Environmental Protection
Federal Planning Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked Gao ID: GAO-03-581 April 28, 2003To protect the public from harmful emissions, transportation planners in areas with poor air must show that their plans will not make it worse. Every time they update their transportation improvement program (TIP) and their 20-year plan--every 2 and 3 years respectively--federal laws and regulations require that they ensure the emissions from their plans will not exceed the mobile source emissions budget. This is known as "demonstrating conformity." Areas that fail to do so generally cannot spend federal funds on new projects until they resolve the problem. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked GAO to determine (1) how many areas have failed, why, and what corrective actions they took, and (2) what issues transportation planners had with the conformity process and what solutions are possible.
Since 1997, 56 of the 159 transportation planning areas with air quality problems failed to demonstrate conformity by a required deadline at least once, according to federal agency data, but only five areas had to change their transportation plans as a result. About half of the areas failed because of resource, administrative, or technical problems, such as a lack of time and staff, and resolved the problem in 6 months or less. About one-third of the 253 transportation planners responding to our survey said they anticipate having trouble demonstrating conformity in the future, especially in meeting the more stringent limits on two pollutants resulting from vehicle emissions--ozone and fine particulate matter. A majority of transportation planners who had trouble demonstrating conformity or failed to do so by a deadline said that the required frequency of demonstrations robs them of time and resources to solve other issues, such as growing congestion. The planners support extending the current 3-year time frame between required updates of the 20-year plan, which could also result in less frequent conformity demonstrations. Under this change, areas would still demonstrate conformity of their TIP every 2 years, and could still update and demonstrate conformity on their long-term plans more frequently than required, such as to add new projects or shift funds. These factors could help to ensure that the change would not have a significant impact on the conformity process' role to protect air quality. Transportation planners also noted the difference between their frequent plan updates, which must use the latest emissions model and data (such as the types of vehicles on the road and the number of miles they travel), and air quality plans, with their associated emissions budgets, which are not required to be updated with the current model or data. The transportation planners said this creates conflicts and can result in ineffective changes to an area's transportation plans. Any proposal to require that air quality plans be regularly updated, however, needs to weigh the benefits against the fact that such updates are difficult and costly.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-581, Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-581
entitled 'Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More
Efficient and Better Linked' which was released on May 08, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
April 2003:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:
Federal Planning Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality
Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked:
Environmental Protection:
GAO-03-581:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-581, a report to Congressional Requestors
Why GAO Did This Study:
To protect the public from harmful emissions, transportation planners
in areas with poor air must show that their plans will not make it
worse. Every time they update their transportation improvement program
(TIP) and their 20-year plan”every 2 and 3 years respectively”federal
laws and regulations require that they ensure the emissions from their
plans will not exceed the mobile source emissions budget. This is
known as ’demonstrating conformity.“ Areas that fail to do so
generally cannot spend federal funds on new projects until they
resolve the problem. The Committee asked GAO to determine (1) how many
areas have failed, why, and what corrective actions they took, and (2)
what issues transportation planners had with the conformity process
and what solutions are possible.
What GAO Found:
Since 1997, 56 of the 159 transportation planning areas with air
quality problems failed to demonstrate conformity by a required
deadline at least once, according to federal agency data, but only
five areas had to change their transportation plans as a result. About
half of the areas failed because of resource, administrative, or
technical problems, such as a lack of time and staff, and resolved the
problem in 6 months or less. About one-third of the 253 transportation
planners responding to our survey said they anticipate having trouble
demonstrating conformity in the future, especially in meeting the more
stringent limits on two pollutants resulting from vehicle emissions”
ozone and fine particulate matter.
A majority of transportation planners who had trouble demonstrating
conformity or failed to do so by a deadline said that the required
frequency of demonstrations robs them of time and resources to solve
other issues, such as growing congestion. The planners support
extending the current 3-year time frame between required updates of
the 20-year plan, which could also result in less frequent conformity
demonstrations. Under this change, areas would still demonstrate
conformity of their TIP every 2 years, and could still update and
demonstrate conformity on their long-term plans more frequently than
required, such as to add new projects or shift funds. These factors
could help to ensure that the change would not have a significant
impact on the conformity process‘ role to protect air quality.
Transportation planners also noted the difference between their
frequent plan updates, which must use the latest emissions model and
data (such as the types of vehicles on the road and the number of
miles they travel), and air quality plans, with their associated
emissions budgets, which are not required to be updated with the
current model or data. The transportation planners said this creates
conflicts and can result in ineffective changes to an area‘s
transportation plans. Any proposal to require that air quality plans
be regularly updated, however, needs to weigh the benefits against the
fact that such updates are difficult and costly.
What GAO Recommends:
To help improve the conformity process, GAO recommends that the
relevant federal agencies (1) consider extending the 3-year time frame
between required transportation plan updates and asking the Congress
to amend the Clean Air Act to change the conformity rules to match,
and (2) assess the advantages and disadvantages of statutorily
requiring that the emissions budgets in air quality plans be regularly
updated with new travel data and emissions models. DOT and EPA
generally agreed with these recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-581.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Few Areas Have Needed to Change Transportation Plans to Resolve a
Conformity Lapse, but More May Need to Do So in the Future to Meet New
Standards:
Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity and Inconsistent Requirements for
Updating Transportation and Air Quality Plans Cause Problems:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners:
Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners:
Figures:
Figure 1: Counties in Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least
One Criteria Pollutant:
Figure 2: Process for Forecasting Future Travel Demand:
Figure 3: Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
Figure 4: Primary Causes of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
Figure 5: Primary Solutions to Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
Figure 6: Counties Expected to Violate the New Ozone Standard for the
First Time:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 28, 2003:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
United States Senate:
As the nation has grown, so has its dependence on cars as its primary
mode of transportation. Over the past 30 years, the volume of miles
traveled on the nation's roadways in these vehicles has increased four
times faster than the total population. Although they contribute to the
increased mobility of the population, these vehicles also burn fuel
that emits harmful pollutants into the air, thereby posing risks to
public health and the environment. Clean Air Act provisions, as well as
technological advances with cleaner vehicles and fuels, have helped to
significantly curb these emissions over this same time period. But
because of continued growth and increased travel, states and localities
must continue to monitor and control these emissions to achieve or
preserve clean air.
In an effort to protect public health from such emissions, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set ambient air quality
standards, or limits, on the amount of certain harmful pollutants, such
as ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, which can be present
in the air. The Clean Air Act requires the states to develop air
quality protection plans to implement, maintain, and enforce these
standards. These plans define the amount of these pollutants that four
main sources can emit--surface transportation, such as cars, trucks,
and buses (on-road mobile sources); other vehicles, such as
construction equipment, train engines, and airplanes (non-road mobile
sources); industry, such as factories and power plants (point sources);
and business, such as dry cleaners or bakeries (area sources). For the
on-road mobile source sector, this limit on emissions is known as a
"motor vehicle emissions budget.":
Transportation planners in areas where emissions exceed the standards
or did so in the past are required by the Clean Air Act to consider
these budgets when developing their two primary documents outlining
their future transportation network. The first is a long-range plan
that specifies a 20-year vision for a metropolitan area's
transportation system; the second is a short-range transportation
improvement program (TIP) that specifies the priority projects to be
implemented in the next 3 years in more detail. These transportation
planners are required to update their plans at least once every 3
years, and their TIPs at least once every 2 years. Each time they
conduct these updates, federal laws and regulations require the
planners to demonstrate that the estimated emissions from the planned
transportation system, including projects in the plan or TIP, will not
exceed the emissions budgets in the state air quality plans. This is
known as "demonstrating conformity."[Footnote 1] The planners must
submit their demonstrations to the Department of Transportation (DOT),
which is responsible for ensuring it conforms to the air quality plan,
in coordination with EPA. If DOT determines that an area has not passed
its conformity demonstration by specified deadlines, the area enters
into what is known as a "lapse." During a lapse, an area generally can
only spend federal transportation funds on certain projects, such as
safety, mass transit, and air quality projects, until it resolves the
problem and can demonstrate conformity.
The ease or difficulty with which transportation planners complete the
conformity process, especially in light of upcoming changes to air
quality standards, has prompted interest in reviewing this process. EPA
will soon implement two new and more stringent standards, or limits, on
ozone and fine particulate matter--two substances prevalent in or
created by vehicle emissions--that will subject some areas of the
country to the conformity process for the first time. In addition, as
some of the nation's developed areas balance the pressures of a growing
population, urban sprawl, and congested roadways, areas already having
to demonstrate conformity may find compliance an even greater
challenge.
As the Congress reauthorizes the nation's major surface transportation
law, it is interested in knowing how well the conformity process is
working and what effect, if any, it is having on an area's
transportation plan, projects, and federal funding. A number of
transportation stakeholders have studied various pieces of the
conformity process and have offered reauthorization proposals to make
changes to it. You asked us to focus on three such proposals that,
among other things, would streamline the transportation planning
process and in turn affect the required steps in the conformity
process. Two of the proposals would extend the time between required
updates of the plan and TIP, thereby extending the time between the
associated conformity demonstrations, respectively, and the third would
combine these two plans into a single planning document, subject to a
single conformity demonstration.
More specifically, you asked us to determine (1) how many areas of the
country have had their conformity status lapse at least once since 1997
(the earliest date for which data are available), why, and what
corrective actions were taken, and (2) what issues planners have
encountered during the conformity process and the extent to which each
of the proposed changes to the transportation planning process will
address these issues.
In responding to the first objective, we reviewed the reliability of
all available data from EPA and DOT on areas that have experienced a
conformity lapse. EPA began collecting these data on a regular basis in
1997 and DOT in 1999. In responding to the second objective, we
conducted a Web-based survey of all 341 local transportation planning
organizations nationwide, commonly known as Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, and all air quality planning agencies in the 50 states
plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We obtained responses
from 253 transportation planning organizations (74 percent) and 45
state air quality agencies (86 percent). See appendixes I, II, and III
for more details on our scope and methodology and for the results of
each survey. We conducted our review from August 2002 through April
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Over the past 6 years, 56 of the 159 transportation planning areas with
air quality problems (35 percent) have experienced at least one
conformity lapse, although few had to change their transportation plans
to resolve the lapse. Areas lapsed in 26 cases because transportation
planners lacked the time and resources to complete the conformity
process by the required deadlines, or because they experienced
administrative or technical problems. Areas lapsed in 18 cases because
they had difficulty designing a transportation plan that would control
future emissions enough to meet their budget, but in 6 of these cases,
the difficulty was with the requirements of the conformity process
itself and not with the amount of emissions that would be generated by
the projects in their plan. In the remaining cases, areas lapsed for a
variety of other reasons, such as not having an EPA-approved state air
quality plan with an emissions budget in time for the conformity
demonstration. While some took longer, about 65 percent of all lapses
took 6 months or less to correct. Most areas addressed their lapse by
correcting administrative or technical issues, or taking the needed
time to catch up with their workload and complete the conformity
process. Another 11 areas recalculated the emissions budget to resolve
the lapse, and only 5 areas needed to revise their transportation
plans. About one-third of the 253 transportation planners nationwide
responding to our survey anticipate having difficulty demonstrating
conformity in the future, however, especially under the new air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter. For example, EPA estimates
that about 50 areas of the country that will not meet the revised
standards will have to demonstrate conformity for the first time. EPA
and DOT have taken some preliminary steps to help prepare these new
areas, but some are concerned, for example, about having the resources
and staff with the necessary technical skills to complete the
conformity process.
About two-thirds of the 118 transportation planners responding to our
survey who currently demonstrate conformity reported that the frequency
with which they must do so limits the time and funds available to
address other important transportation challenges, such as alleviating
congestion and ensuring highway safety. All three of the proposed
changes to the transportation planning process that stakeholders have
offered could result in less frequent conformity demonstrations,
addressing the planners' concerns. Nearly three-quarters of the
transportation planners favored extending the frequency between updates
of the long-range plan and most preferred at least once every 5 years,
rather than once every 3 years as currently required for areas with air
quality problems. If the requirement to demonstrate conformity of the
plan were also revised accordingly, this could result in less frequent
demonstrations. Forty-five percent of the planners favored extending
the frequency between updates of the TIP, and 30 percent favored
combining the plan and TIP into a single document.[Footnote 2]
Seventeen state air quality planners responding to our survey also
supported the most favored proposal to extend updates of the plan. But
when asked if the proposal could jeopardize their ability to meet air
quality standards, 16 air quality planners said they thought that it
could. However, in responding to this question, the air quality
planners were not asked to take into account the fact that the
transportation planners would still be demonstrating conformity of
their TIPs every 2 years. As EPA program managers also noted, any time
transportation planners add a project to their TIP that was not in the
plan, they would have to demonstrate conformity on both the TIP and
plan. Furthermore, transportation planners could, as needed, update
their long-range plan and associated conformity demonstration more
frequently than required. In fact, a number of transportation planners
reported that they have done this in order to add new projects, shift
funds among projects, or make other changes. All of these factors would
help to ensure that adopting the proposal to extend the frequency of
updates to the long-term plan would not have a significant impact on
the conformity process and its role in air quality protection. Because
there are advantages to be gained from freeing up transportation
planners' time and resources and ways to mitigate potential
disadvantages, we are recommending that DOT, in coordination with EPA,
consider (1) revising its regulations to extend the current 3-year time
frame between required updates of the long-range transportation plan,
and (2) submitting a legislative proposal to revise the conformity
provisions of the Clean Air Act so that they similarly extend the time
frame between required conformity demonstrations for the plan.
Transportation planners responding to our survey who experienced a
lapse or difficulty demonstrating conformity identified a second issue
that none of the three proposals in our study addresses, one that stems
from a difference between requiring updated transportation plans and
TIPs but not air quality plans and emissions budgets. Currently,
transportation planners must update their plans and TIPs and
demonstrate conformity on a regular basis. In doing so, they must use
such factors as the most current data on the size of the area's
population and the number and types of vehicles in use. The planners
must also input this data into the most current version of the model
that estimates future emissions from their planned transportation
projects. State air quality planners, on the other hand, are not
required to periodically update their plans and vehicle emissions
budgets to reflect the more current data and model.[Footnote 3] As a
result, if the more current factors or model indicate a larger than
expected increase in future emissions, the transportation planners must
further revise the projects they include in their plans and TIPs until
they can offset all of the additional increase and stay within the
vehicle emissions budget. Such revisions could cause some areas to
delay projects, such as building a new road, while other areas may not
have that option and instead have to rely on adding a number of
projects to the plans and TIPs intended to reduce emissions. If states
periodically updated their air quality plans to incorporate the most
current data and model, they could reassess whether these types of
transportation changes were best for an area, or whether they have
achieved enough, or more cost-effective, reductions from other sources
so that they could revise the vehicle emissions budgets and provide
transportation planners some flexibility. Twelve of 45 air quality
planners responding to our survey reported that they updated air
quality plans and increased the emissions budget or built a safety
margin into it, allowing transportation planners to be able to
demonstrate conformity. In addition, 13 others reported that they would
consider updating their plans. Conducting these updates, as with
conducting transportation plan updates, can be challenging, time-
consuming, and costly, however, according to 32 of the air quality
planners and EPA program managers. For example, the air quality
planners would have to solicit agreement on allowable emissions levels
from all sources, stakeholders, and the public, and running the
required photochemical model could take as long as 3 years in larger
metropolitan areas with many sources of air pollution. Recognizing that
updating air quality plans could be costly for some areas, we recommend
that EPA, in coordination with DOT, more comprehensively assess the
potential disadvantages of such updates and the likely extent that
anticipated benefits would be achieved by establishing a Clean Air Act
requirement to regularly update state air quality plans with the most
current data and models.
We provided DOT and EPA with a draft of this report for their review
and comment. Both agencies provided technical comments that we
incorporated into the report as appropriate. DOT generally agreed with
our conclusions and recommendations and said that the report was timely
and highlighted issues that needed to be addressed. EPA generally
agreed with our conclusions and recommendations for changes to the
transportation planning process and the associated requirements to
demonstrate conformity, but wanted to consult with the states before
agreeing with our recommendation that the agency comprehensively assess
the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a requirement to
periodically update state air quality plans.
Background:
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish air quality standards to
protect public health and the environment. These standards--known as
the "national ambient air quality standards"--establish health and
environmentally-based limits on the amount of six criteria pollutants
that are allowed in the air.[Footnote 4] States must develop state
implementation plans (SIP) for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing
the standards.[Footnote 5] When the level of any of these pollutants
exceeds the standard in an area of the country, EPA may designate that
area as being in nonattainment of the standard. Once the standard is
attained, EPA redesignates the area as being in attainment, but the
state must submit revisions to its state air quality plan demonstrating
how it will maintain this level of air quality for 20 more
years.[Footnote 6] The following map illustrates the counties of the
nation currently in nonattainment or maintenance for at least one of
the six criteria pollutants.
Figure 1: Counties in Nonattainment or Maintenance Status for at Least
One Criteria Pollutant:
[See PDF for image]
Note: If a county was designated both nonattainment and maintenance for
different pollutants, they will appear on this map as being in
nonattainment.
[End of figure]
The Clean Air Act requires states to develop the SIP. To begin, state
air quality planners must estimate the emissions from mobile, point,
and area sources. The air quality planners are then required to
establish emissions goals for each of these sources and design cost-
effective and feasible strategies that will result in progress towards
attaining, or maintaining, the air quality standards. For on-road
mobile sources, the emissions goal is known as a motor vehicle
emissions budget. The total amount of emissions that can come from on-
road mobile sources, such as cars, motorcycles, and trucks, as well as
transit vehicles that include buses, cannot exceed this budget. EPA is
responsible for approving the state's initial air quality plan and any
subsequent revisions to it. Although states are not required to
regularly update their plans for attaining or maintaining the
standards, they are required to update them at certain times, such as
when EPA revises an air quality standard or the area's designation
changes.
Transportation planners also play a key role in making sure areas meet
their emissions budget. Local planning agencies are responsible for
carrying out the transportation planning process in a metropolitan or
urbanized area.[Footnote 7] As part of this process, these agencies are
to develop transportation plans and transportation improvement programs
(TIP). A transportation plan specifies a long-range, 20-year vision for
a metropolitan area's transportation system. DOT regulations require
that for nonattainment and maintenance areas, their plans be updated at
least once every 3 years and attainment areas at least once every 5
years. In contrast, the TIP is a short-range, more detailed document
that specifies the priority projects to be implemented in the next 3
years. Federal transportation laws specify that all areas must update
the TIP at least once every 2 years. In developing the plan and TIP,
the transportation planners must consult with state and federal
transportation and environmental agencies, as well as the public. The
purpose of this consultative requirement is to ensure that all agencies
meet regularly and share information on changes to the area's future
network that will preserve air quality.
Transportation planners rely on three types of information, among other
things, in developing their transportation plan and TIP: (1) the future
size of an area's population and where the people will live and work,
(2) how these people will travel, and (3) what kind of transportation
network is and will be in place to meet travel needs. The planners
predict future travel most often by inputting this information into a
model that forecasts future travel demand, such as how many cars will
be on a particular road at a certain time. The planners determine the
mix of transportation projects they will propose in the plan and TIP to
meet this demand. Planners in nonattainment or maintenance areas for
ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide must
meet additional requirements. While all planners must estimate future
travel needs, planners in nonattainment and maintenance areas must more
precisely calculate the number of vehicle miles people will travel
under the plan and TIP, and, among other things, input this information
into another model that estimates the emissions their transportation
plans will generate. Figure 2 outlines this travel forecasting process.
Figure 2: Process for Forecasting Future Travel Demand:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In some cases, if conformity cannot be demonstrated, air quality
plans and emissions budgets, rather than transportation plans, may be
revised accordingly.
[End of figure]:
Under the Clean Air Act, transportation planners in nonattainment or
maintenance areas must demonstrate that the estimated emissions
generated through this process will not exceed the area's emissions
budget, a process known as "demonstrating conformity." Planners must
make this comparison at least once every 3 years, if they update either
the plan or TIP, or if states make certain changes to air quality
plans. The transportation planners must submit the results of this
demonstration to DOT, which reviews them, determines whether the area
complies with the requirements, and makes an independent conformity
determination, in consultation with EPA. If either the plan or TIP does
not conform to the emissions budget by a specified deadline, or if the
plan or TIP expires before a new one is adopted, the area enters into
what is known as a "conformity lapse." In this case, the transportation
planners can only spend federal transportation funds on certain
projects, such as safety, mass transit, and air quality projects, until
it resolves the problem and can demonstrate conformity.
In 2004, EPA plans on designating nonattainment areas under two new,
more stringent air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate
matter in order to be more protective of public health. The current
ozone standard limits the concentration of ozone allowed in the air
over a 1-hour period of time. The revised standard is more stringent
and is averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA revised the standard because
it is now known that chronic exposure to the pollutant is a health
concern. The new fine particulate matter standard is also more
stringent and covers smaller size particles found in vehicle emissions,
among other sources, which can be more deeply inhaled, making them more
likely to contribute to health problems. Areas that EPA designates as
not meeting either standard will be subject to the conformity process 1
year after the effective date of this designation.
The Congress has taken an interest in reviewing these requirements as
it attempts to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation
programs. To help the Congress in its efforts, we first reported on the
conformity process and other transportation-related air quality
programs and issues in an October 2001 report, and in a statement for a
congressional hearing conducted in July 2002.[Footnote 8] A number of
other stakeholders, such as research organizations, industry
associations, and environmental organizations, have also issued reports
or proposed changes related to transportation planning and conformity
as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization debate. For example, Resources
for the Future recently released a report examining how conformity is
affected by the transportation and air quality planning
processes.[Footnote 9] In addition, Harvard University's Taubman Center
for State and Local Government issued a report discussing challenges
that areas will face in implementing the new standards, including
requirements to demonstrate conformity.[Footnote 10] Furthermore,
industry groups, including the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations; the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials; and Environmental Defense have also developed positions on
transportation planning, conformity, or both.
We were asked to review three proposals that could directly impact the
conformity requirements outlined in the Clean Air Act: (1) extending
the time between required updates of the long-range transportation
plan, (2) extending the time between required updates of the TIP, and
(3) combining these two documents into one. All three proposals would
result in extended time frames between conformity demonstrations. While
we recognize that other changes have been proposed that would impact
the conformity requirements, we did not include them in our review
because other organizations are either studying them or have recently
issued reports that discuss them. For example, transportation planners
have raised concerns about having to use the latest version of the
model to estimate future emissions, the MOBILE6 model, and the impacts
the model will have on their estimates. DOT and EPA have a number of
modeling initiatives underway, such as training, to help address these
concerns. In addition, some planners have raised concerns because they
have to estimate emissions and demonstrate conformity over the entire
20-year horizon of the long-range transportation plan, while air
quality planners typically only have to project emissions and set a
budget for the period until their attainment date, which is a shorter
period of time. The Resources for the Future study referred to above
assessed the impact of these differing requirements and ways to address
problems they presented.
Few Areas Have Needed to Change Transportation Plans to Resolve a
Conformity Lapse, but More May Need to Do So in the Future to Meet New
Standards:
Few areas that experienced a conformity lapse since 1997 had to revise
or change their transportation plans in order to resolve the problem.
Instead, in order to end the lapse, most of these areas needed to
resolve administrative and technical problems or take additional time
to complete the conformity process. However, more than one-third of the
transportation planners responding to our survey reported that they
expected their areas to have difficulty demonstrating conformity in the
future. For example, a number of areas will be subject to EPA's new,
more stringent air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate
matter and will have to demonstrate conformity for the first time,
posing challenges for some areas.
One-Third of Areas Had Conformity Lapses but Most Were 6 Months or
Less:
Over the past 6 years, 56 (35 percent) of the 159 transportation
planning areas with air quality problems had at least 1 conformity
lapse, according to EPA and DOT data.[Footnote 11] Thirty-nine (65
percent) of these lapses lasted 6 months or less. Figure 3 shows the
length of conformity lapses from 1997 through 2002.
Figure 3: Length of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Lapses ranged from 4 days to just over 4 years, with the median lapse
lasting approximately 4 months. Nine conformity lapses lasted a year or
more, but EPA conformity program managers explained that most of these
areas did not have pending new projects and, therefore, were not under
time pressures to resolve their lapse. During the lapses, areas did not
lose their federal transportation funds permanently; rather, federal
funds were restricted to certain projects, such as safety, mass
transit, and air quality projects, until the lapses were resolved. The
data the agencies provided did not include information on the impacts
that the lapses may have had on new transportation projects, but,
according to the DOT conformity program manager, even short lapses can
be disruptive to the transportation planning process. For example, in
some states, a short lapse could delay the start of a project until the
next construction season.
Most Conformity Lapses Were Caused by Resource, Administrative, or
Technical Problems Rather than Difficulties Meeting Emissions Budgets:
Twenty-six of the conformity lapses that occurred since 1997 were
caused by areas' transportation planners lacking time and resources (8
lapses) to complete the conformity process by the established
deadlines, or experiencing administrative or technical problems (18
lapses). For example, planners in eight of these areas indicated that
they simply did not have enough time to complete the transportation
planning and conformity processes. Several planners stated that they
missed deadlines because their area's transportation planning
organization did not have enough staff. One of these planners noted
that even though their organization had a relatively small staff, they
had to complete all the same steps in the process as planning
organizations with many more staff, such as the time-consuming step of
coordinating the plan among all relevant stakeholders and the general
public. Common administrative problems planners faced included
misunderstandings as to when deadlines occurred, confusion about the
specific requirements in the process, or delays at the federal level in
processing required paperwork. Technical problems included
difficulties related to the data needed to complete the process, such
as the types of vehicles in use, or the model that estimates emissions
from transportation plans and projects. Figure 4 shows the primary
causes of conformity lapses.
Figure 4: Primary Causes of Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Another 18 lapses resulted from areas experiencing difficulties in
designing a transportation plan that achieved sufficient emissions
reductions to meet the budget. However, in 6 of these cases, the
difficulty was with the conformity requirements and not with the amount
of emissions expected from the proposed transportation projects. For
example, some areas had more current data on the types of vehicles in
use that they had to incorporate into their most recent demonstration.
Even though the planners did not change the mix of transportation
projects in their plan, the use of the new data resulted in a higher
estimate of emissions from the plan. In addition, areas must
demonstrate that all 20 years of their long-term transportation plan
will conform to the emissions budget. However, states typically only
set a budget for 10 years or less, although in a few cases, states
established budgets over a longer time period, according to EPA program
managers. As a result, transportation planners generally must restrict
emissions in each of the final 10 years of the transportation plan to
the amount that is set in the 10th year of the emissions budget. This
can pose problems because some areas are likely to experience growth
that could increase emissions in these later years. Since the emissions
budget does not cover these years, it does not account for this growth.
Therefore, areas may have to be more restrictive than necessary in the
types of projects they include in the later years of their plans.
Finally, in six cases, planners in these areas experienced difficulties
meeting certain additional federal planning requirements. These
included DOT's requirement that planners prove their area will have
sufficient funds to cover the projects in its TIP, and EPA's
requirement that a state's air quality plan and emissions budget be
approved or found to be adequate before it can be used for a conformity
demonstration. In the remaining 10 cases, the EPA and DOT data did not
provide the reasons why areas missed the conformity deadlines.
Most Areas Needed to Take More Time or Make Technical Corrections to
Their Conformity Demonstration to Resolve Their Lapses:
Areas used a range of activities to resolve their conformity lapses,
according to the data EPA and DOT provided. For example, the 8 areas
that lapsed as a result of insufficient time or staff resources were
able to take the extra time to complete the process. Those 18 areas
that experienced administrative or technical difficulties also resolved
them by taking more time, making a technical change, using some other
solution, or a combination of activities. Overall, we found that in 16
cases, areas used some administrative or technical solution to resolve
the lapse, while in another 16 cases, areas took the additional time
needed to catch up with their schedules or workload. For example, in 7
of the 16 cases where areas used an administrative or technical
solution, areas had to apply the correct model or other methodology to
their conformity demonstration. Several of these areas had to use
updated versions of the model that predicts vehicle emissions, or to
update or correct other calculations in the conformity analysis, such
as projections of the number of miles people typically drive. In 5 of
the 16 cases, lapses were resolved through administrative actions, such
as federal agencies correcting delays in reviewing the required
paperwork to demonstrate conformity. Figure 5 shows the primary
solutions used to resolve their lapses.
Figure 5: Primary Solutions to Conformity Lapses, 1997-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Another 16 lapses were resolved through more substantive steps, such as
recalculating emissions budgets (11) or revising transportation plans
(5). In most of the 11 cases, the states revised their air quality
plans to reflect recalculated emissions budgets or to reflect
strategies, such as the introduction of more stringent emissions tests
for cars or tighter controls on emissions from industry and other
sources, to reduce emissions. In the 5 cases, areas revised their TIP
or long-range transportation plan to achieve the necessary emissions
reductions to demonstrate conformity. For example, areas added mass
transit projects to their plans because they produce relatively lower
emissions. Similarly, areas may have resolved a lapse by taking credit
for adding emissions-reducing programs to their plan that they will
implement in the future, such as the heavy-duty diesel rule designed to
reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel, a critical component of
provisions for reducing tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty diesel
engines.
Some Areas May Have Difficulty Demonstrating Conformity in the Future,
Especially under the New Air Quality Standards:
While most areas have been able to demonstrate conformity or resolve a
lapse through some administrative or technical action, some areas may
have difficulty demonstrating conformity in the future. Of the 253
transportation planners nationwide responding to our survey, 91 (36
percent) reported anticipating having such difficulty in the future
and, of these, 80 anticipated difficulty when EPA introduces the two
new, more stringent air quality standards. Another 52 respondents (21
percent) did not know whether they would have difficulty demonstrating
conformity in the future.
Of the 91 planners who anticipate having difficulty, 59 work in areas
that already have air quality problems or had them in the past, and 32
work in areas that have not had problems. These 32 planners will have
to demonstrate conformity for the first time if any county within their
jurisdiction is designated as being in nonattainment for either of the
standards. Using the most recent EPA air quality monitoring data, we
estimated that 88 counties currently meeting the 1-hour standard will
not meet the 8-hour standard. Figure 6 illustrates the counties that
will not meet the new ozone standard for the first time.
Figure 6: Counties Expected to Violate the New Ozone Standard for the
First Time:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
This estimate may be understated because EPA's data are based on data
received only from those counties that have an ozone monitor showing a
violation of the standards. However, a number of other counties do not
have monitors or data on air quality. In these cases, the state
governor or EPA can still designate such counties as not meeting the
standard. For example, if the county without data is contiguous to a
county with data that show it violates the standard, the governor can
recommend that EPA designate the contiguous county as also not meeting
the standard because it contributes to a violation in another county,
or EPA can independently decide to make this designation.
According to an EPA conformity program manager, the agency has done a
preliminary analysis of the counties with data that show they will
violate either of the new standards, as well as contiguous counties
that might be designated as being in nonattainment. Using this
information, EPA has grouped counties into potential areas that would
be subject to conformity under either of the new standards. EPA
estimates that about 150 areas will be subject to conformity and that
50 of them will be demonstrating conformity for the first time.
Several transportation planners volunteered to provide additional
details on why they were concerned about demonstrating conformity in
the future. Their concerns included not having the trained staff or
funds to complete the process. For example, one planner said the new
standards will require that more time and attention be given to the
transportation plans in order to demonstrate conformity, which will be
burdensome and difficult for local transportation planning agencies
that have a small number of staff. A DOT conformity program manager
pointed out that in addition to demonstrating conformity for the first
time, these new areas will now have to update their long-term plans
every 3 years instead of 5 to comply with current requirements,
increasing the demand on staff and resources. The program manager added
that besides being resource intensive, demonstrating conformity is also
very challenging. For example, the model used to estimate emissions is
technically complex and some of the planners, as well as other key
stakeholders, expressed concerns about whether the local planning
organizations would have staff with the requisite skills to run the
model. Another planner, as well as a key stakeholder, pointed out that
while state transportation organizations currently run the model for
some local planners, the state organizations might not have the staff
or funds to manage an additional workload in the future. In addition,
while state organizations receive federal funds to support local
transportation planning activities, as more local planners have to
demonstrate conformity and need resources to do so, the state agencies
will have to spread these funds to a greater number of planners.
Furthermore, as our analysis of the causes of conformity lapses shows,
some transportation planners who had to demonstrate conformity to date
had difficulty understanding all of the conformity requirements or
lacked time to complete them, thus planners who will be demonstrating
conformity for the first time could also face these problems.
EPA and DOT have recognized that new areas may need help in
demonstrating conformity and have taken some action to provide it. For
example, areas will have a 1-year grace period after EPA formally
designates them as not meeting either one of the standards before the
transportation planners will have to demonstrate conformity. In
addition, areas that meet the current ozone standard but that may
violate the revised standard can enter into a compact with EPA. Under
this Early Action Compact, an area can begin to take steps to control
ozone now, and in exchange, EPA will defer the effective date of the
nonattainment designation of the area, thereby postponing the
requirement to demonstrate conformity. DOT conformity program managers
noted that such compacts do not apply to areas that may be designated
as being in nonattainment for the fine particulate matter standard.
Furthermore, (1) DOT offered training courses on conformity and both
agencies offered training on the latest version of the emissions model,
(2) the agencies are developing several new courses, (3) they have
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Association of
Regional Councils (NARC)--an association whose members include
transportation planners--to provide some training to members, and (4)
DOT has established a Web site for planners to exchange information on
conformity issues. Finally, as EPA program managers pointed out, since
some of the areas that will have to demonstrate conformity for the
first time are contiguous to other areas that have already had to
demonstrate conformity, transportation planners may already be
experienced in the conformity process or, if not, can get help from
other planners in the state. The agencies' actions to date, however, do
not address planners' concerns about having enough resources or staff
with the necessary technical skills to successfully demonstrate
conformity.
Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity and Inconsistent Requirements for
Updating Transportation and Air Quality Plans Cause Problems:
Most of the planners who have to demonstrate conformity said the
frequency under the current requirements limits the time and funds
available to address other transportation challenges. A proposed change
to the transportation planning process, which most of the planners
favor, would reduce the frequency of conformity demonstrations, thereby
helping to address the problem transportation planners identified. They
also identified a second problem with the conformity process--the
difference between requirements to update transportation and air
quality plans--that the proposed change does not address. This
difference can result in transportation planners having to revise their
transportation plans in ways that may not best serve the transportation
needs of the area.
Planners Said Current Frequency of Demonstrating Conformity Strains
Time and Resources but Support a Proposed Change That Could Reduce This
Burden:
Transportation planners responding to our survey reported that updating
their long-range plans as often as currently required does have certain
advantages. One primary advantage they identified was that it gave them
an incentive to work cooperatively with other agencies. Such
cooperation for transportation planners that must demonstrate
conformity can promote early and frequent coordination between
transportation and air quality planners, helping to avoid last minute
conformity problems and lapses. Furthermore, frequent updates can help
focus public attention on transportation planning. For example, one
transportation planner commented that updating the long-range plan
helped provide the public with a greater understanding of the nature of
air quality problems and why alternative modes of travel may be needed
in the future.
Given these advantages, nevertheless, 77 of the 118 (66 percent)
transportation planners who have to demonstrate conformity when they
update their long-range plan reported that the current frequency can
limit the amount of time available to address other transportation-
related challenges, such as relieving congestion and ensuring safety.
In addition, 79 of the 118 (69 percent) said that it strains staff
resources. Some transportation planners expressed concern that once
they complete a long-range plan update, and demonstrate conformity if
required to do so, they are already behind in developing the next long-
range plan. Some also said they have no time in between plan updates to
think more strategically about future alternatives for their
transportation network, build their modeling and other technical
skills, or obtain better information for their planning process, such
as congestion levels on certain roads.
The three proposals to change the transportation planning process that
we reviewed could also result in less frequent conformity
demonstrations, which would, in turn, address the planners' concerns.
However, the majority of transportation planners responding to our
survey favored only one of the proposals--reducing the frequency of
required updates to the long-range transportation plan. Seventy-four
percent (186) of the 253 transportation planners responding to our
survey would be in favor of less frequent plan updates, most preferring
that these updates be performed at least every 5 years. This could
result in less frequent conformity demonstrations for some areas.
Besides freeing up time and staff resources, another reason planners
supported the change was that planning factors, such as travel behavior
and the transportation projects already underway, do not change enough
to justify the time and expense of revising the plan every 3 years. In
addition, they also responded that extending the update cycle may
provide more time to better coordinate their plans and projects with
other agencies and stakeholders, such as local land use agencies that
guide an area's future growth and development.
Planners were less supportive of the two other proposals to change the
transportation planning process that could also reduce the frequency of
conformity demonstrations--reducing the frequency of required updates
to the TIP and combining the TIP and plan into a single document.
Although planners recognize that both proposals would have benefits,
they noted that the changes would eliminate some advantages of the
current requirement. While 45 percent (113) of the planners supported
reducing the frequency of required updates to the TIP, a majority of
the planners who did not support the change reported that frequent
updates of the TIP allowed areas to add new projects that had not been
part of the prior TIP because funding priorities changed in the
meantime. According to the DOT conformity program managers, reducing
the frequency of required updates to the TIP does not preclude
transportation planners from conducting the updates more frequently.
Thirty-nine percent of the 253 planners responding to the survey did
not favor combining the TIP and plan. Some of these planners felt that
the two documents serve very distinct functions. For example, they
believe the TIP allows them to more easily respond to changing needs.
Therefore, some planners expressed concern that combining the two
documents could undermine the effectiveness of both plans. On the other
hand, 30 percent favored the change, stating that the TIP is really a
subset of the plan and having to demonstrate conformity on both plans
is unnecessarily redundant. (An additional 31 percent neither favored
nor opposed the change or were unsure of their position.):
Seventeen of the 45 state air quality planners responding to our survey
also supported reducing the frequency of updates to the long-range plan
(12 did not support the change and 16 were unsure or had no opinion).
When asked what effect the change would have on their state's ability
to meet air quality standards, 16 said it would have a negative effect
and 5 said it would have a positive effect (of the remaining planners,
most said it would have no effect or they had no basis to judge its
effect). Some of the air quality planners mentioned that the
transportation network in high growth areas could generate increased
travel, resulting in higher emissions. They suggested that these areas
might warrant more frequent updates to the long-range plan than the
proposal would provide to ensure that air quality goals are being met.
The air quality planners who thought the change could have a negative
effect, however, were not asked to take into consideration the fact
that the transportation planners will still be required to demonstrate
conformity of their TIPs at least every 2 years when they are updated.
In addition, EPA program managers also noted that if planners want to
include a new project in their TIP that is not in their 20-year plan,
they must demonstrate conformity on both the TIP and plan. Furthermore,
as our survey showed, transportation planners could still choose to
update their long-range plans more frequently than once every 5 years,
at which time they would be required to demonstrate conformity. In
fact, 58 (23 percent) of planners responded that they update their
long-range plans more frequently than currently required, primarily to
add new projects that are needed to address the area's changing
transportation needs. All of these factors would help to preserve the
role that conformity plays in protecting air quality, even under the
proposed change. Because the proposal to extend the frequency of
updates to the long-range plan--and, therefore, the frequency of
conformity demonstrations--addresses the primary problem
transportation planners have with the conformity process, and the
proposal's potential effects on air quality protection could be
limited, modifying conformity regulations and the Clean Air Act in this
manner may be feasible.
Requiring Updates to Transportation Plans but Not Air Quality Plans
Makes It Difficult to Demonstrate Conformity in Some Areas:
Those transportation planners who experienced a lapse or said they had
trouble demonstrating conformity in the past identified a second issue
with the conformity process that stems from the difference between the
update requirements for the transportation and air quality plans. State
air quality planners are not required to regularly update their plans,
even though an area may have experienced population growth and a
sometimes unexpected increase in the types of certain vehicles in use,
which in turn can result in an increase in emissions. States with areas
in nonattainment for ozone and carbon monoxide are required to take an
inventory of the emissions being generated by each of the major sources
every 3 years, but are not generally required to update their air
quality plans to reflect this data. Consequently, the state air quality
planners do not regularly reassess to what extent they should revise
the vehicle emissions budgets for transportation, or add other measures
to reduce emissions from mobile sources to the plan, to offset this
increase given their ability to reduce emissions from industrial or
area sources where possible. Transportation planners, on the other
hand, are required to update their TIP and plan on a regular basis--at
least every 2 or 3 years respectively for areas in nonattainment or
maintenance and every 2 or 5 years for areas in attainment of the
standards. With each of these updates, planners are required to use the
most current model that estimates the vehicle emissions generated by
their plans. They must also use the most current information on factors
that are inputs to the model, such as population and the number and
types of vehicles in use, so that they can more realistically determine
whether their plans and TIPs are consistent with the emissions budget,
according to EPA conformity program managers. When this model and data
indicate an increase in emissions, the transportation planners must
address it.
In the absence of an updated air quality plan, transportation planners
must generally try to offset all of the extra emissions from
transportation activities by revising their plan or TIP so that they do
not have a conformity lapse. However, transportation planners may be
limited in the ways in which they can make changes that reduce
emissions enough to meet the vehicle emissions budget and demonstrate
conformity. For example, one possible change is to remove projects that
modeling estimates may increase emissions in an area, such as a highway
or road expansion project, or to add measures, such as increasing the
size of the bus fleet that uses diesel engines. However, such projects
were most likely added to address other transportation challenges, such
as reducing congestion or better linking existing road networks.
Furthermore, as one transportation planner explained, planners in some
areas may have few projects to eliminate because the transportation
network is already developed.
Rather than eliminate projects, transportation planners can also try to
add certain emissions control strategies to their TIP or plan. These
include bicycle or pedestrian facilities or expanded transit options to
discourage the use of vehicles. Other strategies include synchronized
traffic lights to reduce idling vehicles, the conversion of public
buses to cleaner burning fuels, and the retrofitting of certain
vehicles with cleaner engines. EPA program managers also pointed out
that transportation planners can estimate the emissions reductions that
will be achieved by new programs they will implement but that are not
yet in air quality plans, such as new emissions standards for light-
duty trucks. The planners can take credit for the emissions reductions
from such programs in order to demonstrate conformity. However, these
strategies may provide relatively small emissions reductions.
For example, the Washington, D.C., region recently had difficulty
demonstrating conformity, in part because many more drivers than
anticipated were using higher-polluting sport-utility vehicles.
Because transportation planning staff were updating the TIP and plan,
they had to use this new data on vehicle use in their conformity
demonstration, even though the emissions budget that they had to meet
was based on the older data. The new data caused a significant yet
unanticipated increase in the emissions estimates for the area that the
staff had to offset in order to meet these outdated budgets. They
delayed plans to build 100 miles of new roads, but this did not create
enough of a reduction. Therefore, they had to add a number of emission
control measures, such as park and ride lots, shuttle bus services, and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities at rail stations, however these
measures may achieve relatively small emissions reductions.
The transportation planner in the Washington, D.C., region explained
that if the air quality planners were required to update their plans
periodically, account for the new model and data, and revise the
emissions budgets, the transportation planners might be able to
demonstrate conformity without cutting needed projects or adding costly
control measures that achieve little emissions reductions. If states
were required to periodically update their air quality plan, they would
be required to reassess whether they had achieved or could achieve more
cost-effective ways to reduce emissions in order to provide
transportation planners with revised emissions budgets. For example, 12
of the 45 air quality planners responding to our survey said they had
revised their air quality plan to update emissions budgets used to
demonstrate conformity and 13 said they would consider doing so.
Several planners that had updated their plan determined that the amount
of projected emissions from all sources was less than the level needed
to meet the standards, thus providing transportation planners a safety
margin in the emissions budget. Such efforts can help an area
compensate for unanticipated future growth or uncertainty in projected
emissions.
In 2003, some states that used an older version of the emissions model
for their plan will have to update their air quality plan with the most
recent version, which could temporarily address the differing
requirements in these areas. In addition, according to EPA program
managers, some areas are in the process of voluntarily revising their
SIPs with the new model as well, and other areas that are designated as
nonattainment for either of the two new standards will have to submit
new plans to address these pollutants. Thirty-two of the 45 state air
quality planners responding to our survey reported that revising their
plans would be somewhat challenging. For example, with every update,
air quality planners would have to obtain public input and involve many
stakeholders with competing interests, especially those representing
the other sources of pollution, including industrial (point) sources.
The air quality planners would also have to use a complex photochemical
model that estimates emissions from all sources, as well as the extent
to which measures designed to control emissions achieve this result.
According to air quality planners, running such a model requires a
significant investment in resources and staff hours, and, according to
one planner, can take as much as 3 years for a major metropolitan area
with serious pollution problems to complete. Also, once a state revises
its plan, EPA must review it and determine that it protects air quality
before transportation planners can use the updated emissions budget to
help them demonstrate conformity. Furthermore, according to EPA
conformity program managers, some metropolitan areas will find they do
not have the luxury of a safety margin to provide additional
flexibility in their emissions budget. In considering whether to
require updates of air quality plans to incorporate the most current
data on travel patterns and emissions, as well as the most current
emissions model, so as to resolve the difference with requirements to
update transportation plans, stakeholders must weigh the potential
benefits against the potential disadvantages.
Conclusions:
Overall, the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act have helped
to integrate transportation and air quality planning processes to
better consider the emissions from the nation's transportation systems
and networks. In addition, few of the localities that have experienced
a conformity lapse to date appear to have had to make major changes to
their future transportation systems. Localities may have trouble
demonstrating conformity in the future, however, if they cannot meet
new air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter and may
have to complete the conformity process for the first time. Both EPA
and DOT have been working on guidance and training, among other things,
to help the transportation planners in these areas, but some are
concerned about having enough resources and staff with the necessary
technical skills to successfully complete the conformity demonstration.
While the conformity process has its advantages, most transportation
planners who have to demonstrate conformity find that the frequency
with which they have to do this robs them of staff and resources that
could be used to solve transportation problems. Extending the 3-year
time frame between updates to the long-term transportation plans--as
well as amending the conformity requirements in the Clean Air Act to
match--would help to relieve some of this burden. Although some air
quality planners fear this change would jeopardize their ability to
meet clean air standards, this risk can be mitigated by several
factors. For example, transportation planners will continue to
demonstrate conformity when they update their TIPs or add new projects
to the TIP that were not previously in the plan. Also, a number of
planners have already been updating their long-term plans more
frequently than required and could continue to do so as needed under
the change.
Finally, some transportation planners have found it difficult to manage
the conflict posed by the fact that they must frequently update their
TIP and long-term plan--incorporating the most current data on an
area's population and travel patterns, as well as the most current
version of the model that estimates emissions--while air quality
planners do not. Establishing a requirement for air quality plans--and
the vehicle emissions budgets they set for conformity--to be
periodically updated with this new data and model could provide some
benefits. These include incentives for areas to develop a more
realistic emissions budget and to determine whether they could provide
some flexibility in it so that transportation plans would not have to
be restricted or modified in ways that may not be best for an area's
future. Some states updated their air quality plans and have
experienced such benefits. Recognizing that compliance with such a
requirement would be challenging and resource intensive for some
states, however, emphasizes the need to more comprehensively assess the
advantages and disadvantages of establishing such a requirement. One
option to consider would be to establish a long enough time frame
between required updates of the air quality plan as a way to limit the
impact on resources. In addition, better synchronizing the time frame
for air quality updates with the time frames established for
transportation planning updates, and basing both on the same, most
current data and models, would address the problems transportation
planners identified with the differences in requirements.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to make the conformity process a more effective and better
link between air quality and transportation planning, we recommend the
following to the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator,
EPA:
* DOT, in coordination with EPA, should consider extending the current
3-year time frame between required updates to the long-range
transportation plan and submitting a legislative proposal to change the
conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act so that they similarly
extend the time frames between required conformity demonstrations for
the plan.
* EPA, in coordination with DOT, comprehensively assess the advantages
and disadvantages of establishing a Clean Air Act requirement to
periodically update state air quality plans so that they incorporate
the same, most current planning data and emissions models used in
updates to the TIP and long-term transportation plans.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOT and EPA with a draft of this report for review and
comment. We subsequently met with or received comments from
representatives of the following offices:
* DOT's Office of Natural and Human Environment within the Federal
Highway Administration:
* DOT's Office of Planning within the Federal Transit Administration:
* EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality:
In general, DOT agreed with our conclusions and recommendations and
said that the report was timely and highlighted issues that needed to
be addressed. The DOT representatives said they would work with EPA to
address our recommendation to consider extending the current 3-year
time frame between required updates to the long-range transportation
plan, and looked forward to working with EPA to assess the advantages
and disadvantages of establishing a requirement to periodically update
state air quality plans. DOT also suggested some technical changes
throughout the report that we have incorporated as appropriate. In
general, EPA agreed with our conclusions and recommendations for
changes to the transportation planning process and the associated
requirements to demonstrate conformity. However, EPA neither agreed nor
disagreed with our recommendation that the agency comprehensively
assess the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a requirement
to periodically update state air quality plans. The EPA representatives
said they believe the states already have the flexibility to decide
whether new data or models justify the costs of conducting an update to
the state air quality plan and that states are in a better position to
make this decision. EPA also stated that they would want to discuss the
issue with the states to understand their perspectives and how the
states currently decide whether air quality plan updates are needed,
before agreeing with the recommendation. However, as our survey data
show, even though states have flexibility in deciding whether to update
their plans, not all states would be willing to consider doing so.
Furthermore, our survey data show that the current practice among the
states has not resolved the problems the transportation planners
reported experiencing as a result of the difference between
requirements to update transportation plans but not air quality plans,
given that this was one of the most significant problems transportation
planners identified with the conformity process. Therefore, we believe
this issue merits further assessment by EPA to determine if there is a
possible solution, as we have recommended.
The EPA representatives also said they thought it was important to
point out not only the number of areas that have experienced a lapse,
but also the number of times an individual conformity demonstration
resulted in a lapse. While EPA did not have actual data to provide this
statistic, the agency estimated that since 1997, areas most likely
conducted a total of between 550 to 600 conformity demonstrations and
that only 10 percent of these demonstrations resulted in a lapse.
Finally, EPA suggested some technical changes throughout the report
that we have incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrator, EPA; Director, Office of Management
and Budget; and other interested parties. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If
you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report were Teresa Dee, Elizabeth
Erdmann, Samantha Goodman, Stuart Kaufman, Eileen Larence, Jonathan
McMurray, and Anne Rhodes-Kline.
John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, and Senator Lieberman asked us to determine (1) how many
areas of the country have had their conformity lapse at least once
since 1997 (the earliest date for which data are available), why, and
what corrective actions were taken, and (2) what issues have planners
encountered with the conformity process and the extent to which each of
the proposed changes to the transportation planning process will
address these issues.
To address the first objective, we analyzed datasets supplied by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation
(DOT) that listed the conformity lapses that have occurred in
nonattainment or maintenance areas over the last several years. EPA's
Office of Transportation and Air Quality provided information supplied
by its regional offices on lapses occurring since August 1997. The
Federal Highway Administration, the agency within DOT that, along with
the Federal Transit Administration, is directly responsible for making
conformity determinations, provided information on lapses that have
occurred since July 1999.
We compared the data provided by both agencies to create a single, more
comprehensive, and accurate dataset of all conformity lapses that have
occurred since August 1997. We discussed and corrected any
discrepancies between the two datasets with each agency and achieved
consensus on a method to summarize and categorize the individual data
points. In addition, to the extent possible, we corroborated lapse
information we obtained from the agencies with information we obtained
directly from the transportation planners in the areas with lapses. We
obtained this latter information through our survey of each of the 341
local transportation planning organizations responsible for the
conformity process in nonattainment and maintenance areas around the
country. Furthermore, to fill in any remaining gaps in information on
the causes of, and solutions to, conformity lapses, we conducted
telephone interviews with the relevant transportation planners in those
areas.
To determine the accuracy and completeness of each agency's data and
their validity in providing evidence to support our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations, we performed a data reliability
assessment. All available information indicated the data to be
sufficiently reliable for these purposes; corroborating evidence was
strong and provided additional information necessary to ensure that the
final consolidated dataset was accurate and relevant. To conduct this
assessment, we subjected the datasets to documented standards that
determine the sufficiency, competence, and relevance of supporting
evidence. More specifically, we verified three data components that
were key to our findings: (1) the location of nonattainment areas that
have experienced a conformity lapse since 1997, (2) the reasons or
contributing factors for each conformity lapse, and (3) the solutions
or steps areas took to resolve each lapse.
To address the second objective, we conducted an Internet-based survey
of the 341 local transportation planning organizations in existence as
of November 2002. The survey included questions addressing the current
requirements for updating the short-and long-range transportation
plans, the current requirements for demonstrating conformity, and
proposed changes to the transportation planning and conformity
requirements. We did not attempt to gain information from the state
departments of transportation, which are responsible for transportation
planning in those areas without a designated local transportation
planning organization. We did not do so because the areas that the
state departments of transportation cover are relatively small--with a
population less than 50,000. However, to help ensure that we identified
any unique issues that these smaller areas may have with the conformity
requirements, we met with officials of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. Its members are the state
agencies that would conduct the conformity demonstrations for the
smaller areas in their jurisdictions.
We also conducted an Internet-based survey of the 50 state air quality
agencies, plus air quality planners in the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico. These offices are responsible for preparing the state
implementation plan (SIP), which is a detailed description of the
programs that a state will use to carry out its responsibilities under
the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution. This survey included
questions concerning the air quality and transportation planning
processes, including conformity. Both surveys were pretested with
potential respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and
unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3) the survey did not
place an undue burden on the agency officials completing it, and (4)
the survey was independent and unbiased.
The practical difficulties of conducting surveys may introduce errors
into the results. Although we administered our survey to all known
members of both populations, and thus our results are not subject to
sampling error, nonresponse to the entire survey or individual
questions can introduce a similar type of variability or bias into our
results--to the extent that those not responding differ from those who
do respond in how they would have answered our survey questions. We
took steps in the design, data collection, and analysis phases of our
survey to minimize population coverage, measurement, and data-
processing errors. These steps included checking our population lists
against known lists of planning organizations, pretesting and expert
review of the questions in the survey instrument, and follow-up with
those not reachable at original E-mail addresses or otherwise not
immediately responding.
The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic
questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent E-mail
notifications to all 341 MPOs and 52 state air quality offices
beginning on January 13, 2003, and January 22, 2003, respectively. We
then sent each potential respondent a unique password and username by
e-mail to ensure that only members of the target population could
participate in the appropriate survey. To encourage respondents to
complete the questionnaire, we sent an E-mail message to prompt each
nonrespondent approximately 2 weeks after the initial e-mail message.
We closed the surveys on February 28, 2003, and March 7, 2003,
respectively. For the survey of transportation planners, we received a
total of 253 responses, for an overall response rate of 74 percent. For
the survey of state air quality offices, we received 45 out of 52
possible responses. Copies of each survey, with the quantitative
results, can be found in appendixes II and III.
For our analysis of the anticipated impact of the 8-hour ozone
standard, we used listings of the counties currently in nonattainment
and maintenance for the 1-hour standard and a listing of counties
expected to violate the 8-hour standard, both found on EPA's Web site.
For the map depicting areas currently in nonattainment or maintenance
for any of the criteria pollutants, we used county listings found on
EPA's Web site, coded and graphed each one using the counties' Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code. EPA's estimate of the
number of counties likely to be in violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard is based on 3 years of 8-hour monitoring data during 1999
through 2001. The 1-hour ozone data include counties in nonattainment
of the standard as of February 6, 2003.
Furthermore, to address the second objective, we also interviewed
cognizant officials and collected documented studies from the federal
agencies administering air quality and transportation programs, as well
as from relevant stakeholders. Specifically, we interviewed and
gathered documentation from (1) EPA program managers in the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality; (2) the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) program managers in the Federal Highway Administration, including
the Office of Natural and Human Environment, and in the Federal Transit
Administration's Office of Planning; and (3) relevant stakeholders,
including the following--the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Environmental Defense, National Association of Regional
Councils, and the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.
We conducted our review from August 2002 through April 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey of Local Transportation Planners:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Survey of State Air Quality Planners:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOT conformity program managers noted that a number of additional
factors, other than updating transportation plans and TIPs, such as the
approval of a new or revised motor vehicle emissions budget or certain
other changes to air quality plans, can also trigger a required
conformity demonstration.
[2] Thirty-one percent of survey respondents neither favored nor
opposed, or are unsure at this time, about combining the plan and TIP.
[3] In certain areas, state air agencies must conduct an inventory of
emissions every 3 years, but are not required to update their plans
based on these data, even if the inventory shows an increase in
emissions. Some of these areas must use the data to demonstrate to EPA
that they are making the necessary progress in achieving air quality
standards, and if not, they may have to revise their plans accordingly.
[4] The six criteria pollutants are ozone, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
[5] In some cases, localities within a state may also develop air
quality plans.
[6] According to DOT conformity program managers, states are to submit
these maintenance plans in two 10-year increments, in part because it
is difficult to make projections 20 years into the future with some
certainty.
[7] The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 authorized the use of federal
funding for local planning agencies--known as metropolitan planning
organizations--in areas with populations of 50,000 or more to carry out
planning at the metropolitan level. There are currently 341
metropolitan planning organizations in the United States and Puerto
Rico.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal
Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001; and Environmental
Protection: The Federal Government Could Help Communities Better Plan
for Transportation That Protects Air Quality, GAO-02-988T (Washington,
D.C.: July 30, 2002).
[9] Winston Harrington, Arnold Howitt, Alan J. Krupnick, Jonathan
Makler, Peter Nelson, and Sarah J. Siwek, "Exhausting Options:
Assessing SIP-Conformity Interactions," RFF Report, January 2003.
[10] Jonathan Makler and Arnold M. Howitt, "Regulating Transportation
in New Nonattainment Areas Under the Eight-Hour Ozone Standard,"
Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Presented at the 82nd
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
January 12-16, 2003.
[11] Since 1997, 56 areas experienced a total of 60 conformity lapses.
Four areas had more than one conformity lapse during this period.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
