Reform of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ)

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ) was established by Congress in ISTEA in 1991 explicitly to fund projects that will contribute to the attainment of air quality standards. However, over time, a dwindling share of both the number of projects and overall funding has gone to projects that have attempted to quantify any emissions reductions, either qualitatively or quantitatively, such that today less than half of all CMAQ projects have any discernible emissions reductions according to the projects’ own submissions to US DOT.

Transportation is a driving source of pollution across the country. CMAQ is an important tool for those communities in nonattainment or maintenance status under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to reduce emissions from this sector, and we agree with an early assessment of the National Academies that “the primary criteria which the cost-effectiveness…of all CMAQ-eligible projects are judged related to the reduction of air pollution.” Such a program must inherently be rooted in data. 

As predicted by the National Academies, “congestion mitigation does not inevitably lead to reduced emissions,” and “in the long run, capacity-based congestion improvements within certain speed intervals can reasonably be expected to increase emissions of CO2e, CO, and NOx through increased vehicle travel volume.” Unfortunately, current CMAQ guidance “does not account for long-term changes in travel behavior.” As such, the CMAQ program should be reformed to more accurately reflect the real emissions impacts of projects funded and prioritize long-term emissions reductions, which means considering the impact of effects such as induced demand on projects.

Additionally, current flexibility within the CMAQ program allows for up to 50 percent of program funds to be transferred to other Federal-Aid programs that lack requirements on emissions reductions. When funding apportioned for CMAQ can be spent on projects that may increase emissions, this diminishes the value of CMAQ in prioritizing requirements under the Clean Air Act, resulting in CMAQ funds being distributed in ways that run counter to the program’s intent. 

A recent analysis shows that from FY2013-2020, nearly 13 percent of CMAQ funds were transferred to other programs. In that same study, it is noted that “There is a tendency to transfer funds from the more restrictive [Federal-Aid Highway Program] categories to more flexible categories,” for which it identifies CMAQ as one such more restrictive category. Since CMAQ already allows for funding flexibility for states related to their attainment status, there is no need for additional flexibility, and any such program fungibility runs counter to the goals of the CMAQ program.

CHARGE’s Proposal:

The CMAQ program can be reformed to more effectively achieve its emissions reduction goal while also prioritizing projects that eliminate congestion and achieve co-benefits, such as transportation affordability. Doing so will require increased accountability, technical modernization of modeling. To that end, we recommend the following changes:

• Ensure that the CMAQ program is able to maximize the reduction of harmful and carcinogenic emissions by preventing the transfer of funds to programs that may increase emissions.

• At 23 USC § 126(b)(1), replace “sections 104(d) and 133(d)(1)(A)” with “sections 104(d), 133(d)(1)(A) and 149”.

• Streamline the program by eliminating duplicative project eligibilities shared across most of the Federal Aid Highway Program.

• Delete 23 USC § 149(b)(5) and 23 USC § 149(b)(9), which grant eligibility to traffic smoothing projects without regard to a demonstration of emissions benefits.

• Factor long-term travel demand changes that different project types may cause to account for lifetime emissions shifts relative to baseline emissions.

• At 23 USC § 149(i)(1)(A), replace “based on reductions in congestion and emissions.” with “based on reductions in congestion and emissions over the lifetime of the project, including impacts related to increased travel demand from the project.”

• At 23 USC § 149(i)(2)(A), replace “how the projects mitigate congestion and improve air quality.” with “how the projects mitigate congestion and improve air quality over the lifetime of the project.”

• Add new eligibilities that prioritize low-cost transportation options, including electric micromobility purchase subsidies and public chargers, and operating assistance for shared micromobility networks and electric carshare networks.

• At 23 USC § 149(b)(7), replace “telecommuting, ridesharing, carsharing, shared micromobility (including bikesharing and shared scooter systems), alternative work hours, and pricing” with “telecommuting, ridesharing, carsharing (including supportive infrastructure for electric carsharing), shared micromobility (including capital and operations funding for bikesharing and shared scooter systems), electric micromobility purchase incentives, alternative work hours, pricing and incentives”

Ensure that the CMAQ program can achieve its goals by requiring states and MPOs to certify that emissions from non-CMAQ projects within Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) do not outweigh the emissions reduction benefits of CMAQ-funded projects. If plans are on net increasing criteria emissions reductions relative to a baseline, states and MPOs should be required to revise their investments. Only TIPs that accurately certify this should be eligiblefor funding.