A coalition of community and environmental groups today faulted the Transportation Steering Committee (TSC) for proposing a Baltimore-area transportation plan that allows more pollution from motor vehicles, an increase not yet approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. While the groups commended the TSC for using updated vehicle data and acknowledging the increased number of more polluting sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and older cars now on the road, they faulted the committee for responding to the problem with highway expansions and larger, yet-unapproved budgets for smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution. The TSC’s new plan expands the NOx pollution allowed from motor vehicles by 10 tons per day, or by more than 10%. It also widens the Belair bypass and allows significant road expansion for the anticipated Arundel Mills mall.

"The Baltimore region has some of the most unhealthy air in the country," said Dan Pontious, director of the Baltimore Regional Partnership, which includes the Environmental Defense, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens' Planning and Housing Association, 1000 Friends of Maryland, and Baltimore Urban League. "And yet the Transportation Steering Committee seems to be trying to fast track new highway projects, squeezing them into an un-approved new clean air plan based on flawed models and analysis. They should take additional time to make sure that their plan will truly bring us toward clean air while improving mobility for people in the Baltimore region."

The Partnership recognized that the TSC did include some pollution-cutting measures, such as modest promotion of a new tax credit incentive for people to ride transit rather than drive. They faulted the committee, however, for rejecting many more bold measures, such as healthier promotion of the new tax credit, acceleration of light rail double-tracking and bus and pedestrian projects, and removal or delay of sprawl and pollution-inducing highway projects.

"With the recent change in the federal tax code allowing employers to pay employees not to drive to work, we have a great opportunity to curb pollution and congestion in Baltimore," said Michael Replogle, Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. "Unfortunately, the funding provided to date by the Maryland Department of Transportation and other TSC member agencies to promote similar incentive programs for Maryland employees falls far short of the need."

Replogle noted that, at Southern California firms where employees are offered added cash income in lieu of a parking space, one out of eight former car commuters now leaves his or her vehicle at home and finds another way to get to work, cutting commute-related traffic delays and pollution for those firms by more than 10%. "We should defer lower priority road expansions to fund this more immediate pollution and congestion relief initiative," added Replogle.

"These modest emissions reductions strategies and continued emphasis on major highway expansions will not sustainably meet the region’s transportation needs or protect the Chesapeake Bay," said Lee Epstein, director of the Lands Program for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "The TSC needs to reorder its priorities to better manage travel demand, invest in alternatives to the automobile, and eliminate poorly justified highway projects."

The Partnership also faulted the TSC for largely taking credit for measures already planned rather than initiating new efforts to clean up the air pollution that threatens public health in metropolitan Baltimore. The groups’ testimony contended that state and local officials are assuming that new controls on utilities and other pollution sources will make up for virtually all the large increase in pollution that is coming from greater use of highly polluting trucks and sport utility vehicles. They called on Maryland and local agencies to protect public health by making sure this pollution growth is offset by specific measures that are real, permanent, and enforceable before approving any new transportation plan with emissions exceeding those now allowed under the adopted emission limits.

The groups also faulted the TSC’s methodology for calculating many of their emissions reduction measures. Concerns expressed by the Partnership included:

1. Claiming credit for nearly all October 1999 users of the College 33 bus pass program when ridership during the summer ozone season would likely be significantly lower,
2. Not acknowledging that many participants in the College 33 program would be existing transit riders, rather than former auto users,
3. Not acknowledging, in computing the telecommuter credit, that 21 percent of telecommuters would otherwise carpool or take the train, not drive alone.

In addition, Replogle’s analysis of the region’s Travel Demand Model 1996 Validation Report found it "inadequate for the purposes of conformity analysis." His review of the validation report found several problems, such as underestimation of traffic related to urban centers, poor correlation between modeled and observed traffic generation and distribution, missing traffic count information, and assumptions in the model that were poorly based or explained.

Due to the pending EPA approval of the Baltimore region’s clean air plan and flaws in both the calculation of emissions credits and vehicle pollution, the Partnership found the TSC’s 2000-2004 Transportation Improvement Program unacceptable. The coalition urged the TSC to improve its calculation of emissions credits and Travel Demand Model Validation Report and to pursue greater pollution reduction strategies.

"This committee has taken some significant steps forward in the last few months, but it still has a long way to go to be serious about reducing air pollution in the Baltimore region," concluded Pontious. "They should take the needed time to make sure this region is truly moving in the right direction."

# # # #