Economic of clean air

The quality of the air we breathe has an immediacy missing from many other environmental concerns. Harvard Medical School studies indicate that 60,000 Americans die prematurely each year from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses linked to air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency periodically strengthens its standards based on its reading of the latest scientific studies. At this point, a familiar drama unfolds.

Industry lobbyists charge that new regulations will cost billions of dollars and entail massive layoffs. The public seems confused, wanting both safe air and secure jobs. We could have both of these objectives, but only by stepping outside the terms of this tired debate. An experiment on Mount Desert Island last summer may be showing the way.

Much of ongoing environmental debate surrounds the question of how strict standards should be. But once standards are set, the important economic question is how these are to be implemented. The EPA has allowed regions to proceed in two ways. A state may require cars, trucks, refineries, and incinerators to install appropriate filtration and scrubber systems. Or a state may mandate or encourage conservation and the development of alternative prevention technologies. Three R campaigns instead of costly incinerators and alternative powered vehicles, public forms of transit, and transit management plans are appropriate approaches.

Most states have opted for enforceable standards for individual vehicles. Various public transit alternatives, such as buses, subways, and intercity rail, require substantial up front expenditures by state and local governments. The purchase of the operating stock also creates jobs out of state — unlike most spending on highways. Not surprisingly, states have highway lobbies generously funded by both contractors and important segments of organized labor.

Our current approaches to air pollution leave us continually playing catch-up. EPA standards do foster some gains — or at least prevent further deterioration. Nonetheless, as the number of cars and vehicle miles continue to grow, progress is limited and transportation costs escalate. Furthermore, technologies to control auto emissions seldom remove as many pollutants as promised. Prevention would clearly be preferable to control.

The importance of federal funding for alternative transit has been recently illustrated here on Mount Desert Island. Friends of Acadia, in conjunction with the Mount Desert Island League of Towns, won a $500,000 grant under Department of Transportation’s Congestion Mitigation program. This money funded a system of eight propane powered minibuses that provided public transit to and from the most popular spots on the island this past summer.

Studies released late last fall on both the bus service and on air quality indicate that the MDI experiment was a stunning success. 142,000 people rode the buses last summer. Surveys by local transportation consultant Tom Crickelair also suggest that traditional notions about Americans’ being wedded to their cars may be outdated. These surveys indicate that when service is adequate and widely promoted, Maine residents and visitors will choose alternatives to the private automobile for at least some travel. Nearly eighty percent of the users of the system came to MDI by car or RV. Eight percent were year round residents, and five percent used the bus to commute to work.

This service was free to the users, with operating subsidies coming from town governments, the Park, and Friends of Acadia. Next year, the system, which has been augmented by a second federal grant for nine new buses, will require double the level of operating subsidy from some combination of towns, Park, and private sources.

Ideally, public transit should be put on a level playing field with the private auto, which is already subsidized indirectly by gasoline priced well below its environmental costs and by police and ambulance services. Federal gas taxes should be increased. The regressive impact of the gas tax should be offset by equivalent reductions in regressive Social Security taxation and by increased federal support for inter and intra-city mass transit.

In the absence of adequate Federal policy in this area, the Park and Island towns can play a key demonstration role. The Park’s fee structure could be tiered, by charging a fee for both autos and people entering the park, so that there is an economic incentive to enter the park by bus or bike. The Park has an immediate stake in such a course. Its long term health and carrying capacity probably depend more on transportation impacts than on any other single factor. Len Bobinchock, assistant park superintendent, estimates that last year the total bus system removed more than forty thousand cars and recreational vehicles from park and island roads during the summer. Placed end to end, these vehicles would form a convoy from the Island to Calais.

Local island communities as well should continue to contribute at least to operating subsidies. The MDI system has provided a number of obvious benefits to the region. Jim Brooks, head of the air quality division for Maine’s DEP, estimates that use of the buses rather than cars was the equivalent of shutting down a small manufacturing plant for a year. Homes, autos, and businesses are thereby spared a further regulatory burden and the carrying capacity of island tourism is also increased.

In some other “gateway communities” to national parks in the west, public transit is supported by dedicated local option sales taxes. A good case could be made for such a policy here in Maine. Such a tax source is preferable to the property tax. In addition, if such a tax were in place only during the summer season, its impact on working and middle class Maine residents would be reduced.

The success of the MDI system has led a number of residents to speculate as to the efficacy of such a system on a year round basis. Though roads are less crowded in the off season, many island residents still lack cars. Inexpensive and accessible transportation provides adults and teenagers without vehicles better and safer access to the job market, thereby also assisting businesses. For many poorer citizens, access to transportation has been as great a barrier to jobs as affordable child care. As one island resident remarked in her survey: “I really like the bus service, especially since it is free. I’m a working mom without a car.” Transportation to and from extracurricular events at the high school is also difficult for many families. Perhaps as part of the ongoing discussion of bus subsidies, town officials might well explore the possibility of at least extending the season for the buses, much as community leaders work to extend the tourist season.

Whatever the results of future discussions, leaders of the towns, the Park, and Friends of Acadia have achieved a success of which they can be proud. Not only have they begun to address a significant environmental and health problem. They have done so in ways that may provide a valuable long-term lesson to many of our visitors.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail comments to jbuell@acadia.net.