Pollution Control: Too Little, Too Late

Read the latest news on this subject.

Periodically, attempts have been made to combat urban smog on the federal and city level. However, city cyclists have a right to be cynical — because of lackadaisical or nonexistent enforcement, overall air quality has improved only modestly, and New York City has never met all the “ambient air” requirements of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported in 1990 that New York City violated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits for common pollutants 80 days a year on average. [7]

The major failing of anti-pollution policy has been its reliance on reducing tailpipe emissions, rather than auto use. While pollution per mile driven has declined because of emission controls and cleaner fuels, increases in total miles driven have offset gains in controlling pollution at the back end. Encouraged by cheap gas, curtailed public transit, trucking industry deregulation, and subsidies for both driving and auto-dependent land development, U.S. vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) increased 94% from 1970 to 1990. In the New York City metropolitan area, VMT grew 17.5% during 1985-1989 alone — a 4.1% annual rate — before dipping by 0.8% in 1990. In 1988, 760,000 cars drove through Manhattan's central business district (below 59th Street) on an average work day — 100,000 more than in 1980. [8]

A second obstacle is the federal regulation structure, whose deadline approach and peak-emission emphasis have produced short-term, legalistic strategies that fail to address fundamental transportation technologies or behavior. This has fed transportation planners' tendency to build or widen roads to improve traffic flow, on the theory that faster-flowing cars mean fewer pollutants per mile than idling ones.

Highway construction thus ends up being touted as environmentally sound, while dedicating road space to cycling, walking and non-transport uses is opposed as congestion-causing, hence polluting. [9] (See section e on the case of the “QB6.” The NYC DoT also uses this argument to justify car traffic in Central and Prospect Parks; see Chapter 8.)

The result is all too predictable — increased road capacity fosters greater dispersion of economic activity and more driving, leading eventually to more widespread and even worse pollution.

New legislative initiatives such as the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, New York State's “Low Emission Vehicle” requirement, and the city's alternative fuel vehicle purchase program, should help reduce pollution (see sidebar). But for the most part, these initiatives continue the 20-year focus on after-the-fact emission controls to curb the effects of automobile transportation, and by themselves, don't go nearly far enough. Effective action to fight pollution will come only through aggressive transportation control measures including new motorist user fees and infrastructure investment that specifically attack auto-dependence.

To offset growth in VMT and reduce VMT as necessary to comply with air quality standards, the Clean Air Act Amendments present a list of suggestions for measures such as secure bicycle parking, restricted automobile use in downtown areas, employer-based ride-share programs, and construction of paths for pedestrians. But the Amendments include no provisions to fund transportation projects aimed at reducing auto reliance; nor do they mandate adoption of any such measures, other than employer-based car-pool schemes.

Without a clear political message from the State Capitol or City Hall, transportation officials will almost certainly continue to skirt auto-use reduction objectives and to interpret Clean Air Act Guideline 5 (“traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emission reductions”) as an excuse to build roads. Notwithstanding possible federal penalties and new opportunities for regional planning, strong citizen pressure and leadership from public officials will remain the key to real auto-reduction measures.

NOTES: