8/19/2003
Clearing the Air- Executive Summary
Public Health Threats from Cars and Heavy
Duty Vehicles –
Why We Need to Protect Federal Clean Air Laws
Executive
Summary
Air pollution
continues to be a serious health problem in America, and one for which our
transportation system bears a large responsibility for. While the nation has
undeniably achieved significant success in reducing air pollution since Congress
passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, the news isn’t all positive. Recent studies
have shown strong evidence linking air pollution with public health problems
like asthma, cancer, and heart disease. Nearly half of all Americans
- more than 130 million people - still
live with unhealthy levels of air pollution.[i]
And new findings contained in this report show that air pollution has actually
gotten worse in dozens of metropolitan areas over the last decade.
Federal
efforts, along with federal transportation funding aimed at reducing the health
risks from air pollution, have started to make a difference, but must be
protected and strengthened if the nation’s initial progress is to be
sustained. Even so, some in Congress and the Bush Administration are proposing
to make drastic changes to clean air laws and programs that could severely
undermine current and future progress towards cleaner air. These changes could
seriously jeopardize ongoing efforts to protect public health from air
pollution. This report:
-
Provides an overview of the latest
scientific evidence linking poor air quality to public health problems
including asthma, cancer, and heart disease;
-
Determines which populations and
places suffer the most from air pollution in the U.S., in addition to
analyzing the trends in air pollution over the last decade;
-
Quantifies the role that
transportation plays in the nation’s air pollution problems; and
-
Illustrates the importance of
federal laws and federal funding – in particular the federal Clean Air Act
and clean air money available under the federal transportation law – in
reducing the health-related risks from air pollution.
Air Pollution and Public Health
For
many years, air pollution was viewed as a visual nuisance. But as the twentieth
century progressed, our understanding of air pollution evolved considerably. As
a result of several highly publicized air pollution events, including the
Donora, Pennsylvania fog, where 17 people died and nearly half the town’s
14,000 residents became sick from a severe air pollution episode in 1948,
researchers began to acknowledge that air pollution was also a significant
threat to public health.[ii]
Congress
responded in 1970 by passing the Clean Air Act. In 1990, they approved a
significant set of strengthening amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed
specifically at reducing air pollution from cars and heavy duty vehicles since
it was increasingly evident that underestimating transportation as a major
source of air pollution had been a significant factor in the failure of many air
pollution control plans. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court also upheld
the right of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use health-based air
quality standards.
Recent
medical research has linked air pollution to a host of public health concerns
including asthma, cancer, heart disease, heart attacks, strokes, high blood
pressure, birth defects, and even brain damage.[iii]
Air pollution has been found to shorten life expectancy, and not just for
sensitive populations such as those with asthma, but for the general population
as well.
New
research and studies documented in this report also show that:
-
Asthma rates are growing significantly in the U.S. population, increasing 59
percent from 1982 through 1996 (see the Appendix, on page 55, for the
percentage of adults with a lifetime prevalence of asthma by metropolitan
area);
-
Transportation-related air pollution, specifically ground-level ozone and
particulate matter (PM) from cars and heavy duty vehicles, has been found to
severely exacerbate asthma in both adults and children;
-
Exposure to air pollution in the form of ozone and particulate matter
increases the risk of heart disease;
-
Living in neighborhoods with proximity to higher traffic volumes has been
linked to increased cancer risk; and,
-
Large segments of the U.S. population, in particular minorities, children,
and the elderly, are especially vulnerable to the health effects of air
pollution.
Places with the Worst Air Pollution
Where you live
makes a tremendous amount of difference in how much air pollution you’re
typically exposed to. In terms of regional air pollution, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) produces a daily Air Quality Index that tracks air
pollution levels for five primary pollutants and has become a standard part of
weather forecasting throughout the U.S. Every year, the EPA publishes an annual
survey detailing how many times each region’s Air Quality Index exceeds a
score of 100, the standard for generally unhealthy air which is often translated
into a “Code Orange” day or worse (Code Orange days indicate that air
quality is unhealthy for children, older adults, and people with respiratory
disease). The chart below shows the ten regions with the highest total number of
days exceeding a score of 100 for generally unhealthy air over the last three
years (for a listing of the fifty metropolitan areas with the highest number of
days of unhealthy air quality, see Table 1, on page 26 in the full report).
|
Rank
|
Metro
Area
|
Total
Number of Days of Unhealthy Air Quality
(2000
to 2002)
|
|
1
|
Riverside-San
Bernardino, CA
|
445
|
|
2
|
Fresno,
CA
|
421
|
|
3
|
Bakersfield,
CA
|
409
|
|
4
|
Los
Angeles-Long Beach, CA
|
255
|
|
5
|
Sacramento,
CA
|
163
|
|
6
|
Pittsburgh,
PA
|
134
|
|
7
|
Knoxville,
TN
|
109
|
|
8
|
Birmingham,
AL
|
100
|
|
9
|
Houston,
TX
|
94
|
|
10
|
Baltimore,
MD
|
93
|
Recent Trends in Air Pollution
Air
quality has improved significantly since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970.
Yet almost half of all Americans – over 130 million people – still live in
areas that violate federal health standards for air pollution,[iv] and we now understand that
even modest amounts of air pollution at levels lower than current federal health
standards can have significant and detrimental impacts on public health.[v] In some larger metro areas,
air pollution routinely reaches unhealthy levels nearly twice a week, and in 52
larger metropolitan areas (for which data was available), air quality was
unhealthy at least once a month during the period 2000 to 2002. In short, while
significant progress has been made in reducing air pollution nationwide, many
regions and millions of people still live with poor air quality that poses a
significant threat to public health.
STPP’s own analysis of the last ten
years of air quality data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
shows that the number of days of unhealthy ozone pollution (or smog) levels
nationally has held just about steady over the last decade (ozone is the only
air pollutant of the six major pollutants that the U.S. EPA has collected data
for in a consistent manner over the last decade, allowing for comparisons over
time). Some metropolitan areas have shown significant improvements in ozone
pollution, and nowhere have these changes been more dramatic than in California.
While several regions in California – Los Angeles in particular – still have
some of the worst air pollution problems in the country, they have also made
some of the most significant gains using a combination of air pollution
reduction strategies in addition to relying on a strong regional planning agency
(known in southern California as the South Coast Air Quality Management
District) dedicated exclusively to fighting air pollution.
But in 30 larger metropolitan areas, in
20 states, the number of days of unhealthy ozone has increased over the past
decade (see Table 2, on page 28). In all but three of these places, both the
number of days of unhealthy levels of air pollution, and the population
have grown. In other words, not only is air pollution getting worse in these
areas, but more people are breathing it. The
table on the next page shows the ten metro areas with the highest growth in the
number of days of unhealthy ozone levels.
|
Rank
|
Metro
Area
|
Number
of Days of Unhealthy Ozone (Smog) Levels
|
|
Avg
1993-1997
|
Avg
1998-2002
|
Percent
Change
|
|
1
|
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson,
SC
|
7.2
|
19.8
|
175.0%
|
|
2
|
Knoxville,
TN
|
25.0
|
42.8
|
71.2%
|
|
3
|
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, NC-SC
|
22.4
|
35.6
|
58.9%
|
|
4
|
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point, NC
|
12.6
|
19.6
|
55.6%
|
|
5
|
Akron,
OH
|
9.4
|
14.4
|
53.2%
|
|
6
|
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle,
PA
|
10.4
|
15.6
|
50.0%
|
|
7
|
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill, NC
|
16.0
|
23.6
|
47.5%
|
|
8
|
Memphis,
TN-AR-MS
|
15.8
|
23.0
|
45.6%
|
|
9
|
Youngstown-Warren,
OH
|
8.6
|
12.4
|
44.2%
|
|
10
|
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon,
NJ
|
15.2
|
21.8
|
43.4%
|
Transportation
Is a Major Contributor to Air Pollution
Cars, buses
and trucks are a major source of pollutants that can significantly degrade air
quality. Transportation is responsible for more than 50 percent of carbon
monoxide, about 34 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and more than 29
percent of hydrocarbon emissions (which combine with NOx in sunlight to form
ozone or smog). Transportation (on-road sources only) also accounts for as much
as 10 percent of fine particulate matter emissions.[vi]
The chart below ranks the ten major metropolitan areas in the U.S. with the
highest percentage of air pollution from transportation sources (see Table 3, on
page 31 in the full report for a ranking of major metropolitan areas).
|
Rank
|
Metro
Area
|
Percent
of all Criteria Pollutants from Transportation
(1999)
|
|
1
|
Fort
Worth-Arlington, TX
|
60.2%
|
|
2
|
San
Antonio, TX
|
57.1%
|
|
3
|
Los
Angeles-Long Beach, CA
|
56.9%
|
|
4
|
Austin-San
Marcos, TX
|
56.7%
|
|
5
|
Dallas,
TX
|
56.4%
|
|
6
|
Hartford,
CT
|
55.6%
|
|
7
|
New
York, NY
|
53.9%
|
|
8
|
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett,
WA
|
53.6%
|
|
9
|
Columbus,
OH
|
53.4%
|
|
10
|
Denver,
CO
|
52.7%
|
New emissions
standards, routine vehicle inspections, and clean technologies established and
implemented by the Clean Air Act have had great success in cutting vehicle
emissions per mile driven. It’s estimated that emissions of criteria
pollutants per mile driven have fallen by more than 90 percent since 1970.[vii]
But at the same time, the number of miles driven, and the number of trips
made by cars and trucks has skyrocketed, growing 162 percent and 57 percent,
respectively, since 1969.[viii]
Should this pace continue, the growth in driving will substantially undermine
much of the emissions reductions made possible by technology improvements from
cleaner cars and more efficient engines.
Transportation-related
air pollution impacts not only public health, but also exacts a huge price tag
in terms of economic costs. Depending on how you value a life, the public health
costs of pollution from cars and heavy duty vehicles have been estimated between
$40 billion and $64 billion per year. The bulk of these public health costs are
attributable to premature death, accounting for 77 percent of costs. The
remainder is attributable to non-fatal illnesses.[ix]
STPP has calculated specific public
health costs from transportation-related air pollution for every major urban
area in the U.S., the results of which can be found in Table 4, on page 36 in
the full report.
Federal
Efforts to Clean the Air Have Made Progress
Amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in
1990 have helped reduce air pollution from transportation by requiring that
transportation plans be consistent with, or “conform to,” state efforts to
reduce air pollution. This process, referred to as air quality conformity,
currently applies to both short-term (three years out) and long-term (20 years
out) plans for metropolitan transportation projects and programs. The law
requires that metropolitan areas re-evaluate those short- and long-term plans
every two and three years respectively.
The
air quality conformity process has been critical in getting transportation
planners and air agencies to work cooperatively to find transportation and air
quality solutions. Frequent updates can also focus public attention on
transportation planning and help the public appreciate the need for investments
in public transit and other alternative transportation modes. Most importantly,
the conformity process has led to increased investments in cost-effective
pollution-reducing transportation strategies that support more diverse travel
choices.
To
help states and metropolitan areas cut pollution from cars, buses and trucks, in
addition to meeting the goals of the Clean Air Act, Congress established the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ) when it passed
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. Under that
program, states have spent over $11 billion in federal funds over the last 11
years to provide greater mobility and improve air quality in non-attainment and
maintenance areas. Of that, more than $5 billion has been used for public
transit projects.
The CMAQ
program provides a dedicated source of federal funds to help states meet the air
quality standards set under the Clean Air Act. Though the total amount of
funding available under the CMAQ program is just a fraction of what the federal
government provides to the states each year for transportation projects, the
CMAQ program enjoys broad support from a range of interests, including local
elected officials, transportation and air quality administrators, business and
community groups, and the public.
Together, the
Clean Air Act and the CMAQ program have provided critical tools for local
officials trying to reduce air pollution and provide cleaner transportation
options. As noted above, aggregate emissions of criteria pollutants have been
cut by 25 percent over the last several decades. Places which have made the most
of the CMAQ program have been even more successful in improving air quality.
California in particular has taken full advantage of the CMAQ program, and spent
those funds on improving mass transit service, switching to cleaner fuel
engines, and other emissions reduction programs. As a result, the number of days
of unhealthy ozone pollution levels in California’s larger metro areas has
declined by 27 percent.
Proposals
to Undermine Federal Clean Air Laws
Despite the progress made under the Clean
Air Act and the air quality funding made available under the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program under the current federal
transportation law, the Bush Administration and some in Congress have authored
proposals to exempt many areas from Clean Air Act requirements, delay
implementation of the new air quality standards, weaken the conformity process,
and undermine the CMAQ program.
Specifically, those proposals would
reduce the frequency with which transportation plans must be reviewed for their
air quality impacts and excuse metropolitan areas from having to consider the
long-term air pollution impacts of transportation projects. Some congressional
proposals would allow major road projects to advance even if they don’t
conform with the air quality plan, thereby ensuring the failure of the air
quality plan. Other proposals would eliminate federal review of the adequacy of
air quality plan emission limits, allowing huge increases in motor vehicle
emissions even though it guarantees the plan will fail and thus endanger public
health.
At the same time, the federal air quality
funding available under the CMAQ program is threatened by a dilution of its
funding, as 135 new counties become eligible for funding under new U.S. EPA
clean air standards. The Bush Administration’s proposal for fiscal year 2004
cuts CMAQ funding by seven percent. While overall the Administration proposes
increasing CMAQ funding by slightly over nine percent over the next six years,
it will not be nearly enough to meet the new demand for funding and address the
seriousness of the pollution problem from the newly regulated fine particulate
pollution as well as from transportation-related air toxics, another major
health threat. Under the new EPA standards for ozone and fine particulate
pollution, the need for air funding is expected to grow by 33 percent.
Congress should reject efforts to weaken
the Clean Air Act, undermine the conformity process, and underfund the CMAQ
program. With new medical research illustrating the breadth and the severity of
public health problems as a result of poor air quality, the nation must do more
– not less – to protect all Americans from air pollution. Below are
recommendations which can help fulfill the goal established by Senator Max
Baucus (MT) that “...transportation plans and programs also serve as part of
the pollution control strategy for the metropolitan area.”[x]
Report
Policy Recommendations
(1)
Protect and strengthen clean air laws and air quality funding made available
through the federal surface transportation law
-
Significantly increase federal
funding available under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement program (CMAQ) when Congress renews the federal transportation
law this year. Funding should be increased significantly over current
levels, proportional to the new demands from new areas and new pollutants
covered under the revised national air standards.
-
Require proportional spending authority for CMAQ over the life of the
new surface transportation bill.
-
Reject proposals to weaken the Clean Air Act and undermine current
requirements that ensure transportation projects and programs conform to air
pollution reduction plans.
(2) Strengthen the role of regional
planning agencies in order to reduce transportation-related air pollution
-
Direct CMAQ funding to local areas served by metropolitan planning
organizations that do not meet federal air quality standards (including
maintenance areas). Air pollution is often a regional problem, and these
regional agencies are best suited to design and fund transportation programs
that can help clean the air.
-
Increase the funding available to metropolitan planning organizations for
planning activities that will help reduce air pollution, including the
modernization of air pollution models to better account for the impacts of
“induced traffic.”
-
Encourage and provide
adequate funding for the use of scenario planning tools that can help states
and regions model the air pollution implications of different transportation
and growth scenarios 10, 20 or 50 years into the future.
(3)
Encourage a balanced approach to reducing air pollution that emphasizes cleaner
vehicles and more convenient transportation options
-
Increase guaranteed funding for mass transit projects and operations, as
well as for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other investments in
non-motorized travel options.
-
Maintain a fair and equal federal cost share (known as the federal
“match”) for all types of transportation projects, preserving the
current law’s federal match ratio of 80 percent for public transit
projects.
-
Promote higher fuel economy standards for all vehicles, in particular SUVs,
and fund research and deployment of cleaner and more fuel efficient engines
for trucks and buses.
-
Increase commitments to transit-oriented retail and residential development,
and make these factors key criteria for new mass transit (“New Start”)
projects.
Executive
Summary Endnotes
[i]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest
Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd01
[ii]
Statement of McCabe, W.M., Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA. October 26,
1998.
[iii]
American Lung Association. Annotated Bibliography of Recent Studies on the
Health Effects of Air Pollution. October 11, 2002.
[iv]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest
Findings on National Air Quality
[v]
Daniels, M.J., Dominici, F., Samet, J.M., and Zeger, S.L. Estimating
Particulate Matter-Mortality Dose-Response Curves and Threshold Levels: An
Analysis of Daily Time-Series for the 20 Largest U.S. Cities. American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 152, No. 5, pp. 397-406, September 1, 2000.
[vii]
Replogle, Michael, Sept. 17, 2002. “Response to Questions for the Record
Concerning Transportation and Air Quality” Follow up to July 30th, 2002
hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
[x]
Baucus, October 27, 1990, §16969-76.
The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a nationwide network of more than 800
organizations, including planners, community development organizations, and advocacy groups,
devoted to improving the nation’s transportation system.
|