Since 1993, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has been implementing a strategy for reducing emissions from diesel-powered urban transit buses. Beginning in 1993, the ARB has set increasingly more stringent emission standards for diesel-fueled vehicles and engines sold in California, including buses and their replacement engines. At its February 24 meeting, the ARB proposes to further reduce emissions from urban bus fleets by adopting a rule that will give the transit agencies the flexibility of a choice between two paths toward that goal. (Note: The final version of these rules is available on the ARB's Web site, http://www.arb.ca.gov)
Curbing diesel emissions, particularly from buses, is a priority aim for the ARB. A bus operates in densely populated areas, and, with repeated stops and starts, exposes many people to its fumes. Besides a high ranking as a public nuisance, diesel fumes pose a serious threat to public health. Particulate matter (PM) from any source, especially ultra-fine particles, can cause acute and chronic lung disease. In people who already have impaired respiratory or cardiovascular function, this irritation can precipitate episodes of serious illness or even death. The particulate matter in diesel fumes is soot, which has also been determined to be carcinogenic and is listed by the ARB as a toxic air contaminant. Diesel exhaust also contains oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds, which react together in sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOx is also an air pollutant in its own right. Both ozone and NOx can cause acute and chronic lung impairment.
The ARB's proposed Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule is intended to further reduce diesel emissions by encouraging bus fleet operators to purchase or lease low-emitting, alternative-fuel vehicles. An agency may choose one of two paths to compliance -- the diesel or the alternative-fuel path. Both paths have the same requirements for NOx fleet average, PM retrofits, and the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel by the transit agencies. The two paths have different applicable emission standards and different dates by which 15 percent of the agencies' new bus purchases must be zero-emission buses (ZEBs).
Under the proposed rule, from the date of its adoption to 2015, at least 85 percent of the new bus purchases of the agencies that choose the alternative-fuel path must be low-emission, alternative-fuel buses. In addition, the diesel path requires a ZEB demonstration project. Table 1 on page 3 shows the requirements of the proposed rule and the schedule for their attainment. Emissions from a vehicle are expressed as grams per horsepower (brake horsepower) for each hour of operation.
In order to reduce NOx emissions from urban buses, both paths would require transit agencies to meet and maintain the rule's NOx fleet average standard. Most agencies are expected to do this by retiring pre-1988 buses and replacing them with new, cleaner buses. This requirement is expected to reduce NOx emissions statewide by 2 tons per day in 2002. Most of this reduction, however, would be the result of normal fleet turnover and is not considered in the state's required determination of the rule's cost-effectiveness.
To reduce PM emissions, ARB-certified PM retrofit devices would be required for all existing diesel buses and buses up to model-year 2004. These retrofit devices are not applicable to alternative-fuel buses. The proposed rule would establish a phased schedule for completing the retrofits. Briefly, all 1990 and earlier buses must be retrofitted by January 1, 2003; 1991 through 1995 buses by January 1, 2005; and 1996 through 2003 buses by January 1, 2009. The retrofits are expected to reduce PM emissions by 300 lbs/day statewide in 2005 and 100 lbs/day in 2010.
For the PM retrofit devices to function efficiently and reliably, low-sulfur diesel fuel must be used. Therefore, the proposed rule would require that, effective July 1, 2002, any diesel fuel purchased and used by a transit agency must be low-sulfur.
After January 1, 2004, the new diesel buses purchased by transit agencies choosing the diesel path would have to meet proposed new emission standards more stringent than those for other diesel vehicles, including other buses. Engine manufacturers would be able to choose to meet this special standard by applying aftertreatment devices to engines that are certified to meet the 2004 emission standards for other diesel engines. The standards for model-year 2004-2006 diesel or dual-fuel urban bus engines would reduce NOx statewide by 5 tons/day and PM by 50 lbs/day in 2010. In 2020, NOx would be expected to be reduced by 6 tons/day and PM by 60 lbs/day.
Transit agencies with at least 200 urban buses in their active fleet would be required to have a minimum of 15 percent of new bus purchases or leases be ZEBs. Agencies choosing the diesel path would have to begin their purchases in 2008, those on the alternative-fuel path, in 2010. The requirement would sunset in 2015. A ZEB is defined as an urban bus that under all conditions of operation produces no emissions of the criteria pollutants or precursor pollutants. Included are battery-powered buses, hydrogen-powered fuel cell buses and electric trolley buses. This requirement is intended to provide long-term clean air benefits and to foster advances in alternative fuel technology. At least one manufacturer, Ballard Power Systems, expects to produce ZEBs commercially by 2002.
Transit agencies choosing the diesel path with at least 200 buses in their active fleets would be required to have 3 (or more) ZEBs in service by July 1, 2003 to meet the ZEB demonstration project requirement. Several transit agencies in an air basin could participate in a joint ZEB demonstration project.
In addition to the proposed Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule, the ARB proposes more stringent emission standards for 2007 and later model-year urban buses and engines that would tighten NOx emissions. NOx emissions are expected to be reduced by less than a ton statewide in 2010 and just over one ton in 2020. The EPA is expected to adopt similar 2007 standards.
Implementation of the proposed Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule would create significant costs for transportation planning agencies and the transit agencies. The requirements for the NOx fleet average standard, PM retrofits, the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel, new bus purchases, and alternative-fuel bus purchases carry significant costs.
The ARB anticipates that federal, state, and local funds would be available for the new bus purchases necessary to meet the NOx fleet average standard. Some transit agencies might not have sufficient funds to purchase new buses and might have to bear the cost of retrofits or repowering engines to meet the standard.
PM retrofits of buses would be phased in from 2002 through 2008. Each ARB-certified retrofit device is expected to cost about $3,000 installed. The ARB estimates that about 4,500 buses statewide will be retrofitted.
Low-sulfur diesel fuel is expected to cost about 5 cents more per gallon than ordinary diesel fuel.
An alternative-fuel bus is expected to cost about $40,000 more than a diesel bus. At least part of the excess cost may be offset by matching funds from FTA grants and incentive funding by state and local air quality districts. Operating costs for alternative-fuel buses vary, as reported by transit agencies that already have a significant number of these buses. Some agencies show cost savings.
The Carl Moyer Clean Engine Incentive Program is one source of funding that could be applied to the purchase of alternative-fuel buses, engines, or retrofits. Named for the late Carl Moyer, a clean-air technology scientist, the Program recognizes Dr. Moyer's contributions in this area and continues his efforts to improve air quality through incentives. Moyer Program grants may be applied to buses and trucks, off-road equipment including construction and agricultural equipment, marine vessels, locomotives, stationary agricultural equipment, and airport ground equipment. The Moyer Program is administered by the ARB and distributed by local air districts.
Moyer Program grants offset the higher cost of the alternative-fuel bus or engine over a diesel vehicle or engine. In some cases, cleaner diesel equipment may qualify for grants. The Program has distributed $44 million in the past two fiscal years, since July 1998; the ARB has asked that the funding for the Program be continued, as a cost-effective way to reduce air pollution.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District also administers the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, generated by a $4 surtax on motor vehicle registration fees. Funds are awarded on a competitive basis to innovative or demonstration projects that reduce air pollution from transportation-related sources.
School buses were omitted from the proposed rule by the ARB because sufficient funds are not now available for them. However, prompted by the fact that children are more vulnerable than adults to toxic diesel fumes, the ARB has given a high priority to developing a rule to reduce school bus emissions. Meanwhile, the proposed Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule would set up an ambitious program to reduce diesel fumes from urban transit buses, mitigating the principal objectionable aspect of this sector of the state's transportation system.
Adelia Sabiston
| Proposed Urban Transit Bus Fleet Rule Requirements and Emission Standards | ||||
| Model Year | "Diesel Path" | "Alternative-Fuel" Path | ||
| NOx (g/bhp-hr) | PM(g/bhp-hr) | NOx (g/bhp-hr) | PM (g/bhp-hr) | |
| 2000 | 4.0 | 0.05 | 2.5 optional* | 0.05 |
| 10/2002 | 2.5 NOx+NMHC | 0.05 | 1.8 Nox+NMHC optional* | 0.03 |
| 10/2002 | 4.8 NOx fleet average | 4.8 NOx fleet average | ||
| 2003-09 | PM retrofit requirements | PM retrofit requirements | ||
| 7/2003 | 3 bus demo of ZEBs for large fleets (>200) | |||
| 2004 | 0.5 | 0.01 | ||
| 2007 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.2 | 0.01 |
| 2008 | 15% of new purchases are ZEBs for large fleets (>200) | |||
| 2010 | 15% of new purchases are ZEBs for large fleets (>200) | |||
Notes: Shaded area shows existing requirements and existing optional emission standards.
* Although transit agencies on the alternative-fuel path are not required to purchase engines certified to these optional standards, the staff expects that they will do so in order to qualify for incentive funding. At present, the only alternative-fuel engines available are certified to optional, lower-emission NOx standards. (Source: California ARB)
There is general agreement that the Bay Area has major unmet transportation needs, but less agreement on specifics. Agencies, legislators and community organizations are all developing transportation plans. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the agency responsible for regional transportation planning, currently has two major plans of its own.
The first is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a regularly-revised plan for transportation projects which can be built in the next 20 years with funding available from existing federal, state and local sources. There is little money available for expansionmore than 80% of RTP funding goes to maintenance and operations for the current system. Even so, MTC estimates an additional $6 billion is needed for local road repairs, and $2.2 billion to seismically retrofit the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and replace old BART cars.
The second plan, the Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century, anticipates possible new funding sources for expansion projects. The initial project list included candidates from other MTC plans as well as "overflow" projects which could not be funded in the RTP. Other ideas came from the Bay Area Council and Bay Area Economic Forum's Bay Area Water Transit Initiative proposal, plans for new or proposed sales tax measures, transportation corridor studies, county congestion management agencies (CMAs) and regional transit agencies, and a series of public outreach meetings.
The Blueprint's Project Notebook of Candidate Projects describes projects to be considered for the final plan. The Notebook is organized into sections based on 14 specific travel corridors, regionwide projects and gateways to other regions outside the Bay Area. An alternative arrangement was illustrated in the October/November 1999 issue of MTC's Transactions. It includes three groups of projects by mode: rail expansion, ferry expansion, and rapid or express bus projects. A fourth group includes other priorities such as lifeline transit services to aid in the transition from welfare to work, seismic safety retrofits, and MTC's Transportation for Livable Communities program. Capitol costs are estimated at $22-33 billion; operating costs would be $500-830 million per year for additional service.
New funding may come with restrictions, and/or be project-specific. BART may ask voters to renew its property tax, originally used for construction of the system, to fund seismic retrofits. A planned high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, not in the Blueprint, may result in a state sales tax increase proposal; this could compete with other potential funding sources for Blueprint projects, such as a regional gas tax or an increase in the state gas tax.
If the state Legislature increases funding for new infrastructure through ongoing general fund support, or by placing a bond issue on the November 2000 ballot, it is certain to define how new money is to be spent, although the Blueprint might influence those choices. Federal funding is subject to similar earmarking. Assemblyman Tom Torlakson and state Senator Don Perata recently announced a $33.5 million budget proposal to fund studies of some Blueprint candidate projects. Their goal is to compare proposed BART extensions with other alternatives and determine which projects are most cost-effective, best integrate with regional public transit and support desirable growth patterns. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has offered a plan for federal funding which is also targeted at certain regional projects.
The best chance to increase funding may be local sales tax measures, such as Sonoma County's measure on the March ballot. In November, Alameda County will consider extending its sales tax. In both counties, earlier measures failed to reach the required two-thirds vote (see May/June 1998 and September/October 1998 issues). A bill to extend or enact special transportation sales taxes by simple majority vote, Senator Burton's SCA 3, did not pass the Legislature last year but may be revived during this session.
While local projects often need state and federal funds to move forward, most projects in the Blueprint, particularly expensive rail extensions, will also require extensive local funding because there will not be sufficient money available from other sources. Therefore, local support for Blueprint projects is important, and local sales tax money essential. However, the success of a local sales tax measure often depends on which projects will be funded, and major regional projects may not be locally important, leaving these projects to be funded with regional discretionary funding, if at all. On the other hand, since many high-priced sales tax projects require large amounts of regional funding, the Blueprint could affect the future of projects important to local voters by directing how regional funds should be invested.
At the end of February, MTC Commissioners were considering options for effectively integrating the Blueprint with local sales tax measures. One approach would have MTC identify desired "outcomes" for sales tax plans before these plans are prepared, considering policy issues such as improving transit coordination, establishing a lifeline transit system, and developing a "trunkline" transit system around the Bay. MTC would monitor the plans, possibly adjusting RTP fund allocations to achieve these outcomes.
A second approach would distribute regional discretionary funding to projects which meet key regional priorities. The funding might come through new sales tax measures or a regional gas tax. Priorities could favor projects which would address specific regional needs such as maintenance, system management, community vitality, or transit/highway expansion in key congested corridors.
The Bay Area Partnership, the coalition of major regional transportation and environmental agencies, preferred the "policy guidance" approach at its recent meeting. Extensive public input has also been received during a second series of meetings jointly hosted by MTC and county CMAs. This information will be incorporated into the final Blueprint, which is anticipated to be released in late March or early April. It will contain project performance information and recommendations for how projects would be financed with new transportation revenues.
The final Blueprint will immediately encounter a variety of other ideas for regional transportation which will affect its future. Some community groups have differing viewpoints, epitomized by the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition's recent report World Class Transit for the Bay Area. Turning away from proposals for highway expansions, BART extensions and large-scale ferry service, the coalition's report emphasizes more intensive utilization of the existing infrastructure through express buses, round-the-clock service on key routes, and more rail service on existing lines. The proposal also urges a greater emphasis on smart growth planning and changes in transportation pricing to make transit use a more reasonable choice for consumers. The total capital cost is estimated at $12.2 billion, with no cost determined for operating expenses.
In addition, while the Blueprint Project Notebook is a tempting wish list of projects, not all will be included in the final plan. Some county CMA projects left out of the RTP may still not be in the final Blueprint. Politically appealing projects, such as the Southern Crossing bridge, may emerge to vie for the attention of state and federal legislators.
Unless the Blueprint is accepted as a unifying regional vision, it will serve simply as another soapbox in the ongoing struggle to influence the region's transportation future. Achieving consensus on this plan may be difficult, but may also be critically important for MTC as it begins to guide the next century of transportation in the Bay Area.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
MTC's Blueprint: Doug Kimsey, 510/464-7794; dkimsey@mtc.ca.gov
Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition: 510/540-7220; http://www.transcoalition.org
A helpful guidebook through the maze of transportation funding programs is available from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Moving Costs: A Transportation Funding Guide for the San Francisco Bay Area includes charts describing each funding source, the amount available, what the money can be used for and by whom, and who decides where the money goes. Other sections contain a description of the transportation funding process and a glossary of transportation jargon and acronyms. The publication is distributed free by MTC; order from the MTC-ABAG Library, 510/464-7836, or online from library@mtc.ca.gov.
The flow of goods in and out of Bay Area ports is a vital part of the region's economy. However, the ships bringing these goods also discharge ballast water containing exotic, and unwelcome, marine life into San Francisco Bay. In June 1999, the Port of Oakland became the first major US West Coast port to take action against this threat by restricting the discharge of ballast water.
Ballast water is used by ships to provide stability and make the vessels easier to handle. The need for ballast water varies by type of ship, and with differing cargo and sea conditions. Ballast water is often taken on in a port or coastal region, where the water contains many organisms. It may be released at sea, along a coast or in another port. If conditions are right, the "kidnapped" organisms may find a new ecosystem in which to flourish.
In the Bay Area, the many non-native species introduced in the past few years have changed the marine environment so much that scientists despair of ever returning the Bay to its original ecosystem. New species arrive not only in ballast water, but on fouled ship hulls, and through aquaculture, bait fish shipments, and deliberate introductions of species used for food in other parts of the world or originally acquired for aquarium use. According to Andrew Cohen of the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the rate of such relocations is increasing; one study shows that between 1961 and 1995 there was one new invasion of the San Francisco Bay ecosystem every 14 weeks, and at least four species a year become established as permanent residents.
Three of these invaders, the green crab, the Asian basket clam and the mitten crab, have had the greatest effect on the Bay and Delta. Green crabs feed on the clams and Dungeness crabs which support commercial seafood operations in the region. Asian clams draw on the same food sources as native mollusks, crustaceans and small fish, but their tendency to concentrate selenium makes them a far less desirable food source than the species they have replaced. The mitten crab, which may have been deliberately introduced, clogs fish screens at Delta pumps. (So far, the Bay and Delta have not seen any sign of the zebra mussel, which now blocks water transport and purification systems along the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. However, the mussel is moving slowly westward, spread by recreational boaters as they move from one water body to another, and has been found on boats at California checkpoints.)
One of the first lines of defense against exotic species is to cut off the supply of ballast water which transports them into the Bay. This may seem somewhat like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten loose, but it may slow the arrival of additional problem species such as the zebra mussel, and allow the ecosystem to stabilize so that scientists can determine if the impact of exotics already here can be minimized.
Reporting on the discharge of ballast water which originated outside the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the United States is required by the US Coast Guard under the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Information from the Coast Guard reports provides a basis for research efforts conducted by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center on ballast water and invasive species. Voluntary ballast water exchange was included in federal regulations beginning July 1, 1999; exchange may be federally mandated after 2001 if Coast Guard reports indicate compliance with the voluntary program is inadequate. However, the Port of Oakland, now joined by the state, has already taken this important step toward protecting San Francisco Bay from more unwelcome new species.
The Port ordinance, which went into effect in August, was modeled on one from the Port of Vancouver, Canada. It requires ships to exchange ballast water taken up in other ports with water from deep ocean waters beyond the continental shelf. Organisms from deep water cannot survive in shallower Bay waters. Exemptions are available if such an exchange would be hazardous to the vessel or its crew, or if the ballast water to be discharged in Oakland originated in another West Coast port. Most ships entering the Port of Oakland are container ships, which already do deepwater ballast water exchange.
A state ballast water exchange law, effective January 1, 2000, covers all ships entering the Bay. It requires a joint effort by the State Lands Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Resources Control Board to conduct monitoring and inspection of vessels entering California ports, to research baseline conditions in waters which may be affected by ballast water discharges, to evaluate alternatives to mid-ocean exchanges, and to prepare reports for the state legislature prior to the law's sunset date in 2004. The Coast Guard and the state are coordinating reporting requirements, although the state is doing an independent compliance verification.
The Port had planned the first year of its program as an introductory period, but enforcement began in January under the state program. The state regulations also use different definitions and are somewhat more extensive in scope, creating some confusion for shippers. The Port will revise its ordinance after working with regulatory agencies which included implementation of the ordinance as conditions for Port improvement permits. Although the permit conditions will be satisfied under state regulations, the agencies may require the Port to take additional steps to mitigate the effects of ballast water discharge. The Port plans to retain the part of its ordinance which goes beyond state regulations by requiring ships to report the specific source of ballast water discharged in San Francisco Bay that originated in other West Coast ports. This information will contribute to research determining if precautions need to be taken even between one West Coast port and another.
Ballast water exchange is not a perfect solution. When ships cannot safely exchange ballast water in midocean, ballast water from one port will still be discharged in another. Even a complete ballast water exchange may not flush out all the organisms in the tank; some organisms may be left in dead spaces in the plumbing system, and in sediments at the bottom of tanks. Research is currently taking place on other options, such as treatment of ballast water tanks while underway with heat, chemicals, filtration or ultraviolet light, or treatment in onshore wastewater treatment plants before discharge. Research sponsors include the Port of Oakland, port and shipping associations, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Results will help form another line of defense for the Bay and Delta.
The Bay Area has already sustained major impacts from non-native species arriving in ballast water. The ballast water exchange program, first implemented at the Port of Oakland and now in effect at all the region's ports, is the first strand of what may become a complex safety net protecting the Bay and Delta from more extensive invasions.
Leslie Stewart
For more information on ballast water regulations:
Port of Oakland: Jody Zaitlin (see below); http://www.portofoakland.com/news_ballast.html
State of California (State Lands Commission): 916/574-1900; http://www.slc.ca.gov/BallastWater/default.asp
US Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso4/surveyresults.htm
For more information on invasive species:
San Francisco Estuary Institute: 510/231-9539; http://www.sfei.org/invasions.html
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: http://www.serc.si.edu/invasions/ballast.htm
Ballast water is discharged from a ship in port. (Source: CA State Lands Commission)
May 11, 2000, 9:00 am - 12:30 pm
Elihu Harris State Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland; Admission is free.
Contact:
Jody Zaitlin, Port of Oakland
530 Water Street, Oakland, CA 94607
510/627-1179
jzaitlin@gw.portoakland.com
The Association of Bay Area Governments video Hometown Blues, describing problems of growth and potential solutions, was honored in November with an Ahwahnee Award from the Local Government Commission. It was one of two winners in the category of community programs. (See March/April 1999 issue.)
Groundbreaking for the Fruitvale Transportation Village took place in October 1999. The village is a model for other transit village projects around the region, and is expected to be a centerpiece of the revitalized Fruitvale district. It will contain housing, shops and neighborhood and community services, focused on a pedestrian plaza along 34th Avenue. Some of the community facilities will open in Fall 2000 and the entire project is scheduled for completion in mid-2001. (See March/April 1999 issue, also January/February 1997.)
The East Bay Municipal Utility District announced in November that MTBE pollution in its San Pablo reservoir had dropped significantly after rental boats were fitted with cleaner-burning engines. Maximum concentrations of the gasoline additive had dropped 75 percent, and average levels had dropped 60 percent over two years.
In May 1998, the district had ordered two-stroke engines in 70 rental boats replaced with four-stroke engines. Privately owned boats with two-stroke engines are no longer permitted on the reservoir effective January 1, 2000. The district anticipates a further drop in MTBE levels as a result. In an effort to totally eliminate gasoline pollution of the reservoir, only electric-powered boats will be allowed after January 2002. (See March/April 1998 issue.)
The California Legislative Analyst's Office issued a report in January entitled, "HOV Lanes in California: Are They Achieving Their Goals?" (see November/December 1999 issue). It can be read online at http://www.lao/ca.gov/010700_hov/010700_hov_lanes.html, or ordered from the Legislative Analyst's Office by calling 916/445-2375.