Skip to main content

Policy proposed for US on emissions

Stricter standards for particulate matter (PM) or soot proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could endanger transportation improvements. That is the message from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), which believes that the tougher PM standards could put federal highway funds in jeopardy. Marc Herbst, executive director of the Long Island Contractors’ Association (LICA) and chairman of ARTBA’s Council of State Executives, explained that EPA’s proposed new standa
July 5, 2012 Read time: 2 mins
Stricter standards for particulate matter (PM) or soot proposed by the US 1293 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could endanger transportation improvements. That is the message from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), which believes that the tougher PM standards could put federal highway funds in jeopardy. Marc Herbst, executive director of the 6112 Long Island Contractors’ Association (LICA) and chairman of ARTBA’s Council of State Executives, explained that EPA’s proposed new standards come at a time when counties are still struggling to comply with existing regulations.

He said that the proposed regulation, “…creates a counterproductive cycle where new standards delay needed improvements to the nation’s highway and bridge network, which has already reached ‘critical mass’ in terms of being able to serve the needs of our citizens and economy.”

Herbst went on to describe the impact of EPA’s proposal noting, “States and counties need predictability and time to develop transportation plans which achieve PM reduction and create jobs. Adding a new layer of requirements on top of existing standards that have not been fully implemented only complicates these ongoing efforts. Specifically, existing projects deemed to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act when first undertaken could be thrown out of compliance if new standards are approved, exposing project owners to costly, time-consuming litigation.”

Herbst also explained how EPA’s actions are counterproductive to current efforts to reauthorise the federal surface transportation program, saying, “It is ironic that members of both chambers and parties have made streamlining the environmental review and approval process for transportation projects a priority of the transportation bill, yet few talk about how EPA’s PM proposal will severely disrupt the very process they are trying to make more effective.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • $1.49 billion for Oregon-Washington bridge
    August 26, 2024
    The existing Interstate 5 bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver over the Columbia River in the US northwest is actually two parallel bridges – one dating back to 1917.
  • UK’s Mersey Gateway Project team invites final tenders
    February 26, 2013
    The team behind what is set to be one of the UK’s largest infrastructure initiatives in the next few years has invited final tenders from the three shortlisted bidders competing to deliver it. The Mersey Gateway Project bidders have been asked to submit their tenders on behalf of Halton Borough Council by 10 April 2013, and an announcement about the identity of the preferred bidder is due in June 2013. This will allow the team behind the North West England-based project to sign a contract and begin construc
  • New techniques for tackling congestion
    December 8, 2015
    Transport experts from the Royal Academy of Engineering are proposing methods to reduce traffic congestion. These proposals are included in a discussion document intended to stimulate debate on congestion issues. The working group behind the paper includes industry experts and academic researcher. The team looked at technology and policy measures that could reduce congestion in the most critical transport sectors by 2030, evaluating which measures would be effective and value for money.
  • What matters most: an expert’s insight into purchasing light equipment
    July 19, 2021
    Sometimes, it seems that the biggest differentiator between various brands of light equipment is their paint colour. Yet there is plenty to compare when you look beyond the surface.