Transportation control plans are used as an air pollution control strategy to reduce the high level of pollutants emitted in urban environments. This study examines and compares the plans adopted by both New York and Texas. It attempts to address the discrepancy between the two states in resource availability, as well as investigate litigation and legal ramifications resulting from the transportation control plans.
2. Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6 Cities project.
After many variations of google searches, I could not find any information for Ellen Hershkowitz or other publications besides links to this article. This may be due to the articles time of publication 1981, before the existence of the modern internet.
3. What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
New York attempts to achieve its objectives with traffic flow regulations and improvement of mass transit facilities, while Texas emphasizes van and carpool programs, as well as expanded park and ride facilities.
The difference in strategies largely stems from an absence of mass transit system in large cities in Texas.
The scope of both transportation plans in limited. New York has put extreme emphasis on the transit system, but results have been negligible. Texas relies too heavily on van and carpool programs, of which the ability to effectively reduce pollution has been questioned.
Both states should adopt a broader set of transportation control plan strategies, an example of which being the utilization of a compressed work week.
The government should provide financial incentives to employers who create and adopt these programs, which would be offset by the cost of enforcement of less effective transportation control measures.
This is an important problem that requires planning and innovative solutions, as it threatens the quality of life and health in urban areas.
4. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
Hershkowitz uses legal disputes and issues regarding the plans to discuss/ gauge their effectiveness as well as understand the development of the plans.
Texas
In Texas vs. EPA in 1974, the state fought the EPA's authority and power to determine the adequacy of its SIP and to demand additional regulations be added. The United State Court of Appeals supported the EPA's ruling that the Texas SIP was inadequate, as allowed the EPA to promulgate additional regulations for any state that has an unsatisfactory SIP. However, the Court of Appeals did rule many of the EPA's additional regulations invalid, including the gasoline marketing regulations.
In 1981, In City of Seabrook vs. EPA, a municipalty petitioned the EPA to approve several portions of the Texas SIP to be set aside. The plaintiffs argued against the concept of conditional approval, and believed that it was not authorized by the Clean Air Act. The City also argued that the SIP provision on motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs required a mandatory program, while the EPA argued it only required that the program be phased in over a period of years. The US Court of Appeals sided with the EPA on both issues.
New York
New York was one of the first states to submit an SIP to the EPA in April 1973. Following the EPA's approval of the plan in June 1973, the plan was challenged by citizens' groups in Friends of the Earth vs. EPA. The groups claimed that the implementation strategies reviewed in the plan were vague and lack essential provisions such as a specific conformance time table and a transit fare freeze. For example, reduction of parking facilities in Manhattan were included in the plan, without mention of which spaces or facilities would be removed. The court affirmed the EPA's plan approval, but another lawsuit ensued in 1976 as the state avoided the implementation of the transportation control measures. Friends of the Earth sought to enforce 4 major parts of the SIP, parking space reduction, a taxicab cruising ban, bridge tolls, and after-hours freight deliveries. The United State Court of Appeals ordered implementation, but the District Court refused to enforce the compliance order. A third suit initiated, where the US Court of Appeals ordered implementation again, but the state continued to resist implementation.
Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1977 allowed the state to eliminate the bridge toll strategy of the SIP under the condition that a comprehensive transit proposal was produced within one year, which had to include measures designed to improve mass transit and to maintain national ambient air standards.
The author listed many more legal disputes for New York than Texas, but for the sake of time and relevance to my research I chose not list all New York ones.
Reviews potential legal implications of different transportation control measures.
Constitutional questions- many regulations require some infringement of personal rights, and only compelling governmental interest can justify this infringement. Compensation may be necessary if a party suffers losses. For example, restricting the prohibition of parking may negatively affect a business owner by reducing traffic to their store, and thus he is entitled to compensation. The Constitution provides that private property shall not "[b]e taken for public use, without just compensation."
Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs involve enacting of state regulations and expenditure of state funds, and this have been criticized as infringement on state sovereignty.
The government can impose tolls on streets and highways, but court decisions have ruled this must be done in a "non-discriminatory" manor. The report cites a legal case involving discriminatory application of tolls to horse-drawn vehicles. Furthermore, alterations in toll rates cannot impair the contractual obligations between the highway authority and its bondholders. Therefor, it is uncertain whether utilization of differential toll rates for multiple occupancy vehicles would be upheld.
Determines the necessary practical considerations for different transportation control measures.
Van and carpool programs
Could create a tax liability if a driver's compensation exceeds his or her expenses. The MTA sponsored van pool program in Houston resolves this by limiting the driver's compensation to the cost incurred in providing transportation. Furthermore, if the vehicle owner is compensated, the driver and employer must comply with state regulations regarding transporting of passengers for compensation.
Some insurance programs exclude passengers from coverage. If the driver has no coverage or this form of coverage, a carpool passenger could be left without coverage in the case of an accident. Other policies might result in liability for the driver. A potential solution would be government-sponsored low cost insurance for van and car pool programs. This would be similar to insurance forms already in existence that are sponsored by the government that private companies cannot economically provide, such as crop insurance, floor insurance, and riot reinsurance.
Ability to actually result in air pollution reduction is unsure because of difficulties in enforcement. Employers and employees have no legal obligation to participate in these programs. Therefor, the EPA or state agencies could not take action against them for noncompliance, and since they are not actually polluters, there is no possibility of a private suit for violation of the Clean Air Act.
Tolls could also have practicality issues, because while they can discourage traffic in certain areas, they also lead to congestion and traffic jams, potentially worsening pollution due to emissions.
5. What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
"These states have adopted very different systems of transportation control with the resources available to them. The TCP promulgated by New York relies heavily on traffic flow regulations and improvement of mass transit facilities' to achieve its objectives, while the TCP commitments included in the Texas state plan emphasize van and car pool programs, as well as expanded park and ride facilities." (pg 726)
"Whether or not Congress amends the Act as proposed, the increasing number of motor vehicles operating within urban areas necessitates expanded utilization of other transportation control strategies." (pg 731)
"The Texas response to the air pollution problem posed by motor vehicles has been very different from the New York plan, dictated in large part by the absence of significant mass transit systems in its major cities." (pg 736).
6. What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
No data is used, only review of relevant literature and analysis of real life events.
A primary source in this report is the process by which certain laws were created, or upheld or changed in court cases.
7. How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
Because there is a strong focus on environmental legal issues in this report, most discussion on public health in the report aim to distinguish its place in the legal system.
The article addresses that control of air pollution is certaintly related to a community's health, but there is controversy in determining whether or not this is a compelling enough issue to to permit infringement on a fundamental right.
The EPA is authorized to create National Ambient Air Quality Standards as either primary or secondary standards. Primary standards involve the protection of public health, and secondary standards involve the protection of public welfare, i.e. effects to soil, water, crops, property, as well as effects on economic values, and personal comfort and well-being. It would be good to note if these two tiers are still in implementation today, since today soil and water quality are tied strongly with public health. Opposition to NAAQS has often lead to court action, but these motivations are primarily due to economic and technological concerns.
8. Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
I could only find this report referenced in one other source, titled Analysis of the 1990 Clean Air Act's Employee Commute Options Program - A Trip Down the Right Road by Leanne Cusumano.
This is from the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Volume I8, Issue 1, Article 5.
This publication focuses on current topics in environmental law and the policy implications behind the laws. William & Mary Law School faculty and students can submit materials to the publication.
This article cites Hershkowitz's report for the discussion of the practicality issues surrounding car or van pool operations.
The article was published the same year as the one referenced, 1981.
9. Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
This report is only 26 pages long, but includes 110 footnotes, which often took up the majority of each page and many include explanation of a unique citation. This implies that the methods for this report was an extremely extensive literary review on the subject. This report seems similar to what a student in the 6 cities research might be able to produce at the end of the project, as it does not involve any surveys or modeling, but instead analytical reviews of pertinent written work summarized into a cohesive message on governance strategies.
10. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
Tying it back to my previous research, it is interesting to note that all transportation control methods mentioned in 1981 are still the prominent focus today. In Houston, car and van pooling is still the primary emphasis, and even as per Hershkowitz's suggestions, many organizations focused on air pollution and transportation recommend companies utilize flex time. However, as far as I know there is no government incentive for this.
Also, it is interesting to note that Hershkowitz's contributes different strategies between the states to different infrastructure resources, but does not suggest the possibility of updating the infrastructure for Houston for public transit, when several of the news articles I annotated for this week focused on advocating for that.
The article cites a reference to compare air pollution in NYC vs. Houston: "COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 146 (1980). In addition Houston's air pollution level exceeded national standards for 94 days in 1978. Although the absolute number of days in violation of EPA standards was much lower in Houston than in New York, Houston's statistic represented a threefold increase over its own figure for 1974." To compare with current day, I looked at the American Lung Association 2014 State of the Air report. It concluded that Houston exceeds New York City in ozone pollution, but New York City has worse particle pollution. This report does not address a focus on different pollutants, and it would be interesting to understand why certain cities struggle with different pollutants.
2. Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6 Cities project.
3. What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
4. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
5. What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
6. What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
7. How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
8. Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
9. Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
10. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?