Environmental Impacts of Transportation (Air Quality)

Apparently there are very significant environmental impacts of transportation on air quality as the first article stated: “the transportation sector is projected to be the fastest growing contributor to carbon emissions in the next twenty years. Our Built and Natural Environments provided a good overview of the relationships between land use, transportation, and environmental quality. I think I’d read about induced traffic before but I thought there was another term for it. In any case, I wonder if the concept of induced traffic is accepted in all circles or if it is scrutinized; it is referred to as a theory so it must be open to criticism by those who promote expansion of road as a way to reduce congestion. It makes me question the expanding of a road in South Asheville which includes the addition of a bridge over the French Broad River as well. The article states that communities are realizing that the addition of road capacity is not by itself a viable long-term solution to problems of traffic congestion. I should do more research to find out whether or not there land use-based solutions as well that are part of this plan to relieve congestion to a part of Asheville that is responding to growth.

The article “Cleaning the Air” was informative for me in detailing efforts made by the federal government to advocate for clearer air among the states. The Clean Air Act in its original state (1970) as well as with the amendments in 1990 that require MPOs to create TIPs and LRTPs which meet state requirements in the SIP seem to be good steps in that direction. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program provides a set of federal funds to help states and local govts meet the air quality standards set up under the Clean Air Act via innovative transportation projects and programs. Again, sounds great especially because the article mentions the CMAQ gets broad support from a variety of interests. Then the article launches into threats to these 2 federal efforts by the Bush administration which was fairly depressing. I just hope, as the author pointed out, that if an appropriate method for determining the cost-effectiveness of the CMAQ is agreed upon, that it highlights the benefits of the program and/or improves it.