promoting bicycle transportation you must overcome the skepticism that exists among both providers and users of transportation in American cities. Don’t be discouraged. It is, after all, a matter of attitude, a natural bias against changing the status quo. When planners protest that bike ridership is not ‘Bicycling and Air Quality. (1979), p. 21. Percentage of trips by mode European city France Year Public trans- Foot Cycle Car port Germany Netherlands Lille Lyon Marseille Nancy Orleans Bremen Tilburg Rotterdam Zaanstad Other 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1970 1972 1971 1974 8 19 16 15 9 24 19 49 23 9 47 29 10 45 23 11 51 18 23 50 29 22 —49--- 9 61 28 20 22 25 10 40 37 United Kingdom 2 29 2 Stevenage 1976 19 9 50 20 4 II 44 ------- sufficiently high to justify construction of special facilities (i.e. bike routes, shelters, parking facilities), point out that low ridership is often due to lack of facilities. Studies in urban areas have indicated a tremendous latent demand for bikeways—if facilities are provided they will be used. Demand for cars was also low—until there were paved roads on which to drive them. In New York City alone, 130;000 people commute to work by bike, a tenfold increase since 1975.52 Once you are successful in extracting an acknowledgement that bicycle transportation is here to stay, you will meet the next objection—no funds. Don’t believe it. Bikeways are considered highways under federal law, thus qualifying States for federal reimbursement for 75-90 percent of their costs. In fact, it is federal policy that all federally-assisted highway construction should give “full consideration” to accommodating bicycle traffic and that “every effort” should be made to minimize conflicts between motorized and non-motorized traffic on federal-aid roads. 53 Separated or non-separated bikeways can be constructed with all federal-aid highway construction funds as long as (I) they are constructed within the right-of-way of the highway and (2) they are constructed concurrently with the highway improvement (even if the improvement is resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation of the existing route). 54 The bikeway should be planned as an integral part of the highway project and proceed from planning to construction with the highway project itself. Moreover, highway funds can be used to construct separate bikeways outside an existing right-of-way and independent of any concurrent highway construction “Wall Street Journal, Friday, March 14, 1980, p. “23 C.F.R. 652.5. 23 U.S.C. §217, 23 C.F.R. 652.7. as long as the purpose of the bikeway is to accommodate traffic that would normally have used a federal-aid highway. 55 The only limitation on use of federal-aid funds for these separate bikeways is a $2.5 million per year state cap and a $45 million per year national cap, of which less than 10 percent is actually spent. This cap applies only to separated bikeways constructed independently of a highway project. There is no cap on concurrent highway/bikeway projects. Both separated and unseparated bikeway construction is funded out of regular highway funds, which means that these bikeways must compete for funds that are already planned, if not committed, to highway cónstruction. Recognizing that bikeways often lose in such a contest, Congress, through the 23 C.F.R. 652.7. Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, authorized grants in the amount of $20 million per year through 1982 for exclusive use in (1) bikeway construction or (2) nonconstruction (education) projects that can reasonably be expected to enhance the safety and use of bicycles. 56 These funds are disbursed on a discretionary basis, do not need to comply with standard highway planning regulations (except that, in urban areas, they must be approved by the MPO), and are in addition to the regular highway funds that are distributed (“apportioned”) to States by formula. 57 Section 141 of the Act also states that no new highway can 56p.L. 95-599, §141(c) (Nov. 6, 1978). 72 Stat. 2689. Congress appropriated $4.0 million for this program in FY 1980. The FY ‘81 proposed budget has no funding for this program. 57 See proposed regulations on distribution of these funds. 45 Fed. Reg. 952 (January 3, 1980). 45 ------- cut or destroy a bike route without providing an adequate alternate route. The federal highway aid program is not the only source of funds for bikeways. Special funds are available to convert abandoned railroad nghts-of- way to bikeways. 8 Also, federal funds are available on a 50/50 matching basis from the Department of Interior for bikeways that are included in a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.” Nevertheless, the biggest pot of money for bikeways is the highway construction pot. Highway planning funds that are distributed to MPOs to do transportation planning are also available for bikeway planning. ’ 0 Finally, funds made available to promote highway safety through driver education programs can also be used to promote bicycle safety.” It is up to you to trace these programs through your State Department of Transportation and MPO to make sure some of these funds are allocated to bikeway planning and construction, and to bike safety programs. Once you have identified available funding sources, promote bicycle programs as a reasonably available control measure for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan. Once a bike programis in the plan’ 2 it must be included in the transportation program of the MPO. Apart from this requirement, here are some other ways to promote bikeway programs in your city: 5 Scction 809(b). Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. See regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 266, January 4, 1978. Applications should be made to U.S. Department of Interior through your State Office of Rail Planning. ‘Your State Department of Natural Resources, or whatever state office deals with the U.S. Department of Interior, should have such a plan. Contact your regional office of the U.S. Heritage, Conservation, and Recreation Service (HCRS), U.S. Department of the Interior, for more details. ‘°23 U.S.C. §307(c) (1978). 6123 U.S.C. §402 (1978). ‘ 2 Bikeway programs are one of 18 identified reasonably available control measures in the Clean Air Act. CAA §108(f), 42 U.S.C. §7408(f) (1978 pamph.). Lobby your State Department of Transportation to establish a special bicycle planning office with a mandate to make sure all transportation projects—highway and transit alike— give full consideration to accommodation of bikes. Establish a bike coordinator’s office in the Governor’s office. The Governors of most States have a special office that monitors all federal assistance to the State. The coordinator would follow all bikeway assistance to the State from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Rail Administration, the Department of Interior, and other federal agencies. Develop a comprehensive network of safe bicycle routes for your city. One route may not generate much use, but a system of routes will work wonders. Elements of the system may include: • Bikeways along abandoned railroad rights-of-way • Bikeways along stream beds and through recreational parks and interconnecting, lightly-traveled streets • Bicycle streets or bicycle boulevards closed to traffic • Bike lanes on existing streets which take up a whole lane of traffic Design policies for all newly constructed roads and bridges that will reduce hazards and increase mobility for bicyclists by allowing enough space in the right-of-way for cyclists to travel safely. Work for increased enforcement of traffic laws related to bicycles to reduce car/bicycle accidents. Encourage education programs for both motorists and adult cyclists. The program for cyclists could include both on-bike training in traffic skills and bicycle handling, and classroom instruction in such areas as route selection and equipment maintenance. The program for motorists would cover road-sharing techniques, and could be included in drivers’ education curricula, State-issued drivers’ manuals, and licensing written exams. Eliminate obstacles and bottlenecks which hinder bicycling in urban and suburban areas. Then get the plan included in the implementation plan and adopted by the MPO: • Ask transit authorities for bike racks and storage facilities at mass transit stations, and the right to take bikes on trains and subways during non-rush hours. • Draft city ordinances requiring parking garage space for bicycles and safe parking facilities at city buildings. Bike transportation has suffered from neglect. Now, however, there is much new interest in bikeways to promote energy conservation, clean air, and “livable” cities. With the new requirement of the Clean Air Act that bikeway programs be funded as a clean air strategy, the opportunity presently exists to establish a permanent role for bicycle transportation in urban transportation systems. 46 ------- Three-C Planning Process: Compre- hensive, Continuing, and Cooperative Executive Order A-95: Clearinghouse Review Annual Element of the Transportation Improvement Plan, usually TIP/AE Administrative Procedure Act Air Quality Control Region Best Available Control Technology Basic Transportation Needs Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Central Business District Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Transportation Environmental Impact Statement Empirical Kinetic Modeling Algorithm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Reporter, Second Federal-Aid Urban System Federal Register Federal Reporter Supplement Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Highway Administration Hydrocarbons High occupancy vehicle U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Interstate Cost Estimate Inspection and Maintenance Indirect Source Review Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate Light Rail Transit Memorandum of Understanding Metropolitan Planning Organization National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Commission on Air Quality National Environmental Policy Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides New Source Ban New Source Performance Standards Ozone Office of Management and Budget Part D of the Clean Air Act Lead Preliminary engineering Prevention of Significant Deterioration Approval of Plans, Specifications and Estimates Parts per million Public Law Number Reasonably Available Control Measures Reasonably Available Control Technology Reasonable Further Progress Right-of-way State Highway Agency State Implementation Plan Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Oxides Statutes at Large Transportation Control Measure Transportation Control Plan See 3-C Transportation Improvement Plan Transportation Improvement Plan! Annual Element Transportation Systems Management Total Suspended Particulates Urban Mass Transportation Administration United States Code United States Code Annotated Unified Work Program Unified Planning Work Program, same as UWP Vehicles Miles Traveled Volatile Organic Compounds 3C Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations . An explanation of most of these provided in the Glossary. terms is Pb PE PSD PS&E Approval ppm Pub. L. No. RACM RACT RFP ROW SHA SIP SO2 SOx Stat. TCM TCP THREE-C TIP TIP/AE TSM TSP UMTA U.S.C. U.S.C.A. UWP UPWP VMT VOC A-95 AE APA AQCR BACT BTN CAA CAAA CBD CEQ C.F.R. DEIS DOE DOT EIS EKMA EPA F.2d FAUS Fed. Reg. Fed. Supp. FEIS FHWA HC HOV HUD ICE I/M ISR LAER LRT MOU MPO NAAQS NCAQ NEPA NESHAP NO 2 NOx NSB NSPS O 0MB Part D 47 ------- Appendix B Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the Integration of Transportation and Air Quality Planning Introduction The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were signed into law by the President on August 7, 1977; These Amendments require state and local governments to develop for all areas where national ambient air quality standards have not been attained, revisions to state implementation plans (SIPs). The revised SIPs must be submitted by the State to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by January 1, 1979. These revised plans must provide for attainment of the national ambient air quality standards by 1982 or, in the case of areas with severe photochemical oxidant or carbon monoxide problems, not later than 1987. The revised plans must also provide for incremental reductions in emissions (“reasonable further progress”) between the time the plans are submitted and the attainment deadline. In many major urbanized areas of the country the revised SIPs will require transportation controls, i.e. strategies designed to reduce emissons from transportation-related sources by means of structural and operational changes in the transportation system. A mechanism is required that will enable state and local governments to: (I) develop a wide range of alternative transportation control strategies, (2) analyze the air quality and other impacts of the strategies, and (3) select among the alternatives in a timely and informed manner. Federal transportation planning requirements in urbanized areas are implemented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a joint delegation of authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration (UMTA). The FHWA and UMTA provide funds to States and local governments to plan, develop, and improve transportation systems and services. In urbanized areas improvements are implemented according to a continu- ing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process carried out pursuant to FHWA/ (JMTA joint regula- tions, It is this context that “DOT” is utilized in this docu- ment. In order to effectively achieve the objectives of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, the DOT and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that the transportation-related air quality planning requirements of EPA will be integrated with the transportation planning process administered by the DOT. Closer integration of the planning requirements of DOT and EPA will ensure the timely consideration of air quality concerns and will reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at the State and local level. DOT administers other planning programs through other administra- tions (e.g., FAA and FRA) which have lesser impact on air quality but may be subject to future discussion. Purpose This Memorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to the President’s request, is designed (I) to establish certain prin- ciples which DOT and EPA agree to follow in the preparation of more detailed regulations and administrative procedures required to achieve the objective of integrating the air quality and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify specific areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of the air quality aspects of the planning process. Principles that Will Guide the Integration of the Air Quality and Transportation Planning Processes The reduction of air pollution is an important national goal and must be among the highest priorities of the transportation planning process in areas not meeting primary Air Quality Standards. However, the transportation planning process must also consider other national and local objectives such as mobil- ity, safety, energy conservation, urban economic development, full employment and orderly metropolitan growth. It is the affirmative responsibility of federal, State and local agencies involved in funding or conducting transportation planning and implementation to ensure that evaluation of an adequate range of alternative transportation control strategies is conducted in order to furnish local, State and federal officials with an adequate basis on which to reach informed decisions. Any transportation planning activities conducted pursuant to this agreement must continue to provide for an adequate pro- cess of consultations with an involvement of the general pur- pose local government, responsible State agencies and the pub- lic as called for in the joint UMTA! FHWA Urban Transporta- tion Planning regulations. It is the objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this agreement to contribute to the maximum extent feasible, in combination with other emission reduction measures, to a re- duction of emissions necessary to meet the prescribed air quali- ty standards. Joint Administration of the Air Quality Aspects of the Urban Transportation Planning Process The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protec- tion Agency agree to modify existing procedures concerning the administration of the urban transportation and air quality planning processes in nonattainment areas as follows: DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportu- nity for joint review of and concurrence in the Unified Work Program (UWP) required pursuant to paragraph 450.114 of the Joint Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450), to ensure that adequate air quality planning tasks are included in the planning programs. Any disagreements at the regional level shall be re- ferred to the DOT Secretary for resolution. Before making his final decision on the UWP, the Secretary will consult with the EPA Administrator and will notify EPA of the disposition of its Comments, with appropriate supporting materials. In addi- tion, where an MPO has failed, without adequate reason, to carry out the analysis or other activities committed in its Unified Work Program, DOT will prescribe conditions which will require specified remedial actions to be taken in order to correct the identified failure in the UnifIed Work Program. DOT and EPA will develop in the near future a document identifying appropriate categories of remedial actions. DOT and EPA regional! division offices will have the opportu- nity for joint review of transportation plans (including TSM 48 ------- elements) in nonattainment areas required pursuant to para- graph 450.116 of the Joint Planning Regulations, to ensure that air quality considerations are adequately addressed. DOT and EPA will consult with the planning agency on how air quality related planning deficiencies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in taking subse- quent actions on program approvals and will notify EPA of the disposition of its comments, with appropriate supporting materials. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportu- nity for joint review in connection with the annual planning certification required pursuant to paragraph 450.122 of the Joint Planning Regulations, on the adequacy of the planning process to address air quality considerations. DOT and EPA will consult with the planning agency on how air quality re- lated planning deficiencies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in making any certification decisions and will notify EPA of the disposition of its com- ments, with appropriate supporting material. DOT and EPA regional 1 1 division offices will have the opportu- nity for joint review of the Transportation Improvement Pro- grain (TIP) and its annual element required pursuant to para- graph 450.118 of the Joint Planning Regulations for consist- ency with the air quality elements of the transportation plan and/or the SIP. DOT will explicitly consider EPA’s comments in program approvals, and will notify EPA of its disposition of the comments. If EPA disagrees with the disposition of its comments, the-procedures for resolution set forth in Adden- dum I to this memorandum will be followed. DOT and EPA regional! division offices will have the opportu- nity for joint review of the revised SIPs, for compliance with the objectives of statutes administered by DOT (e.g., Title 23 USC and the Urban Mass Transportation Act) to provide for mobility and for safe and efficient transportation. EPA will explicitly consider DOT comments in approving or disapprov- ing SIP revisions, and will notify DOT of its disposition of the comments, with appropriate supporting materials. If DOT dis- agrees with the disposition of its comments, the procedures for resolution set forth in Addendum 2 to this memorandum will be followed. DOT and EPA agree to work toward greater coordination in the administration of their respeceive grants for local planning activities by including these grants in the UWP, to ensure that such grants support effectively the related objectives of both agencies while avoiding duplication and overlapping planning activities. DOT and EPA will take appropriate steps to alter their existing internal procedures and to issue a joint appendix to the existing transportation planning regulations to implement the above understandings. DOT and EPA agree to consult one another in the develop- ment of criteria and procedures required by Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, including insuring that all major capital im- provement projects are consistent with the SIP. Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June, 1978. Department of Transportation By: Brock Adams Environmental Protection Agency By: Douglas Costle Addendum I If the EPA Regional Administrator disagrees with the disposi- tion of his comments by DOT, he will so notify the DOT Regional! Division Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the DOT Regional/ bivision Administrator will not ap- prove the element or elements of the TIP in disagreement untiI so advised by headquarters. Within 30 days after the EPA Regional Administrator noti- fies DOT of his disagreement, the EPA Administrator will notify the Secretary of Transportation if the EPA Administra- tor disagrees with the DOT field staff disposition of EPA comments, and the reason for the EPA Administrator’s dis- agreement. If such notification is received within 30 days, the Secretary of Transportation will carefully consider the EPA Administra- tor’s views and in the event of disagreement will notify the EPA Administrator of the disposition of his comments, with appropriate supporting materials before making his decision. Addendum 2 If the DOT Regional! Division Administrator disagrees with the disposition of his comments by EPA, he will so notify the EPA Regional Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the EPA Regional Administrator will not approve the SIP until so advised by headquarters. Within 30 days after the DOT Regional! Division Adminis- trator notifies EPA of his disagreement, the Secretary of Transportation will notify the EPA Administrator if the Secretary of Transportation disagrees with the EPA field staff disposition of DOT comments, and the reason for the Secretary’s disagreement. If such notification is received within 30 days, the EPA Ad- ministrator will carefully consider the Secretary of Transporta- tion’s views and in the event of disagreement will notify the Secretary of the disposition of his comments, with appropriate supporting materials before making his decision. 49 ------- Appendix C Community Conservation Guidance Preface This Community Conservation Guidance provides implement- ing procedures for an important aspect of several of President Carter’s policy initiatives, including his “urban policy”, energy policy, and his policy of targeting federal assistance to those areas and people that need them most. This guidance is pre- dicated on the belief that public and private investment ought to build upon existing resources to the greatest extent possible in order to avoid unnecessary and costly duplication and waste. It is critically important that federal policies, grants, and decisions not have unintended effects of eroding existing com- mercial centers whether they be located in center cities or the suburbs or rural areas. Moreover, federal programs should not work at cross-purposes with each other in achieving the national goals of the President’s Partnership to Conserve America’s Communities. State and local leaders are virtually unanimous in recommending that there be a process through which officials can insure that federal policies and practices will be reviewed when there is strong reason to believe that such policies and practices will erode existing community re- sources and investments, wherever they are located. The Conservation Guidelines provide such a process without creating any new regulations or additional bureaucracy. There will be no excessive delays, extra staff requirements or paper- work associated with this guidance. In fact, the process out- lined is characterized by rapid review, consultation, and deci- sion-making without prejudgement in those instances in which (a) a private development is being significantly aided by federal actions or monies, and (b) a local community identifies in as much detail as possible how such federal actions or monies will result in damage to existing commercial areas. The Community Conservation Guidance is not intended to delay or prevent any specific industry, type of development, or group from pursuing its legal and private economic purposes. Rather, it is a specific example of the implementation of the Carter Administration’s policies and goals for the efficient and effective operation of federal programs. Background President’s Partnership to Conserve America’s Communities Guidance provided in this memorandum should be understood in the context of the many actions which have been taken to carry out the President’s numerous policy commitments to re- duce or eliminate federal actions which contribute to un- planned urban sprawl; to conserve energy; to target limited funds; and to encourage federal actions which help strengthen urban area economies and their downtown areas. These ac- tions include the four Executive Orders issued by the Presi- dent on August 16, 1978, and the numerous pieces of legisla- tion proposed to the Congress during the last two-and one- half years, all associated with the President’s “urban policy.” Several agencies, consistent with the thrust of the President’s Executive Order 12074 have agreed to subject their major pro- grams and activities to ommunity impact analyses prior to initiating them in order to avoid inadvertent possible negative impacts on cities and their residents. These analyses will cover the effect of federally-assisted projects on central cities and surrounding communities and will result in greater consistency between federal aid and national policies. Introduction Initiatives to Strengthen Existing Business Districts Healthy existing commercial areas are essential to a commu- nity’s overall well-being. As commercial centers, they are vital sources of jobs, goods and services and tax revenues. Histori- cally, Congress and the Executive Branch have made signifi- cant commitments to help localities preserve and strengthen their present commercial areas. President Carter’s policy initia- tives in economic and community development renew and re- inforce that commitment. Federal efforts to assist in the revitalization and growth of older commercial areas have ranged from subsidizing the development of, or improvements to, costly infrastructure to providing loan guarantees and grants for the development or rehabilitation of commercial areas and establishments. They have included activities aimed at eliminating traffic congestion and expanding transportation options, reducing environmental and safety problems, and actions to increase employment and training assistance to private sector businesses to hire the structurally unemployed. Part I: Strengthening Older Commercial Areas This Administration, consistent with the President’s New Part- nership to Conserve America’s Communities, is committed to help older distressed areas (whether city, town, or suburb) pre- serve and protect their investment in existing commercial areas. As relevant, it is resolved to assist all communities, in partnership with all levels of government and the private sec- tor, enhance the economic vitality of older commercial, cul- tural, service and job needs of urban residents. To improve this Administration’s ability to encourage, through appropriate federal action, the development and/or redevelopment of healthy older commercial areas: • The President’s Interagency Coordinating Council (IACC) will encourage closer cooperation with respect to federal programs directed at helping revitalize older commercial areas. Agencies will be asked to work together to (a) simplify current guidelines governing economic and com- munity development assistance programs in order to improve their responsiveness to locally defined needs; and (b) facilitate strategic use of economic and com- munity development programs in order to build public/ private partnerships directed at older commercial area revitalization. • State, areawide, and local governments will be encouraged to use available federal technical and planning assistance programs to develop comprehensive policies and growth strategies responsive to the overall revitalization needs of existing older commercial areas. • Federal agencies should review their present policies, proce- dures and regulations for the purpose of identifying which of their key policies, programs and activities now provide (and could provide with revisions) direct and/or indirect assistance to older commercial areas for revitalization needs. Agencies should change their policies and programs, if necessary, to 50 ------- permit a more effective and s rategic response to such revi- talizatton needs. • Each agency administering programs relevant to revitaliza- tion of older commercial areas and central business districts will be asked to consult on a continuing basis with relevant private sector and public interest groups, as well as with state and local governments in order to improve the administra- tion of their programs. Part II: Community Conservation As indicated in the President’s national policies, unplanned sprawl can often be wasteful of our Nation’s resources. It re- quires heavy expenditures of scarce public resources for often under-utilized infrastructures; it consumes valuable land; and it leads to the wasteful use of limited energy resources. It can weaken the economic, social and environmental health of exist- ing communities. Federal as well as state and local actions have sometimes unintentionally reinforced or supported unplanned sprawl and related decentralizing trends. And, while most large commer- cial developments on the fringe of our urban areas have responded well to the needs of a growing population, some have drained economic vitality from existing business districts in small, medium, and large communities. This can create en- vironmental problems as well as contribute to a reduction of jobs and services available to center city populations, particu- larly low-moderate income and minority households. The primary objective of the guidelines enumerated below is to encourage, through appropriate federal, state and local ac- tion, the targeting of limited resources on the redevelopment andJ or development by the private sector of older commercial areas. In order to accomplish this, they are aimed at discourag- ing major federal actions that will directly lead to the con- struction of those, and only those, large commercial develop- ments that clearly and demonstrably weaken existing commu- nities, particularly their established business districts. Federal actions, where relevant, should help assure the location of large commercial developments in areas consistent with state, areawide and local plans and the provisions of the President’s Policy to Conserve America’s Communities. To accomplish these goals, the Administration will under- take the following steps: • If the chief elected official of an affected community formal- ly requests it,t federal agencies will prepare a community impact analysis of pending federal actions 2 which might lead I The formal request by local officials must, at a minimum, include the follow- ing: ( I) a statement indicating why local officials are concerned with the fede- ral action; (2) evidence of city! town council or, where relevant, county super- visor or commission support; (3) a statement establishing the link between the federal action and the development of the large commercial development; (4) a statement describing the local officials’ perception of the effect the commer- cial development will have on the business district; (5) a statement illustrating local, public and private actions which have been taken, which are being taken, and which will be taken to strengthen the economic vitality of existing commercial areas; and (6) a statement indicating that local government has sought to discuss or negotiate the concerns expressed with the applicant for federal action which is in question. Conversely, an applicant who seeks to re- spond to the possibility of negative community impact before beginning a pro- ject can petition the governing body of the affected jurisdictions to request a community impact analysis. 2 Action is defined in NEPA Regulations, 1508.17. “Actions” refer only to ac- tions which will be approved and/ or initiated subsequent to the effective date of the policy. It is not the intent of this policy to initiate community impact analyses on approvals which have already been granted or on actions which have already been initiated by federal agencies. to a large commercial development inside or outside the boundaries of the affected community. Such an analysis will be prepared within 45 working days from receipt of the local officials’ request. • Community impact analysis should be directed at determin- ing the consequences (positive and negative) 3 of the pending federal action on the existing business districts of the com- munities requesting it, as well as on the community itself. It should also indicate the general impact of the pending federal action on the surrounding metropolitan area and the area where the federal action is to take place. The community impact analysis should acknowledge, and not duplicate, relevant and available local demographic, economic and market studies. It should be considerate of the views of appropriate local public officials, community groups and pri- vate sector leadership, and where relevant, developers of affected large commercial developments concerning, particular- ly: (a) the effect of the pending federal action; (b) the econo- mic health of the business district(s) of the community request- ing the analysis; and (c) the willingness and desire of the public and private sector from the community requesting the analysis to work together to strengthen development and revitalization opportunities in the existing business district(s). • If the community impact analysis demonstrates that signifi- cant negative consequences will result from the pending fed- eral action, the federal agency responsible for the action should consider modifications or mitigating options consis- tent with relevant statutes, the Agency’s mission and the Pre- sident’s national policies. • As part of the President’s program to reduce paperwork and to avoid burdening state and local officials and the private sector with unnecessary red tape, community impact analyses, when prepared, should be coordinated with the requirements of NEPA regulations. 4 Whenever possible, the information required to be compiled under 40 CFR S 1502 should be utilized in preparing community impact analyses. t Similarly, information used to compile Clearinghouse Community Im- pact Analyses pursuant to Circular A-95 should be used whenever possible in preparing community impact analyses resulting from this policy. Each federal agency will provide periodic reports to the IACC descriptive of its performance with respect to implemen- tation of the initiatives described in this memorandum. 3 Negaiive impact shall include, but not be limited to, the following (I) signifi- cant loss of aggregate jobs; (2) significant reduction in tax base; (3) significant loss of employment opportunities for minorities; and (4) significant impact on strengthening population decentralization trends and increasing use of energy; and (5) a significant adverse impact on future Cost and availability of retail goods and services. NEPA regulations and the reference to 40 CFR S 1502 refer to regulations promulgated as a result of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Envi- ronmental Quality Act of 1970, and related Executive Orders. 5 Although much of the information utilized in community impact analyses and environmental impact statements will be the same, the community impact analysis is not technically or legally an environmental impact statement since it is prepared pursuant to this guidance, rather than pursuant to NEPA. The White House November 26, 1979 51 ------- Appendix D Checklist for Review of Transportation Portions of 1979 SIP Submissions How to Use the Checklist Applying this checklist will produce a detailed record of EPA’S review of the transportation portion of 1979 SIP submissions. Certain requirements which relate to both transportation and non-transportation (such as definition of nonattainment areas) have been included in both the transportation and non-trans- portation checklists. However, certain items not related to transportation (such as VOC regulations for 11 source catego- ries) have not been included in the transportation checklist. Therefore, both checklists should be used in reviewing the en- tire SIP. This checklist contains 19 major requirements. The first 18 requirements are taken directly from Table 1 of the EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines. The identifi- cation in parenthesis after each major requirement (e.g., A.3) corresponds to the item in Table I of the Planning Guidelines. Each major requirement contains one or more sub-elements that provide for a more detailed review. Acceptable/deficient judgments are required only for the major requirements. Judgments on the adequacy of the sub-elements should contri- bute to decisions about the approvability of major require- ments. A summary table of major requirements is provided. The detailed checklist [ should containi the following columns: • Criteria for Transportation Planning - List of major review requirements followed by sub-elements. • EPA review - identification of EPA reviewer. • A/D - Acceptable! Deficient checks for major elements. • Location in SiP - Identifies location of information in the SIP (e.g., volume, pages). • Comments - Reviewer comments (e.g., actions required to correct deficiencies; inapplicability of specific requirements for particular areas). One possible review procedure could include these steps: • Read through the submission quickly to become familiar with the format and general contents. Read both the transpor- tation and non-transportation portions of CO and ozone submissions. • Fill in the column “Location in SIP” for each item on the checklist. This will identify the location of information and information not submitted. The State and lead agency should be informed immediately if required information is absent and requested to submit the information as quickly as possible. • Go through the checklist to review each item in detail. Keep a detailed written record of your review using addi- tional pages to supple*ient column space where necessary. When deficiencies are identified, the State and lead agency should be notified immediately rather than after the entire review is complete. Regional Offices should make the neces- sary efforts to have the deficiencies remedied. • Sumarize review results on the “Summary Evalua- tion” provided at the beginning of the detailed checklist. Detailed Checklist Criteria for Transportation Planning Definition of nonattainment area and geographic area covered by transportation control. (A. 1) • Does the submission contain a description of the geo- graphic area for transportation controls? • Is the nonattainment area used for transportation planning consistent with that used for stationary source planning? Accurate, comprehensive, and current emissions inventory. (A.2) • Does the submission contain a current (base year) emis- sions inventory for: hydrocarbons carbon monoxide • Is the base year for the transportation inventory the same as for stationary sources? hydrocarbons carbon monoxide • Are the latest EPA emission factors used? • Are all parameters and assumptions (such as % cold start) documented? • Is the transportation source inventory fully integrated with the stationary source inventory? hydrocarbons carbon monoxide Estimation of emission reductions needed to demonstrate standard attainment by 1982 and 1987 (including emission growth projections) (A.3) Determination of whether federal new car standards and stationary source controls demonstrate attainment by 1982. Demonstration of need for attainment deadline extension to 1987 (A.4) • Does the submission contain documentation of current 1982 and 1987 travel demand and VMT estimates? • Does the submission contain a demonstration that the NAAQS for oxidants cannot be met by 1982 with application of all reasonable measures? Is there a single demonstration that combines mobile and stationary source emissions and uses the same oxidant design value? 52 ------- Are estimates of emission reductions from measures which can be implemented by 1982 included? Are modeling procedures and assumptions documented? • Does the submission contain a demonstration that the NAAQS for carbon monoxide cannot be met by 1982 with application of all reasonable measures? Is the demonstration based on evaluation of CO hotspots? Are estimates of emission reductions from measures which can be implemented by 1982 included? Are the modeling procedures and assumptions documented? • Does the submission contain estimates of emission reduction potential from reasonably available measures? Are modeling techniques (air quality and travel demand) documented? Are carbon monoxide impacts based on an evaluation of hotspots? Are emission reduction estimates reasonable? Are 1982 and 1987 emission reduction estimates included? • Does the submission take credit for measures imple- mented after August 7, 1977? If so, is there any documenta- tion that the emission reductions actually occurred? • Does the submission contain a complete package of adopted measures and measures for future study which, when added to stationary source measures, demonstrates attainment by 1987? oxidants carbon monoxide • Are emission growth projections to 1982 and 1987 specifi- cally quantified? oxidants carbon monoxide Designation and certification of a lead agency for nonattain- ment areas. (8.1) • Has a lead agency been designated? • Has the EPA Regional Office concurred? • Does the submission document the designation process? Identification of agency tasks and responsibilities. (B.2) • Have initial emission reduction targets been assigned to stationary and mobile sources? • Is there a process for periodic review of the targets? • Does the submission contain a description of the process for determining consistency! conformity? • Does the submission contain a description of the 3C process in the region? • Does the submission contain a description of the project programming process in the State? • Does the submission contain memoranda of understanding or other informal but written joint acknowledgment of understanding of reponsibilities among State and local agencies participating in the planning process? Schedule for comprehensive analyses of alternatives and demon- stration that analysis is underway. (B.3) • Does the submission contain a description of the alternative analyses as it appears (or will appear) in the UPWP? • Does the submission contain documentation that the alterna- tive analyses has begun? If not, is there a schedule showing when the analyses will begin? • Does the submission show that the analyses will be complete by July 30, 1980? If not, is there justification for completion at a later date? Schedule for adoption of reasonably available measures. (B.4) • Does the submission contain a commitment to study addi- tional measures? • Is there a schedule for study, adoption and final implementation? • List all committed studies in Table 1 along with their sche- dule for eventual implementation and indicate whether commitment is adequate. Are the studies included as part of the UPWP? If not, is there a schedule showing when the UPWP will be formally modified? Commitment to justify decision not to adopt difficult, but reasonably available measures. (B.5) • Does the submission contain a commitment to justify deci- sions not to adopt difficult but reasonably available measures? • Do UPWP work items for study of specific measures in- clude as end products either a recommendation to imple- ment measures or justification not to implement? Process for public interest group and elected official consul- tation and involvement in: defining transportation-air quality issues, establishing the planning process, development and analysis of alternatives. (8.6) • Does the submission contain a description of the process for public interest group and elected official consultation as it appears (or will appear) in the UPWP? Is this process com- parable to that in the EPA-DOT Planning Guidelines? 53 ------- ldentification of estimated financial and other resources necessary to carry out the process described by the EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines. A commit- ment to the first year of the process should be demon- strated in the UPWP. (B.7) • Has the UPWP been formally modified to include all trans- portation-air quality planning activities? • If not: Is there a schedule for revision of the UPWP? Does the submission contain a description of work items which will appear in the UPWP? Does the work program identify all federal, State and local agencies participating in funding the air quality planning activities and the amount of funds each agency is committing to the process during FY 79? • If the UPWP has not been formally modified: • Does the work program contain all elements specified in the Does the submission contain the information which will EPA-DOT transportation-air quality planning guidelines? appear in the UPWP? Is there a schedule showing when the UPWP will be formally Emission reduction estimates for adopted measures and! or modified? packages of measures. Rough estimates of annual emission re- ductions through 1987 for packages of measures currently being developed and analyzed. (C.2) • Does the submission contain an estimate of the cost and manpower requirements to carry out the process? • Does the submission identify measures or packages of mea- sures for future study? • Does the submission contain annual emission reduction esti- mates and provide a Reasonable Further Progress schedule which combines stationary and mobile source emissions? Preliminary identification of analytical methodologies for de- • Was the transportation portion of the plan included in the pub- termining air quality, travel, economic, energy, social, etc. ef- lie hearings held by the State? fects of plan provisions. Summary of public comment on such methodologies. (C.3) • Was the submission reviewed by the A-95 agency? • Does the plan contain an evaluation of health, welfare, econo- mic, energy and social effects? • Does the plan identify methods to be used in future planning • Has the UPWP been modified to include provisions for pro- evaluations of air quality, etc. impacts? gress reporting? • Does the plan contain a summary of public comment on these • If the UPWP has not been modified: proposed methods? Is there a schedule for modification? Is the information which will appear in the UPWP included? Commitment to: (I) accelerate implementation of transportation improvements in current or recent annual element, (2) incremental Schedule of activities leading to implementation of 1/ M. (B. 10) phase-in of additional reasonable measures. (C.4) • Is there a request for an extension of the attainment date for • CO or oxidants beyond 1982? If so, does the submission contain a commitment to an Inspection and Maintenance Program which meets the requirements of the July 17, 1978 memo from David G. Hawkins to Regional Administrators, “inspection and Maintenance Policy’? Commitment to use (insofar as is necessary) available grants and funds to establish, expand or improve public transporta- tion measures to meet basic transportation needs as expedi- tiously as practicable. (B. II) Review of commitments to implement measures. On Table II list all measures for which there is a commit- ment to implement, along with the air quality impact, key interim steps and dates leading to implementation, and the expected date of implementation and your determination of whether the commitment is adequate. Does the submission propose to delete any transportation measures from the currently approved SIP? If so, list the measures proposed for deletion on Table Ill and indicate whether the deletion can be approved. • Is there a request for an extension of the attainment date for CO Excerpted from the EPA “Checklist for Review of Transportation or oxidants beyond 1982? If so, is this commitment included in Portions of 1979 SIP Submissions, “September 21, 1978. the submission? U PWP air quality-related transportation planning tasks being performed by each agency during FY 79. (C.l) • Does the submission contain documentation showing that the UPWP has been modi%ied to include air quality planning activi- ties? • Does the submission show that funds have been committed to at least the first year of the process in the UPWP? If not, is there a schedule for obtaining funding commitments? Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the State after reasona- ble notice and public hearing. (B.8) Provisions for progress reporting throughout the planning and implementation period. (B.9) ------- Appendix E Glossary 3C Planning Process The “comprehensive, continuing and co- operative” transportation planning process required by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. 42 U.S.C. §134 (1978 pamph.). A-95 Clearinghouse Review Established by Office of Management and Budget (0MB) circular No. A-95. This review facilitates cooperation between federal agencies and state and local governments in the evaluation, review, and coordination of all federal assistance programs and projects. Acid Rain Through a series of complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere pollutants such as NOx and SOx can be converted into acids, which may return to earth as either rain or snow. This acidic precipita- tion is commonly referred to as acid rain. Action Plan A document prepared by each State which describes the organization to be utilized and the processes to be followed in the development of federal-aid highway projects. The Administrator Refers here to the chief officer of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. His duties include the promulgation of regu- lations and the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) Because air pollution does not conform to political boundaries, the Clean Air Act empowered EPA to divide the country into AQCR5 to facilitate air quality planning. CAA §l07(bX2), 42 U.S.C. §7407(bX2) (1978 pamph.). Ambient Standards Ambient standards measure the overall quality of the air we breathe regardless of where the pollution comes from. The term “standard” is a bit misleading, because ambient standards are not legally enforce- able in and of themselves. Rather they set the ultimate goals. Ambient standards may be contrasted with emission standards which set limits on the pollution which may be emitted from specific, individual sources. Annual Element (AE or TIP! AE) A list of transportation projects for im- plementation during the first year of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It includes all highway and public transportation projects for urban areas. Anthropogenic Describes those pollutants which are created by man. Distinguished from naturally occuring or nonanthropogenic pollutants. Appropriation An act of Congress which makes funds available for expenditure with specific limitations as to amount, purpose, and duration. An appropriation act permits money previously “authorized” to be obligated (spent). Attainment Areas Those areas which have achieved NAAQS. PSD rules apply to these areas to insure that the good air quality is maintained. These areas are distinguished from non- attainment areas. Attainment Deadline The deadline by which the Clean Air Act requires States to have achieved NAAQS. Attorneys’ Fees Traditionally each party in a lawsuit bears his! her own litigation expenses, regardless of the outcome of the suit. The Clean Air Act, however, contains provisions for the awarding of attorneys’ fees and other costs of litigation (such as expert witness fees) of one party to the other party at the judge’s discretion. This enables citizens to recover their costs if the action they bring is meritorious. On the other hand, there is a danger that costs defending the suit might be assigned to the citizens if the judge determines that the suit was brought frivolously. CAA § 304(d), 307( 1), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d), 7607(f) (1978 parnph.). Authorization An authorization act sets an upper limit on the amount of money which may be appropriated to an agenc y. The authoriza- tion itself does not permit the agency to obligate (spend) the money. Only when a subsequent appropriations act is passed may funds be obligated. Background Not all pollutants are caused by man; certain low levels of air pollutants occur naturally. These nonanthropogenic (non- manmade) pollutants make up what is termed the background. For example, if man completely stopped all polluting activities, the background level of naturally occuring ozone would be .04 ppm. The NAAQS level is set well above that at .12 ppm. Polluted urban areas to- day often experience levels at 3.0 ppm. Basic Transportation Needs (BTN) The Clean Air Act requires States which will not be able to meet NAAQS by 1982 to adopt comprehensive measures to improve public transit to a level which meets “basic transportation needs.” This is interpreted as that level which provides.an attractive alternative to the automobile. CAA §*1 l0(a)(3)(D), (cX5XB), 42 U.S.C. § 74 l0(aX3XD), (cX5XB) (1978 pamph.). Best Available Control Technology A stationary source requirement under the Clean Air Act. Major new (and modi- fied) stationary sources of pollution locating in PSD areas are required to apply “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) to reduce air pollution from both criteria and hazardous pollutants. CAA § l65(aX4), 169(3), 42 U.S.C. §*7475(aX4), 7479(3) (1978 pamph.). The determination of what level of control con- stitutes BACT will be made on an ad hoc basis for each new source, but in no event will BACT be less stringent than NSPS or NESHAP. 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (1974), 40 C.F.R. Part 52.2l(dX2Xii). Bubble Policy This policy is similar in concept to the offset policy in that it balances pollution from one source against compensating reductions made elsewhere. However, the offset policy applies to new sources in nonattainment areas, while the bubble policy applies to existing sources in these areas. The term “bubble” derives from the concept of placing an imaginary bub- ble over a plant and determining compli- ance on the basis of total plant emissions. Thus, placing controls irs excess of what is required in one part of the plant may compensate for placing less control else- where. In so doing the firm may be able to achieve the same emission improve- ments more economically. Budget (or Contract) Authority Empowerment by the Congress which allows federal agencies to incur obliga- tions to spend or lend money. This em- powerment is generally in the form of ap- propriations. However, in the highway program it is in the form of “contract authority.” Budget (or contract) authority permits agencies to obligate funds which were previously “authorized.” Capital Costs That monetary cost generally associated with initiating a particular transport operation including, for example, acquisi- tion of land, construction, and purchase of fleet, but not including operating costs or maintenance. Carbon Monoxide A colorless, odorless, very toxic gas produced by any process that involves the incomplete combustion of carbon con- taining substances, One of the major air pollutants, it is primarily emitted through the exhaust of gasoline powered vehicles. Certification of the Planning Process Recognition by the Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration that trans- portation planning in urbanized areas is being conducted in a “continuous, co- operative, and comprehensive” fashion (the 3C process). Such certification is required for federal financial participation in transportation projects. Citizen Suit A provision snler the Clean Air Act (and other legislation) enables private citizens to bring a legal action (called a citizen suit) to enforce the Act. CAA §304(a), 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) 1978 pamph.). Clean Air Act (CAA) The piece of legislation passed in 1970 and amended in 1974 and 1977 which provides the basis for federal control of air pollu- tion. Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970), Pub. L. No. 93-319, 88 Stat. 246 (1974), Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 (1977), Pub. L. No. 95-190, 91 Stat. 1401-02 (1977) (technical and conforming amendments). Citations to the Clean Air Act are some- times confusing. The 1970 Act, which provided the basic framework of current air quality law, was officially titled The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. How- 55 ------- ever, it is usually referred to as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 1970 Act or simply the Act. It was modified extensively by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, referred to as the 1977 Amendments or simply the Amendments. Depending on context, the terms Clean Air Act and the Act may refer either to the 1970 Act alone or to the current body of law made up of the 1970 Act as modified by the 1977 Amendments. Specific sections in the Act may be referenced either by the section number (“f’) within the original 1970 Act or the section number within the United States Code or U.S.C. (a compilation of all federal statutes). One final complication: the 1977 Amendments changed the num- bering system for the Act within the U.S.C. Thus, the reader may find the requirement that States submit a State Implementation Plan cited in three ways: as §110 of the Act, as §l857c-5 of the U.S.C. (prior to 1977) and as §7410 of the U.S.C. (sub- sequent to 1977). Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) An annual compilation of all federal regulations. Comments During the rulemaking process, federal agencies are required to allow the public to comment on proposed actions (such as approval of a SIP or the imposition of sanctions). Usually a period of 30 or 60 days is allowed for comments to be sub- mitted. No particular form is required for these comments. Community Impact Analysis This is an analysis prepared upon local request by federal agencies pursuant to the President’s Community Conservation Guidance of November 1979 (See Appen- dix C). It is designed to assess the impact of federal support (primarily highway and sewer infrastructure) for proposed suburban mall construction on existing business districts. If it demonstrates that significant negative consequences are likely to result from suburban mall con- struction, the federal agencies are re- quired to reconsider their position with regard to government support for the mall. Criteria Pollutants These are the pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Criteria have been established by EPA. EPA has established criteria for seven pollutants: sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (N02), carbon monoxide (CO), non- methane hydrocarbons (HC), photo- chemical oxidants measured as ozone, (Os), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (TSP for “total suspended particulates). Dispersion Refers to the technique of “reducing” pollution simply by dispersing it over a large area rather than actually reducing the total amount of pollution. (This may be accomplished, for example, by placing taller chimney stacks on industrial sources.) It was once thought that if the pollution was spread thin enough, its hazard would be eliminated; but phenomena such as “acid rain” demon- strate that dispersion spreads the problem around rather than eliminating it. Dispersion Modeling A sophisticated, computerized method of calculating the amount of pollution reduc- tion necessary to achieve NAAQS. Dis- persion modeling differs from simpler models in that it takes into account the location and timing of the pollution. Element An element is a part of a document. A SIP will be divided into elements for each area within the State. For example, the Colorado SIP will contain a Denver Element. The Denver Element may, in turn, be divided into elements for each of the major requirements of the Act, such as TCP element. Emission Inventory This is a summary of all emissions of pollutants measured within a given AQCR. It is an assessment of the current situation against which the area develops its SIP. It is required by CAA * I 72(bX4), 42 U.S.C. §7502(bX4) (1978 pamph.). Emission Limitations This term is generally used with reference to stationary rather than mobile sources. It is an inclusive term referring to any type of control or strategy to reduce emission of air pollutants. The Clean Air Act empowers the Administrator to establish emission limitations (in the form of specified control technologies) for new stationary sources (42 U.S.C. §7411, CAA §111) and requires states to establish additional emission limitations. (42 U.S.C. §74 10 (aX2XB), CAA §110 (aX2XB). Emission Standards This is a specific type of emission limita- tion which places a limit on the amount of a particular pollutant which may be emitted by sources. The Clean Air Act empowers the Administrator to establish emission standards for hazardous air p01- lutants (42 U.S.C. §74 12, CAA §112) and for mobile sources (CAA §202, c i seq.. 42 U.S.C. §7521, ci. seq.. (1978 pamph.). Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, DEIS & FEIS) A detailed statement outlining the impacts on the human environment of all major federal projects with significant impacts. Required pursuant to the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 0*4321 ci seq. (1978) Also called a a “Section 102 Statement” in referencee to the particular section of NEPA that requires preparation of the statement. Agencies first publish a draft EISI for public comment. The DEIS is followed by a final EIS (FEIS). Expenditures (Outlays) A term signifying disbursement (spending) of funds by a federal agency. F.2d An abbreviation for Federal Reporier, Second a series of books containing cases decided in the federal Courts of Appeals. Fed. Supp. An abbreviation for the Federal Supple- men:, a collection of cases from the federal District Courts. Federal-Aid Highway Act Actually a series of acts, passed every two years beginning in 1950, and more recently called the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. Codified at 23 U.S.C. Federal-Aid Highway Program Those programs for the construction of federal interstate, primary, secondary, and urban systems highways. Other federally- supported highway programs, such as Forest Highways, Highway Beautifica- tion, etc., are not included under this term. Federal-Aid Systems The four Federal-Aid Systems are the interstate system, the primary system, the secondary system and the urban system. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The agency within the Depaitment of Transportation which is given respon- sibility for federal highways. Federal Register A daily publication of the federal govern- ment which lists all the proposed and final regulations of all federal agencies. These regulations are later included in the Code of Federal Regulations. Fiscal Year The time period beginning October I and ending September 30 of the subsequent calendar year. Fiscal years are designated by the calendar year in which they end. Hazardous Pollutants Hazardous pollutants are pollutants which are shown to result in an increase in mortality and serious illness, but for which no NAAQS have been established. They include asbestos, beryllium, arsenic, mercury and vinyl cloride. EPA establishes emission standards for these pollutants which apply to all industrial sources. However, unlike the criteria pollutants, the States do not develop plans to reduce hazardous pollutants as part of their SIPs. CAA §112,42 U.S.C. §7412 (1978 pamph.). 40 C.F.R. Part 61 (1978). Headway The frequency of transit service on any given route, calculated in terms of time elapsed between service at any one station. Heavy Rail See Rapid Rail. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV Lanes) Special lanes on urban highways designated for use only by carpools and buses (high occupancy vehicles). 56 ------- Hydrocarbon Any of a vast family of compounds con- taining carbon and hydrogen in various combinations. They are precursors to the production of photochemical oxidants. Inspection and Maintenance (1/ M) A requirement under the Clean Air Act that automobiles be periodically inspected to insure that their emission control devices remain functional. CAA § 172(bXlIXB),42 U.S.C. §7502(b)(11) (B) 1978 pamph.). Inversion The phenomenon of a layer of cool air trapped by a layer of warmer air above it so that the bottom layer cannot rise. This causes a serious problem in polluted areas because the contaminating sub- stances cannot be dispersed. Land Use Patterns The trends in land development which result from certain infrastructure invest- ments. For example, urban highways facilitate low density suburban sprawl, while subways encourage high density development. Light Rail (LRT) Light rail transit is a mode of electric train transportation utilizing track laid directly on the streets, rather than in sub- way tunnels and elevated structures (as in the more efficient but also more costly “rapid rail’ . Linear Rollback This is the simplest of all modeling tech- niques for determining the amount of pollution reduction necessary to achieve NAAQS. The model assumes a given pro- portion between amount of hydrocarbons emitted and amount of ozone formed, and does not take into account interactions among pollutants and consequently under- estimates the reduction in hydrocarbons necessary to achieve the ozone standard. Long Range Transport Refers to the movement of air pollutants across great distances. Long-Range Transportation Plan A map showing transportation facilities that are projected for the next 15-20 years. It is the long range companion to the TIP. Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) This is a stationary source requirement which applies to new sources in nonattain- ment (dirty air) areas. CAA §*l7l(3), 173(2), 42 U.S.C. §j750l(3), 7503(2) (1978 pamph.). Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) The organization responsible for compre- hensive transportation planning in urban areas. MPOs frequently cross city and even state boundaries and therefore rely on the cooperation of several government bodies for their effective operation. 23 U.S.C. §134, 23 U.S.C. §l04(f)(3), and 49 U.S.C. **1602(aX2), (cXl)l, 49 U.S.C. §1603(a), and 49 U.S.C. §1604(g). In metropolitan areas it usually serves also as the air quality agency. CAA § 174,42 U.S.C. §7504(1978 pamph.). Mobile Sources Refers to transportation sources of pollution (as opposed to stationary or industrial sources). Modal Split A measure of the relative use of various modes of transportation, e.g. the split between use of highways and mass transit. Mode A particular system of transportation, e.g., rail, automotive, or bicycle. Modeling Techniques for estimating the amount of pollution reduction necessary to achieve NAAQS. Models currently in use include dispersion modeling, EKMA, and rollback. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) A stationary source requirement under the Clean Air Act. These are emission limitations applicable to specified haz- ardous pollutants emitted from both new and existing stationary sources. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The Act which requires the preparation of an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 432l, et. seq. (1978). New Source Ban (NSB) A ban on new stationary sources of pollution went into effect on July 1, 1979 for those States which failed to submit an approvable revised SIP by that time. CAA § 1 lO(aX2XI), 42 U.S.C. §74lO(aX2XI) (1978 pamph.). New Sourc Performance Standards (NSPS) A stationary source requirement under the Clean Air Act. These are minimum national emission standards which apply to specified categories of new (and modified) stationary sources. NSPS apply equally in attainment and nonattainment areas. CAA §111, 42 U.S.C. §7411 (1978 pamph.). As of 1979 the Administra- tor had promulgated NSPS for some two dozen categories of sources. Nitrogen Oxides Pollutant gases formed from nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere during the operation of internal-combustion engines. Non-anthropogenic Describes those pollutants which occur naturally in the environment and make up the “background” level of pollution. Nonattainment Areas These are areas which have failed to meet NAAQS. They are required under the 1977 Amendments to submit revised SIPs to achieve NAAQS by 1982 (or under some circumstances by 1987). Obligations Commitments made by federal agencies to pay out money, as distinct from the actual payments, which are “outlays.” Gen- erally, obligations are incurred after the enactment of budget authority. How- ever, since budget authority in the highway program is in the form of contract authority, obligations are permitted to be incurred immediately after apportion- ment. Offset Policy A new source locating in a nonattain- ment area must (in addition to meeting certain technological requirements) dem- onstrate that the pollution which will re- suit from its operation will be offset by cleaning up or closing down existing pollution sources in the area. The result- ing offsets must be greater than the pol- lution to be added by the new plant so that a net improvement in emissions is achieved. Operating Costs Costs incurred in running a trans- portation system, e.g., labor and main- tenance costs. Ozone (03) Part D A pungent, colorless, toxic gas composed of three molecules of oxygen. Although ozone occurs as a natural phenonemon in the stratosphere where it serves as a protective shield against radiation, it is a dangerous pollutant when found in the air we breathe. This refers to the portion of the Clean Air Act added by the 1977 Amendments which deals with the new requirements for revision of SIPs. Photochemical Oxidants PPM Those pollutants which are created in the air from other chemicals in the presence of sunlight. The most common (and most easily detected) photochemical oxidant is ozone. The NAAQS for photochemical oxidants was recently changed to include only ozone. Parts per million. Precursors Chemicals which precede the formation of pollutants in a chemical reaction. For example, HC is a precursor of 03. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Many parts of the country have air quality which is better than national standards. The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of the Clean Air Act require that these clean air regions maintain their purity rather than slipping down to NAAQS levels. Promulgate When an agency issues a final deter- mination in a rulemaking, it is said to promulgate a regulation. 57 ------- ?Tospectus A document which outlines the scope of the planning program, procedures to be uSed in carrying out the elements of the planning process, a breakdown of the functional responsibilities of all participating agencies, and a list of products expected to be delivered by the end of the program year in terms of major milestones. PS&E Approval Approval of the Plans, Specifications and Estimates for a federal-aid highway project. This obligates federal funds for a project and allows the state highway department to let construction contracts to bid. Pub. L. No. Public Law Number. Each act of Congress is assigned a Public Law Number as soon as it is signed into law. These laws are first published in the Statutes at Large and later codified (or organized) into the Unued States Code. Rapid Rail Rapid rail transit is a mode of electric train transportation which relies on track laid in subway tunnels or on elevated structures. It is distinguished from the much less expensive “light rail”. Rapid rail is sometimes referred to as “heavy rail.” Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) — The i977 Amendments require each revised SIP to assure gradual improve- ment of air quality each year prior to the attainment deadline. These incremental gains are referred to as RFP. CAA § l7l(l), 172(bX3), 42 U.S.C. §47501(1), 7502(bX3) (1978 pamph.). Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) RACM are measures aimed at reducing air pollution from transportation sources. All nonattainment areas are required to revise their SIPs to include all such measures which are reasonably available. CAA §172(bX2), 42 U.S.C. §7502(bX2) (1978 pamph.). These control measures make up the Transportation Control Plan (TCM) required by CAA * I 10(aX2XB), 42 U.S.C. §7410(aX2XB) (1978 pamph.). RACM are distinguished from “reasonably available control technology” (RACT) which applies to stationary sources. Regulations Agencies may be empowered under acts of Congress to promulgate regulations interpreting the laws. For example, the Clean Air Act is a law passed by Congress which created the concept of NAAQS. But it is the Administrator of the EPA who passes regulations designating certain chemicals as criteria pollutants and establishes air quality standards for them. These regulations are Inst published in the Federal Register, and later collected in the annual Code of Federal Regulations. Ru lem n nking The process by which agencies promulgate regulations is called ruleniiiking. Rules Synonymous with regulations. Section 134 Refers to section 134 of title 23 U.S.C. (Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962) in which Congress declared that transporta- tion planning be based on a compre- hensive, continuing, and cooperative (3C) process. The Secretary Refers here to the chief officer of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Standaed Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) An SMSA defines the broad metropolitan region (generally a city and its suburbs) which make up an economically and socially integrated unit. It is the unit used in transportation planning which is analogous (but not necessarily identical) to the AQCR used in air quality planning. Standing Traditionally courts will not permit a legal action to be brought by someone who is not involved in the legal dispute (that is, by someone who was not him! herself “injured”). This has frequently made it difficult for citizens to bring suit against governments or polluters because the dis- pute does not directly involve the citizen. However, the Clean Air Act does away with this requirement and permits a broad range of citizen suits. CAA §304, 42 U.S.C. §7604 (1978 pamph.). Stat. This is an abbreviation for Statutes a: Large, a cumulative collection of all acts of Congress. Laws are first published in the Statutes at Large, and later codified (or organized) into the United States Code. State Implementation Plan (SIP) The Clean Air Act requires each State to develop a SIP which outlines strategies for attaining air quality standards (NAAQS) within the State. The 1977 Amendments require nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs. Stationary Sources Refers to industrial (rather than trans- portation-related) sources of pollution. Sulphur Oxides Pungent, colorless gases formed primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels. Sulfur oxides may damage the respiratory tract. They may be convened in the atmosphere into acid rain. Three-C Planning Process See 3-C Planning Process. Title The term “title” may refer either to an entire volume of the United States Code or to a single chapter within an Act. (The Clean Air Act, unlike many other laws, is not divided into titles, but rather into subchapters, parts and sections.) Transferable Highway Projects Proposed highway projects located in urban areas whose funds may be transferred at local request to public transit projects. Transport This refers to the shifting of pollution from its source to another area. Ozone and particulate matter are subject to long distance transport. Transportation Control Plan (TCP) The Clean Air Act requires a TCP as part of the SIP. These transportation controls are aimed at reducing transportation- related emissions by discouraging private use of the automobile. CAA § I lO(aX2XB), 42 U.S.C. § 7 4l0(aX2XB) (1978 pamph.). The 1977 Amendments required that the Transportation Control Plan (TCP) be expanded to include all RACM. CAA *l72(bX2), 42 U.S.C. §7502(bX2) (1978 pamph.). Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) A document prepared by the MPO which lists all highway projects planned for the next three to five years. Those planned for the upcoming year are included in the “annual element” of the TIP. Transportation System Management (TSM) These are strategies for improving the efficiency of existing roads and highways without major new capital investment. Trust Funds Funds established by law to account for receipts (money) which are held by the Government and earmarked for specific purposes and programs. These receipts are not available for the general purposes of the Government. The Highway Trust Fund is comprised of receipts from certain highway user taxes (e.g., excise taxes on gasoline, rubber, and heavy vehicles) and reserved for use for highway construction and related purposes. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP or UWP) A document covering all work activities of the State and local agencies involved with the continuing transportation planning process. Also known as the Unified Work Program (UWP). United States Code (U.S.C.) A collection of all federal laws issued annually. A similar collection is called United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.). Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) The agency within the Department of Transportation given responsibility for urban mass transit. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) A measure of the total amount of road use for a particular highway or geo- graphical area. This is a rough approxima- tion of the pollution generated along a particular corridor (but it fails to take into account the fact that two short trips produce more pollution than one long one). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) These are precursors to photochemical oxidants. There are numerous VOC which contribute to the generation of photo- chemical oxidants, but NAAQS have been established only for the biggest offender: hydrocarbons (HC). (In chemistry, the term “organic” refers to a compound containing carbon.). ------- Appendix F Post-I 982 Nonattainment States Twenty-nine states shown in the map (shaded area) have requested and re- ceived extensions to 1987. These states are required to implement inspection and maintenance programs, to adopt comi5rehensive measures to provide for basic transportation needs, to analyze and implement all reasonably available transportation control measures, and to establish a program for the alternatives analysis of new sources of pollution for their urbanized areas over 200,000 in population. The following metropolitan nonattain- ment areas are included within those 29 states: Albuquerque, NM; Allentown! Bethle- hem Easton, PA; Aurora Elgin. IL; Atlanta, GA; Baltimore. MD; Charlotte. NC: Chicago, IL; Chicago suburbs, IN; Cincinnati, OH; Cincinnati suburbs, KY: Cleveland, OH; Colorado Springs. CO: Connecticut (statewide); D.C. suburbs, MD; D.C. suburbs, VA; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI: Fresno, CA; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Louis- ville, KY; Louisville suburbs. IN: Massa- chusetts (statewide); Memphis. TN; Nash- ville, TN; New Jersey (statewide); New York, NY: Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA; Rhode Island (statewide); Richmond, VA; Sacramento, CA; St. Louis, MO; St. Louis suburbs, IL; Salt Lake City, UT; San Bernardino! Riverside, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco Bay area, CA; Scranton/ Wilkesbarre, PA; Seattle, WA; Tucson, AZ: Ventura, CA; Washington. DC; Wilmington, DE; Wis- consin (southeast portion). Source: Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy. EPA, August 1980 Mich Del DATE DUE HIGHSMITH #45115 59 MJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 311132/100 1-3 ------- |