Sprawl Report 2001
As discussed in the last chapter, our reliance on cars and trucks
has led to severe air pollution problems and a significant public
health threat, but the good news is that we can do something about
it. By investing in public transit choices, we can enhance the
quality of life in our communities and ensure that we all breathe
cleaner air.
Opportunities to Invest in Transit and Clean Up
the Air
In 1991, with the passage of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA), lawmakers finally made
the connection between transportation and air pollution. The Act
recognized the strong connection between air pollution and
transportation by designating billions of dollars for projects
designed to help areas meet the standards for smog and carbon
monoxide (the so-called CMAQ or Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality program).
In 1998, Congress reauthorized and strengthened this
transportation law by passing TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century. TEA-21 built upon the successes of ISTEA and
represented a step forward for more-friendly treatment of public
transportation choices. In addition to CMAQ, some of the more
important features of TEA-21 include the following:
The Transportation Enhancements program funds
transportation projects that strengthen the cultural, aesthetic or
environmental benefits of a given transit program.
-
The Transportation and Community System Preservation
program provides grants to communities seeking to develop
strategies that improve the efficiency of their transportation
system, minimize environmental impacts of transportation and
reduce the need for costly public investments in roads and
utilities.
-
The Transit Capital Investment (New Starts) grants
program funds new rail and bus projects as well as necessary
improvements to existing programs.
-
The Access to Jobs program provides discretionary grants
to transit service providers to help low income residents get to
jobs.
-
The Commuter Choice program made changes to federal tax
laws allowing employers to offer a range of commute fringe
benefits without fear of tax consequences.
-
Continues and expands upon ISTEA's requirements that
bicycling and walking needs be considered as transportation plans
are assembled.
 |
Federal transportation
spending under TEA-21 is out of balance. Public
transit and Amtrak get just a fraction of what
highways and airports get.
|
 |
Source: 2002
Congressional
Budget | | |
The good news is that under TEA-21, funding levels for these
programs aimed at less-polluting public transit choices, including
the enhancement program, CMAQ and transit, all increased slightly,
while spending on new roads declined.(34)
While TEA-21 has made great strides in improving the availability
and quality of less-polluting transportation choices, we still have
a long way to go to balance the historic discrepancy of expenditures
on roads vs. public transit (see chart at right). We must continue
to increase investments in clean public transit, and offer
transportation choices as a way to enhance both quality of life and
the quality of the air we breathe.
Investing in Transportation Choices
Giving people more transportation choices can dramatically lower
automobile use, reducing air pollution and the accompanying effects
on public health. In fact, according to a study done by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, providing more
transportation choices during the 1996 Olympics reduced traffic by
22 percent, air pollution by 28 percent and asthma attacks by up to
42 percent.(35)
Buses reduced traffic,
air pollution and asthma attacks during the 1996
Olympic Games in Atlanta.
|
 |
Source: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (35) | | |
 |
Conversely, limiting transportation choices while
disproportionately funding new highway construction leads to more
sprawling development, continued environmental degradation and air
pollution that threatens public health. By examining the
transportation funding in the areas with the most smog from cars and
trucks, we can see what these places are doing about the problem.
This grading examines
the transportation funding priorities of the states containing all
or part of our 50 largest cities, again standardized by applying a
per-person calculation. Unfortunately, data on transportation
spending by all levels of government is not available at the city
level. Because transportation spending is determined by the states,
data is kept at that level.
Using state-level data is sufficient to show general trends, and
that is what we do in this report. In a few cases, however, the use
of state level data produces anomalies that need explanation. For
example, in Texas we know that Dallas is investing more in public
transit choices, such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), than
Houston. However, because there is not reliable data at the city
level, we cannot quantify the difference in transit investments
between these two major cities.
Policy changes that would keep transportation spending data at
the city level would help planners make better decisions.
This grading analyzes
states that contain all or part of one of the 50 largest cities
(those used in the first ranking). The information on transit
funding comes from the Federal Transit Administration's National
Transit Database(36)
and the information on highway spending comes from the Federal
Highway Administration.(37) The per-person
calculations (transit spending per city resident[38] and highway
expenditures per person[39]) are based on
population numbers from the Census Bureau.(40) All numbers are for
1998. Based on the amount spent per city resident on transit for
every $100 dollars spent on highways per person statewide, we used
the following grading scale:
$101 and up |
A |
$81-100 |
B |
$61-80 |
C |
$41-60 |
D |
$0-40 |
F |
Connection Between Spending on Transportation and
Least-Polluted Cities
By comparing pollution from cars and trucks per person to transit
spending per person, you'll notice a striking connection. New York
state, for example, receives an "A" for its spending on public
transit, and is the only state in this grading that spends more
money on alternatives than on new roads. At the same time, as shown
by the first grading, the New York City metropolitan area received
the best grade of all the cities for the lowest amount of smog per
person from cars and trucks. Oklahoma, where Oklahoma City had the
most smog from cars and trucks per person, spends a paltry $5.80 per
person on public transit to every $100 it spends on highway and road
construction. This makes Oklahoma one of the lowest graded states in
terms of spending on transportation choices vs. roads.
The fact that seven of the 12 cities with the best grades for
lowest rates of smog per person from cars and trucks are located in
five of the highest graded states for spending on clean
transportation choices demonstrates the power of public transit as a
tool in combating air pollution.
Equalizing Transit and Highway Spending Can Reduce
Air Pollution
 |
Getting On Board:
Annual ridership on the Sacramento Regional
Transit District has grown from 14 million
passengers in 1987 to more than 26 million
passengers in fiscal year
2000. | | |
 |
The example set by New York demonstrates that in equalizing
spending between public transit and highways, states have a potent
tool in the effort to reduce air pollution. Unfortunately, most
states still are not using this funding tool as vigorously as they
can. With the exception of New York, no states in this report have
even equalized funding, and only eight states spend at least 50
percent of the amount of money on public transit as they do on
roads.
Even those states that spend at least half as much on transit as
on highways are not doing enough. Consider the example of
California, which spends $56 per person on public transit for every
$100 on highways. While the higher level of spending on transit does
help explain the fact that the three California cities (Sacramento,
San Francisco and Los Angeles) showed relatively lower levels of
smog from cars and trucks per person than cities in other states,
this does not alter the fact that these California cities are still
quite polluted. For each resident of Los Angeles, approximately 65
pounds of smog comes from cars and trucks annually. These high
levels of pollution per person actually helps make Los Angeles the
number one overall most smog polluted city in the country. Clearly,
California needs to take better advantage of transit investments-a
proven tool for reducing smog.
Additionally, in 1998, 27 percent of the funds for transit
agencies in Washington state came from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
(MVET). In 2000, the MVET was repealed, and the state legislature
has not come up with a permanent replacement. Consequently, just to
keep up with 1998 levels, there's currently a $200 million-a-year
hole in transit funding in Washington state.
Texas is another example of a state that needs to do more. While
the investments in Dallas' DART system are important and should be
continued, other areas of the state, like Houston, are suffering.
Houston does compare somewhat favorably to other areas based on
their smog per person from cars and trucks. At the same time, it is
one of the most smog polluted cities in the country, according to
the American Lung Association. Texas can do more to combat this
pollution by investing in clean transportation choices.
Funding Choices: The Problem or The Solution
Funding choices can be either the problem or the solution. By
investing in clean transportation choices we can enhance the quality
of life in our communities and ensure that we all breathe cleaner
air. Comparing the highway vs. transit spending of states not only
shows us how we have compounded air pollution problems across the
country, but also lets us see what needs to be done to fix the
problem. States that want to reduce their air pollution and curb
sprawl will have to increase funding for public transit, rather than
continue to fund more highways. Debates over transportation spending
in the coming years should focus on a realignment of transportation
spending, at both the federal and state level, which would balance
investments in highways and transit.
If all of the commuters in New
Orleans, San Diego and New York City were to drive to work,
there would be more than 2.8 million more cars on the
road.
Without transportation choices such
as walking, bicycling and transit, there would be:
62,413
more cars on the road in New Orleans.
167,061 more cars on the road in San
Diego.
2,610,280 more cars on the road in New York
City.
All of these commuters not driving to
work greatly reduce the pollution from transportation. If all
of the commuters in Chicago, Washington, D.C., San
Francisco-Oakland, Boston and New York City drove to work, it
would spew 238,000 more pounds of smog-causing NOx into the
air, in just one day. That means 1.19 million pounds of
smog-causing NOx would be emitted each week.
Most
Americans still drive to work; transit is the most
common option used by those not
driving. |
|
Most people still drive to work in
cities across the country. In Oklahoma City, Detroit, Memphis,
Kansas City and Tampa, far fewer commuters have and use
alternatives to driving, so these cities see a much smaller
reduction in the amount of smog from car commuters. The meager
amount of transit, carpooling, bicycling and walking that now
occurs in these cities eliminates only 12,700 pounds of
smog-causing NOx pollution each day.
More ways to reduce car and truck
smog
In most cities, simply increasing
average vehicle occupancy to two persons per car would reduce
the number of miles driven and greenhouse gas pollution from
cars and trucks by 45 percent.(42) One Oregon
study showed that when more travel options are offered and
development allows people to use those options, fewer people
use their cars for transport. This results in less car
pollution, cutting traffic by 6 percent and traffic delay by
66 percent while increasing transit share to 50 percent and
walking and biking to 24 percent. The public transit agency in
Portland, LUTRAQ, shows in that total time traveled decreased
by two-thirds.(43) |
|